S07.E07: The Dragon And The Wolf

[Shimmergloom]

On 9/4/2017 at 10:38 AM, GraceK said:

What? I didn't say anything about Rickon.  of course he would have ridden out to save him , that's who Jon is. I'm talking about his FORCES. If he was aware that they had more soldiers, they could have planned differently or the battle could have ended sooner. 

Jon could have had a million men behind him, but would have still rode out to save rickon abandoning whatever plan they made which took the vale knights into account.  Also, it's more likely that Ramsay just holes up in Winterfell and prepares for a siege if the knights of the vale were there early.  And even with those knights, Jon could not have laid siege to winterfell, in winter.

Ignoring the fact that the only reason Sansa doesn't tell Jon is because she's not with Jon in the books to tell him(which is why the writers just swept it under the rug, they wanted the surprise without an adequate reason, same way ravens were flying at light speed this season).  Then she should have told him or at least have a better written reason for not telling him, but it wouldn't have saved anyone and Jon would have still rode out to save Rickon abandoning every plan they made with or without the knigths of the vale.

[TaurusRose]

7 minutes ago, screamin said:

How about deciding he's unilaterally going to give up being King in the North after the North made themselves traitors to the Iron Throne by crowning him? While I do think it was the right thing to do in the long run, the way he went about it will look like rank ingratitude to the Northern lords - and no, not just the 'windvanes.' Even the faithful like little Lady Mormont will likely feel a bit slapped in the face. He could have managed this more tactfully than breaking the news in the signature of a raven missive calling himself 'Warden' instead of 'King.'

I bet she'd feel a bit more than slapped in the face with a legion of wights standing outside her door ready to chew her face off. 

[Shimmergloom]

On 9/4/2017 at 6:01 PM, Oscirus said:

I don't see why anybody expects the Northern lords to eat shit and align with somebody they hate just lt because jon says so. That's literally the reason that Jon got killed by the Night watch. I hope for all their sakes that Sansa is  still on Good terms with Tyrion  and that she's able to convince the lords to listen  to what he says and that his silver tongue is on point  enough to justify the union.

Yeah, I think the northern lords have been written ridiculously, but in this case they are right.  Everyone needs to remember what happened before.  The targayens killed Rickard and Brandon Stark.  As far as they know Lyanna Stark was kidnapped, raped and killed by Rhaegar Targayen.  The North SHOULD be upset about Jon bending the knee.  They might change their minds when the truth comes out, but right now, they have no reason to not be upset and no reason to trust Dany.

But if that is not enough, then I don't see how Tyrion could help.  If there's anyone the North would hate more than the Targs it's the Lannisters.  Sansa herself already gets flack from the North for being married to Tyrion and that was a marriage she was forced into.

 

22 hours ago, anamika said:

But if he had not bend the knee, he would have pledged neutrality to Cersei. In which case, he would not have participated in the war against Cersei. That's what Sansa is specifically pissed off about - that Jon has offered to fight for Dany. Sansa, like some of her fans, wants to get all the freebies without giving back anything in return.

 

No like I said above, Sansa like the Northern lords is upset that Jon has pledged himself to the people who betrayed the starks by kidnapping Lyanna and killing her and her brother and father.

It would be no different than if Jon comes back saying his has aligned with Tommen or Myrcella(assuming either was alive).  They might not be guilty for what the other Lannisters have done, but they are not trusted because of who their relatives are. 

Edited September 5, 2017 by Shimmergloom

[WindyNights]

1 hour ago, ShellsandCheese said:

Jon is hardly a dictator and was proclaimed KITN. As KITN he’s tasked with making decisions on behalf of the entire North. He’s not required to consult them before every decision, that’s not feasible. 

It is good politics though and a sign of a good leader. You should make men feel part of the decision-making so they feel important and like they have influence. 

 

Stuff like this makes Jon look like a dim king. No wonder he got assassinated. If he were king of Westeros, I'd expect him to get outplayed and thrown down in less than a decade.

[screamin]

48 minutes ago, taurusrose said:

I bet she'd feel a bit more than slapped in the face with a legion of wights standing outside her door ready to chew her face off. 

No doubt she wouldn't complain about Jon throwing away the kingdom she and the other lords bestowed upon him without even bothering to tell them so, if the wights got there before the news of Jon's cavalier abdication and his pledging all the citizens' of the North's loyalty to Dany without asking them got there.

However, it is well to recall that Dany's generous gift of a dragon at Jon's request due to his not-particularly-well-thought-out-plan is part of the reason why the wights are going to arrive in the North so soon. Under the circumstances, I can't see how a little tact on Jon's part toward the North could come amiss.

Edited September 5, 2017 by screamin

[LanceM]

33 minutes ago, Shimmergloom said:

Yeah, I think the northern lords have been written ridiculously, but in this case they are right.  Everyone needs to remember what happened before.  The targayens killed Rickard and Brandon Stark.  As far as they know Lyanna Stark was kidnapped, raped and killed by Rhaegar Targayen.  The North SHOULD be upset about Jon bending the knee.  They might change their minds when the truth comes out, but right now, they have no reason to not be upset and no reason to trust Dany.

But if that is not enough, then I don't see how Tyrion could help.  If there's anyone the North would hate more than the Targs it's the Lannisters.  Sansa herself already gets flack from the North for being married to Tyrion and that was a marriage she was forced into.

 

 

No like I said above, Sansa like the Northern lords is upset that Jon has pledged himself to the people who betrayed the starks by kidnapping Lyanna and killing her and her brother and father.

It would be no different than if Jon comes back saying his has aligned with Tommen or Myrcella(assuming either was alive).  They might not be guilty for what the other Lannisters have done, but they are not trusted because of who their relatives are. 

Daenerys Targaryen did none of these things that you listed above. As Jon said in episode one, in regards to Ned Umber and Alys Karstark, he is not going to judge children based on the sins of their fathers. Perhaps the Northern Lords should heed that advice.

[SimoneS]

Whenever I read about about the northern lords upset over Jon bending the knee, I wonder what was the point of them choosing Jon to be their king and where is their honor? Jon pledged his loyalty to Dany because she is a worthy queen who decided to fight for the north even though saving him cost her a dragon. She could have told him and the north to go fuck themselves; keep her armies and dragons intact to fight the NK. As king, Jon has every right and responsibility to take initiative and do what he thinks is best for his people even when they disagree. Jon's ancestor, Torrhen Stark bent the knee to Aegon I against the wishes of his men because he saw that they were outnumbered and with the dragons they would be slaughtered. Torrhen saved the north from devastation and maybe even extinction. Between the NK and Cersei, the north is in the exact same dire situation as it was when Aegon invaded.

Also, what is the point of giving an oath if the first moment of disagreement the northern lords are ready to bolt? The asses didn't even want Jon to go negotiate to get the dragonglass and form an alliance to save their lives. Sansa has their measure for sure. They are untrustworthy fools and frankly, deserve the deaths coming their way. Hopefully, the new families who replace them are more honorable.

Edited September 6, 2017 by SimoneS

[YaddaYadda]

Does anyone remember if Sansa's bride price was ever discussed in the books? Or if there was some kind of a contract that was signed between Robert and Ned? I don't think there was, but if so, please direct me towards the POV it's in.

Please and thank you!

[ShellsandCheese]

1 hour ago, screamin said:

How about deciding he's unilaterally going to give up being King in the North after the North made themselves traitors to the Iron Throne by crowning him? While I do think it was the right thing to do in the long run, the way he went about it will look like rank ingratitude to the Northern lords - and no, not just the 'windvanes.' Even the faithful like little Lady Mormont will likely feel a bit slapped in the face. He could have managed this more tactfully than breaking the news in the signature of a raven missive calling himself 'Warden' instead of 'King.'

I guess I don’t get the hubbub over Jon’s decision. The last time the North was truly independent was before they submitted to the dragons. Their last legitimate king was Torrhen Stark. Technically in present day Westeros they are in open rebellion against the crown, it is what it is. Their greatest chance for future independence or a return to status quo lies with Dany; Jon seemed to recognize that. 

Worst-case scenario under Dany: (assuming White Walkers are defeated) you go back to the arrangement that seemed to work fine until King Robert died/ Ned was beheaded. Or maybe get a special deal like Dorne.

Best Case under Dany: Complete and total independence. 

Either way it’s better than Cersei has to offer, worst case under her: she uses the Iron Bank to purchase an army to bring your already decimated forces to heel and she wipes out your houses like she did with the Martells, the Tyrells, the Baretheons, and even her own house (sort of).

Or she lets the white walkers do the dirty work, as long as she can say she outlived you. You see Cersei doesn’t really care if the white walkers get her, as long as she’s the last person standing. 

Best case: you go back to the status quo, the arrangement that seemed to work fine until King Robert died/ Ned was beheaded. 

But you definitely aren’t getting independence or any special deals with that one. 

I too would take my chances with the lady with the dragons. 

Edited September 6, 2017 by ShellsandCheese

[TaurusRose]

1 hour ago, screamin said:

No doubt she wouldn't complain about Jon throwing away the kingdom she and the other lords bestowed upon him without even bothering to tell them so, if the wights got there before the news of Jon's cavalier abdication and his pledging all the citizens' of the North's loyalty to Dany without asking them got there.

However, it is well to recall that Dany's generous gift of a dragon at Jon's request due to his not-particularly-well-thought-out-plan is part of the reason why the wights are going to arrive in the North so soon. Under the circumstances, I can't see how a little tact on Jon's part toward the North could come amiss.

Okay, I'm bowing out of this discussion because the points have become repetitive and some people are willfully ignoring the entire situation as it played out. You can point fingers and assign blame all you want, but winter has arrived and the WWs were going to breach the wall one way or another. The north doesn't have the manpower to go it alone. But if the north is dumb enough to behave like people are predicting, I say--by all means, bitch, piss and moan because the person they made king acted kingly. A huge cup of STFU needs to be passed around stat. Peace. Out.

Edited September 6, 2017 by taurusrose
Clarify

[madam magpie]

2 hours ago, SimoneS said:

Whenever I read about about the northern lords upset over Jon bending the knee, I wonder what was the point of them choosing Jon to be their king and where is their honor? Jon pledged his loyalty to Dany because she is a worthy queen who decided to fight for the north even though saving him cost her a dragon. She could have told him and the north to go fuck themselves; keep her armies and dragons intact to fight the NK.

Not to mention that she just handed over the dragonglass. Like...what more do these people want from her??

[screamin]

2 hours ago, YaddaYadda said:

Does anyone remember if Sansa's bride price was ever discussed in the books? Or if there was some kind of a contract that was signed between Robert and Ned? I don't think there was, but if so, please direct me towards the POV it's in.

Please and thank you!

I'm pretty sure there was no dowry and nothing but a verbal contract between Ned and Robert...but subsequent to Ned's imprisonment and death, the Lannisters treated Sansa like possession was nine-tenths of the law.

Re: Jon, while I think that his alliance with Dany was inevitable, I do think he could have done it more smoothly...just as I think a little more communication with Sansa over the time he went off to Dragonstone sending no messages 'for weeks' at a time turned out not to ABSOLUTELY necessary, but still would have been much appreciated. I have no doubt Sansa will have words with Jon when he gets back about how he broke the news in the signature of a tiny message that he was no longer king, that therefore she was no longer regent (and therefore is now - what, exactly?) without letting her know whether she should try to sell this shit-sandwich of an unadorned scrap of news to the lords, or try to keep it quiet till he gets back (if that's even possible), or what. 

[GraceK]

23 minutes ago, madam magpie said:

Not to mention that she just handed over the dragonglass. Like...what more do these people want from her??

Seriously. Then she heroically rides beyond the wall and saves everyone with her dragons , LOSING one in the process, then gets BLAMED for the NK gaining an ice dragon. She literally swooped in and saved the day, sacrificing her child...and she still gets shit. I love how Jon and Dany, two of the most good and heroic people get the most  hatred.  It drives me crazy...Jon has been fighting for mankind for years, getting murdered for his trouble, and so many people just tear him down and think he's an idiot. And Dany, no other character seems to be damned no matter what she does. In a world of shit and terrible people, its mind boggling how the characters with the best intentions and good deeds are the most shit upon by fans.

Edited September 6, 2017 by GraceK

[GraceK]

Just to add, it's nice to finally have someone to root for.  I actually had to stop watching season 5 and take a mental break for a couple of years cause I was so sick of seeing all the torment and torture these characters I cared about were going through. Jon being stabbed and Sansa being raped repeatedly and Margery being imprisoned and Dany being kidnapped it was all too much . It was torture porn and I was sick of the bad guys winning all the time. So now, finally, the starks have reclaimed their home, Danny reigned fire on the  Lannisters and Jon is KITN. I love Season6 and 7 because I feel like the good guys finally have a chance and these horrible assholes like Cersei may finally get their  comeuppance. It's a nice change from the bleak And utter horror that has been the series. 

Edited September 6, 2017 by GraceK

[bluestocking]

2 hours ago, ShellsandCheese said:

 

Either way it’s better than Cersei has to offer, worst case under her: she uses the Iron Bank to purchase an army to bring your already decimated forces to heel and she wipes out your houses like she did with the Martells, the Tyrells, the Baretheons, and even her own house (sort of).

. 

I've been posting on the "Endgame" thread about the alchemy formulas and symbolism in GOT and wondering if/how Cersei fits.  At first I thought she might be a Red Queen--Lannister banners are red, she lives in the Red Keep, etc.  And like the Red Queen in Alice in Wonderland, she's a big fan of "Off with their heads."  

But this episode suggested another inspiration for her character.  She says to Jamie:  "You should have listened more when father talked about the importance of gold."  And then explains about her plans to hire the Golden Company of mercenaries.  This fixation with gold is the distinguishing characteristic of none other than Gollum.  And like Gollum, who started out as the reasonably sympathetic Sméagol, Cersei has been gradually stripped of her humanity in the course of the series to become a power-hungry, obsessed husk.  And somehow she thinks gold will be her salvation.  

This is particularly interesting because in historical alchemy, the goal was to create the Philosopher's Stone, whose main usefulness was to transmiute base metals into gold.  Gold was a Good Thing.  But in GOT we saw way back in season 1 that the lust or a golden crown could be fatal, as Viserys is put to death when molten gold is poured on his head.  So here's an example of GRRM changing up alchemical symbolism, though in this case in the same way that Tolkien did with Smeagal/Gollum in Lord of the Rings.  

[bubble sparkly]

Too bad they killed the wight. Otherwise I would enjoy Jon setting it on Lord Glover if he had the nerve to complain about him bending the knee. There's still hope Glover can get a face full of "dracarys" I suppose. I would cheer if Dany made an example of that whiny git.

Considering that whoever sits on the Iron Throne historically leaves the North to its own devices, I don't really see much difference between them being independent or part of the 7 kingdoms. It only went poorly for the North after the Ned debacle. 

[madam magpie]

6 minutes ago, GraceK said:

Just to add, it's nice to finally have someone to root for.  I actually had to stop watching season 5 and take a mental break for a couple of years cause I was so sick of seeing all the torment and torture these characters I cared about were going through. Jon being stabbed and Sansa being raped repeatedly and Margery being imprisoned and Dany being kidnapped it was all too much . It was torture porn and I was sick of the bad guys winning all the time. So now, finally, the starks have reclaimed their home, Danny reigned fire on the  Lannisters and Jon is KITN. I love Season6 and 7 because I feel like the good guys finally have a chance and these horrible assholes like Cersei may finally get their  comeuppance. It's a nice change from the bleak And utter horror that has been the series. 

The early seasons were tough to take, that's for sure. But I'm rewatching from the beginning because I can't remember anything, and I have to say...knowing that we'll reach a point where all of the women I like so much (and Jon and even Cersei) will finally reach positions of power makes the beginning more tolerable. I still skip all the Sansa parts, though, and Dany's rape in the first episode. It's all totally believable given how women have been treated throughout history, but I don't need to look at it again.

[Shimmergloom]

3 hours ago, LanceM said:

Daenerys Targaryen did none of these things that you listed above. As Jon said in episode one, in regards to Ned Umber and Alys Karstark, he is not going to judge children based on the sins of their fathers. Perhaps the Northern Lords should heed that advice.

it doesn't matter what Dany did.  She's still a Targ.  Just Tyrion didn't do the things his family did, but he's still a Lannister and Sansa is still considered to have married an enemy of the north, because she had married Tyrion, eventhough she was forced to.

And Myrcella didn't do anything wrong, but she was punished because of her family. 

Edmure's baby didn't do anything wrong either, but that didn't stop Jamie from threatening it.

So Jon might not care, but we have plenty of evidence that other lords do care and remember.  As far as the north is concerned right now, Jon has pledged himself to a Targ(Dany) and a Lannister(Tyrion), who are both their enemies.  I also doubt Lannister Armies could have just marched into the North freely, even if Cersei wanted to keep her word. 

[MadMouse]

It's because people have an irrational hate for Dany, whatever she does isn't good enough or they twist her actions into her becoming the Mad Queen. Look at what she tells Jon in the Dragonpit, she was wrong and wished she had listened to him the first place. That's one of reasons why she listens to him about going North together, that and sexy times but the point still stands.

Go back earlier in the season, she had no reason to believe him but she let mine Dragonglass. But as the season progressed she started to believe, hell even the two most cynical characters on the show did too. How many times did any Northern Lords or Ladies mention the Walkers? Everyone in the North should be kissing her well toned Valyrian ass she's coming to help them.

[Dev F]

So I was thinking today about the Many Secrets of Jon Snow, and I realized there are a couple major points that the show sort of botched:

First, the finale seems to establish that until Sam told him that Lyanna and Rhaegar were married, Bran originally assumed that the "Jon is really the son of Lyanna and Rhaegar" revelation was all downside and no upside. Bran apparently assumes that Jon is just a different kind of bastard, with no particular royal claim, which would explain why he's in no hurry to tell Jon about it. But if that's the case, isn't that something the show should've established earlier, so we didn't spend the whole season wondering why the fuck Bran was so blasé about it? It also seems like quite a turnabout from last season, in which Bran was intensely curious about his father's actions at the Tower of Joy, of which the Jon revelation served as the climax. We cut from Jon's birth to to present-day Jon without much more than an astonished look from Bran, but if his ultimate conclusion was "Oh, never mind, this is a nothingburger," wouldn't it have been good for us to see that dramatized at some point? Particularly since he subsequently became a nigh-emotionless history robot; one assumes his muted reaction to this first big revelation would've been a factor in how that went down.

Second, Jon made a big deal in the finale about how he needs to keep his word and support Daenerys, or else oaths will stop having any meaning. Well, how does that jibe with the fact that he's been hiding his death from everyone, which means that as far as the realm is concerned, he's in ongoing violation of his oath to the Night's Watch? Isn't that much more likely to inspire copycat oathbreaking, considering he swore an oath to Dany in the privacy of a ship's wardroom, whereas everyone knows he was Lord Commander of the Watch?

Edited to add: Jon's secrecy also casts everyone who follows him as a degenerate scofflaw, since they're all apparently in violation of one of the universally accepted laws of the Seven Kingdoms, regardless of what great lord or king you follow -- that known Night's Watch deserters must be executed.

Edited September 6, 2017 by Dev F

[Oscirus]

8 hours ago, taurusrose said:

Jon offered to bend the knee precisely because Dany was no longer demanding it. Instead, she proved herself to be worthy of the north's allegiance. Why is that so difficult to grasp?

No, he could not. Did you miss the part where they have no time for this foolishness? The Night King has breached the wall at Eastwatch and the army of the dead are marching south NOW. Your arguments are nonsensical based on what is happening. And calling Jon a dictator is a huge exaggeration.

So basically, so he wouldn't look like a dick. Thanks for confirming what I said.

The only thing nonsensical here is the strawman that you're trying to set up by pretending that the only time that Dany gets to present her case is before the war starts. 

The only decisions that Jon makes are unilateral ones, so yea, Jon's a dictator at this point.

9 hours ago, ShellsandCheese said:

Jon is hardly a dictator and was proclaimed KITN. As KITN he’s tasked with making decisions on behalf of the entire North. He’s not required to consult them before every decision, that’s not feasible. 

Doesn't have to before every decision, but he should before he makes important ones like bending the knee to anybody for example.

[bardgal]

11 hours ago, WindyNights said:

That's kind of what GRRM is getting at. Even in the face of an existential threat, people will still jockey for power. 

 

So true... and if you think about it, the two Life Givers: Cersei & Dany, are the ones jockeying for power, while their partners, Jamie & Jon are the ones looking at the bigger picture.....which is usually the other way around: Men hunt & gather while women breed and nurture the future, requiring us to be better at multitasking, and men are better at laser-focusing on the thing in front of him, when they're not marking their territory. 

In a way, the ladies are doing both, while the men are focusing on having some territory left to mark, and being alive to mark it. 

[bardgal]

9 hours ago, Shimmergloom said:

Yeah, I think the northern lords have been written ridiculously, but in this case they are right.  Everyone needs to remember what happened before.  The targayens killed Rickard and Brandon Stark.  As far as they know Lyanna Stark was kidnapped, raped and killed by Rhaegar Targayen.  The North SHOULD be upset about Jon bending the knee.  They might change their minds when the truth comes out, but right now, they have no reason to not be upset and no reason to trust Dany.

Yes, everyone needs to remember what happened before:

• Bran is with the Northern Lords. 
• Bran is a Time Lord ;) who just witnessed the breach of the Wall by the Army of the Dead at Eastwatch, and he knows the NK has one of Dany's dragons. 
• There's a bigger issue than anyone bending the knee.

That^ remains the top of the list, at all times. 

• Everyone knows The Mad King killed Rickard & Brandon, not the collective Targaryen House. Just crazy Dad, who is rarely referred to by his actual name. 
• Most everyone who isn't Robert Baratheon knows Rhaegar and Lyanna were in love, especially everyone who was at the Tourney of Harrenhal.
• Most everyone knows Rhaegar snubbed his own wife at the Tourney of Harrenhal, to publicly proclaim that love.
• Looking back from where the Northern Lords are currently, they all probably realize the folly of Brandon and his boys attempting to stand up for Robert Baratheon and Lyanna's honor, in the way they did. After all, Rhaegar (the Crown prince) did take off with another man's promised property, which is a financial arrangement between houses, but they were young, and stupidly hot-headed.
• Jon and Dany are on their way north. 
• After capturing a wight north of the wall, bringing it to King's Landing, parlaying with Queen Insanity, and forming a new alliance between Houses. They're just not how they assume. ;)

At this point, I don't know that anything else matters other than RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!!!! However...I doubt Jon will march into Winterfell, and demand everyone bend the knee to Dany. And there are so many different ways this could play out, depending on when the show/books wants to drop the Who the hell is Aegon Stark-Targaryen bomb on the populace, now or the last episode? I personally think it needs to out soon, because there's too much else happening after they kill the NK - there's still the rest of the clean up to happen with Cersei, Euron, and how they die so Jon gets the IT...and Davos, Brienne, Tormund,  Arya, Sansa & Tyrion, Gendry... how do Varys and Melisandre die? etc.... So I think the NK battle has got to come sooner, rather than later, because they're about a week or less from ... humanity? right?

• Sam and Bran will likely demand to speak to Jon immediately. 

*Thinking of Book Sam, and what he did to force Jon to take charge with the NIght's Watch election.... why wouldn't Sam tell everyone, starting with a raven to the Citadel? That way, it would be on record, who Jon is. (Not important that the Citadel still needs to verify, it's on record, and that Septon's diary becomes super valuable.) That way, Jon couldn't demand he keep it secret..which I can see him doing, but I doubt that will happen.

It doesn't really matter - the bottomline is, Jon is the heir. Dany is not. This is not a democracy or a meritocracy. It's a monarchy. At least now, until things are stable enough to introduce democracy outside of The Bay of Dragons.

It won't matter that Jon bent the Knee to Dany - all that is about to change due to the info Sam and Bran have - even if Sam tells no one. It will out.

I think it would be brilliant if it all happens in the same scene because the comedy would be awesome: Jon begins announcing what has happened at the parlay regarding Cersei agreeing to a truce, and we're all going to fight the NK..... "and I've decided it's on our best interest to join forces with House Targaryen, and -" Bran could either let him finish, and make the room have a WTF moment, making Dany uncomfortable, forcing Jon to admit they were married... (ship's captain?) or not - either way, Bran interrupts and tells them entire room that Jon is in no position to bend the knee to Daenerys, because it's not his place, It's Dany's. Then he explains who Jon is, Sam verifies.

Dany, who is all about the Line of Succession, and who has idolized her brother her entire life, suddenly discovers his son is alive, in love with her, (the father of the child we all know she's carrying because of the metric shiteload of foreshadowing), and he's the heir to the Iron Throne that will instantly unite the army before her that's humanity's only chance for survival.....turns and bends the knee herself, because it's never been about her, it's been about making the world better, and she thought she had a great claim to do that. She actually wants to DO THE JOB, not just have the title. If the title gives her the job, then she goes for the title. If she can still do the same job without the title, she does the job. 

...and THERE'S NO TIME for anything else, because some horrid man stole her dragon. Again. (In private Jon tells her, they're going to rule together...)

The Northern Lords are happy because they love Jon. Jon will sit the Iron Throne (perhaps not literally even though it apparently survives a burned out Red Keep), Dany and he will marry (although I want them to be the third secret marriage like Rhaegar & Robb), and their heir will rule after them. 

As fast as the story needs to go in only six more eps - even if they're 90min each - this info needs the bandaid ripped off so everyone has the info at once, and something like that would be an easy info dump, to the widest bunch of characters as possible, at this point, where people are on the map. Maybe Jamie caught up with them? 

Which makes me wonder where everyone who isn't on that one ship we saw sailing north, actually are on the map? The Unsullied, the Vale army, the Dothraki...? Ships are faster. Does Jamie bring his army? Sooooo many questions! 

[TaurusRose]

6 hours ago, Oscirus said:

So basically, so he wouldn't look like a dick. Thanks for confirming what I said.

The only thing nonsensical here is the strawman that you're trying to set up by pretending that the only time that Dany gets to present her case is before the war starts. 

The only decisions that Jon makes are unilateral ones, so yea, Jon's a dictator at this point.

Doesn't have to before every decision, but he should before he makes important ones like bending the knee to anybody for example.

As I've said previously, I'm done with the discussion. You're not saying anything new or even supporting your faux arguments with anything that makes sense to me. See you next season.

Edited September 6, 2017 by taurusrose

[Bryce Lynch]

17 hours ago, doram said:

Tyrion edited out that bit. Jon didn't go South expecting to bend the knee... although that also begs the question of what exactly he expected to be demanded of him when he went South. He really seemed to believe that he would show up on Dragonstone with old nan's tales and Dany and her armies would fall in line behind him.

 

1. The North are on the front lines protecting themselves. Dany could have, with the knowledge Jon gave her, pulled a Euron and stayed on dragonstone and fortified it, with its mountain of dragon-glass.

2. That's a non-offer because Dany came to Westeros precisely to win the Seven Kingdoms;  the North is already in her cross-hairs. That's like - to use a WW II example - Britain offering to stay "neutral" when the Axis forces were attacking it. 

3. Dany probably realized - correctly - that if she keeps giving Kingdoms their "independence", she's not going to have anything left to rule. Maybe if Jon had taken the initiative of sailing all the way to Mereen and offered her a fleet of ships in exchange for his Kingdom's Independence, she'd have accepted it. Which brings me to another thing:

 

Jon didn't offer zilch to Dany. Nada. Niente. Nothing. He didn't try to negotiate terms with her - "OK, I won't kneel, but I'll commit the Northern armies to fight Cersei for you as equal allies, not vassal state and monarch" or "OK, I won't kneel, but I promise to stay neutral and not take sides between you and Cersei" or "OK, I won't kneel, but I can offer you X, Y, Z in technology or intelligence that will give you an advantage over Cersei." 

Only according to Jon, the Islands are perfectly safe. So Dany and her armies aren't actually in the line of fire for this battle. 

And even with that... Essos? These are Essosian armies. Dany - as everyone likes to declare when it's convenient for them - is practically an Essosian citizen herself.

This is a Westeros problem. It's not a Planetos-wide problem and maybe the "common good" is to let Westeros be consumed by its own hubris while the rest of humanity gets a chance to survive. 

Obviously.  ?

1) I'm not sure the Iron Islands or Dragonstone are really safe from the NK.  Euron asked if they could swim, he didn't ask if they could sail on ship or otherwise make it across water.  Euron storming out was just a ploy for him to sneak away to get the Golden Company so I don't think we can even assume Euron believed the Iron Islands were safe.

As for Dragonstone, it is a small and desolate rock, that produces no food at all (as the Iron Bank loan officer pointed out to Stannis).  There is no way 50,000 Dothraki, 8,000 Unsullied, etc. could survive there for an extended period, without access to the mainland.

Regarding Essos, I had brought that up earlier, but all the talk among the characters is about everyone in the "world" being doomed if the NK is not stopped.  That makes me assume Essos is probably not safe.  If it were, I would think Dany and her advisers would be discussing returning to Meereen, at least as a backup plan.

2) Dany currently controls 0 Kingdoms in Westeros.  I have no problem with her wanting all 7 Kingdoms, but the idea that it is non-negotiable, that the North, which is currently independent and had been independent for something like 8,000 years prior to the past 300 years, must belong to her doesn't seem sensible.  She has already agreed to give independence to the Iron Islands, why should an independent North be off the table?  From her perspective, a happy and loyal ally to the North might serve her interests better than an discontented and rebellious vassal state.  

As for the WWII comparison, Dany demanding that Jon bend the knee, before she will agree to fight the existential threat from their common enemy would be more like Stalin  demanding that Churchill bend the knee and make the UK par of the USSR (or vice versa) before he would agree to fight the Nazis.  

Jon never said the islands were perfectly safe.  He merely said the wights can't swim.   The Dothraki's horses can't swim either.  

As for Jon's "offer".  He never really got a chance to negotiate.  Dany spent their whole first meeting having Missendei reel off her titles and flexing her muscles, asking Jon if he had seen her armies and her dragons.  Then they were interrupted and Jon and Davos were sent off to be bathed and fed while her advisers shared the news that most of her fleet had been destroyed,  her gold and food supply had been seized by the Lannister's and all 3 of her allies had been killed or captured.  

I'm not knocking Dany, she hadn't seen the NK (or looked into his eyes!).  She had no way of knowing if Jon's stories were Northern superstitions, a ploy to distract her from the battle with Cersei or the truth.   

A common theme in the show is that different characters have different perspectives on things, and based upon what they do and do not know and what their interests are, they can be in disagreement, without either of them being "wrong".  Based upon what the Northern Lords know, I don't think it would be unreasonable for them (especially initially) to be angry and feel betrayed over Jon bending the knee and putting the North under Dany's rule.  

Edited September 6, 2017 by Bryce Lynch

[Katsullivan]

On 9/4/2017 at 10:12 AM, SeanC said:

On 9/4/2017 at 2:53 AM, anamika said:

Dany herself says that she is not coming to conquer the North, only to save it.

She says that after Jon has already bent the knee.  There's no need for her to conquer the North at that point; she already owns it.

Did we all miss the part where Dany told Jon that she was going to fight the Night King before Jon bent the knee?

[SeanC]

3 minutes ago, Katsullivan said:

Did we all miss the part where Dany told Jon that she was going to fight the Night King before Jon bent the knee?

No, I recall that.  My objection was that the line in question isn't terribly significant because at the point she says it there's no need to conquer the North.

[Katsullivan]

On 9/3/2017 at 9:58 PM, Dev F said:

if one of the most important character beats of season 7 is going to be that Littlefinger stokes suspicion between Sansa and Arya based on Sansa's past actions, wouldn't it have been helpful if the writers had spent the previous couple seasons having Sansa actually commit questionable acts, so they wouldn't have to reach all the way back to season 1 for some weaksauce betrayal?

For instance, I always thought that a better Sansa/Ramsay arc in season 5 would've been one in which Ramsay was a moral rather than a physical threat to his bride. That is, since it had already been established that show!Ramsay was primarily attracted to women like Myranda who shared his sadism, it would've made sense if he saw Sansa as a potential partner in his brutality instead of a victim. And I could imagine an arc in which he persuaded Sansa to behave less than honorably toward Myranda, her husband's jealous former lover, and Theon, the man who supposedly murdered her brothers, before finally she realized that she could never be a monster like Ramsay and helped Theon escape. And now it occurs to me that this would not only have avoided most of the egregious "Sansa as helpless victim . . . again" stuff, but also given the writers actual compromising material for Littlefinger to use to drive a wedge between Sansa and Arya.

On 9/4/2017 at 0:00 AM, Dev F said:

If the writers were going to kill off Roose Bolton anyway, instead of having Ramsay do it perfunctorily at the beginning of season 6, why not make it part of the Sansa/Ramsay storyline in season 5? Let's say Sansa, determined not to be a victim again, thinks she can use her psychopath of a husband to get revenge on the people who've wronged her family. At first she just enjoys watching Ramsay torment Theon -- after all, what could possibly be too cruel for a person who killed innocent children? Then, as she discovers how fraught the relationship is between Ramsay and Roose, she realizes that it gives her an opportunity to take out the man who murdered her father. She stokes her husband's resentment against Roose, and ultimately manipulates him into murdering his dad . . .

But she realizes too late that she's also talked him into murdering Walda and her infant son.

That would give her a horrifying reason to recoil in horror from what she's become -- and also give her some sympathy for how Theon ended up stumbling into child-murder. And you could end the season in pretty much the same place, with Sansa redeeming herself by helping Theon to escape Winterfell.

And it would give Littlefinger a hell of a story to dump on Arya in season 7 -- that her sister wanted to be the Lady of Winterfell so badly that she conspired to murder a baby.

This is such a brilliant arc. We get a hint of that in the books when Sansa conspires to frame that singer for Lysa's murder, and is complicit by her silence in Sweet Robin's poisoning. If the show-runners wanted to truly keep to the spirit of her arc, if not the actual details, they could have transferred that to her season 5 storyline. Her whole reason for marrying Ramsay was because Littlefinger convinced her that he could be "tamed". Well, let's see her try to do that. Let's see her adopt a veneer of ruthlessness to survive. Sansa should already hate Theon for what he did to her brothers. It would have been easy enough to convince her to either look the other way, or even encourage his torture. 

I don't agree that the writers didn't take this arc because they weren't thinking about the long game. They didn't take this arc because they've proven that they have a very elementary way of telling stories and of developing characters. Plus D & D see to have a personal hard-on for Sofie Turner/Sansa that would never allow them to write this for the character.

3 minutes ago, SeanC said:

No, I recall that.  My objection was that the line in question isn't terribly significant because at the point she says it there's no need to conquer the North.

She had resolved to fight for the North regardless. So yes, the line is significant. 

[domina89]

4 hours ago, bardgal said:

The Northern Lords are happy because they love Jon. Jon will sit the Iron Throne (perhaps not literally even though it apparently survives a burned out Red Keep), Dany and he will marry (although I want them to be the third secret marriage like Rhaegar & Robb), and their heir will rule after them. 

I've actually hoped for this, too, since I read the spoilers back in October of last year.  Ideally they married off camera sometime after the table scene at Dragonstone and D&D will drop that little bomb on us when Jon and Dany arrive in Winterfell next season.  I can just imagine the joy I would experience if Jon introduces Dany as the Queen of the Seven Kingdoms and Glover and the rest of them start "whinging" about it and then Jon adds "...and my wife."  Their faces would be priceless.  

[Katsullivan]

17 hours ago, WindyNights said:

Stuff like this makes Jon look like a dim king. No wonder he got assassinated. If he were king of Westeros, I'd expect him to get outplayed and thrown down in less than a decade.

Not that it matters now, but in the books, Jon didn't get assassinated because he made unilateral decisions, he got assassinated because he intended to break his vows and wage war against Ramsay Bolton.

20 minutes ago, domina89 said:

I've actually hoped for this, too, since I read the spoilers back in October of last year.  Ideally they married off camera sometime after the table scene at Dragonstone and D&D will drop that little bomb on us when Jon and Dany arrive in Winterfell next season.  I can just imagine the joy I would experience if Jon introduces Dany as the Queen of the Seven Kingdoms and Glover and the rest of them start "whinging" about it and then Jon adds "...and my wife."  Their faces would be priceless.  

That would be awesome but somehow, with the hesitation with which Jon knocked on her cabin door, I don't think so. 

I would personally love to see a Northern-style/weir-wood wedding for a change. 

[freebie]

Jon is the head of a monarchy, not a democracy. His decisions are not subject to a vote by the northern lords. Yes, he consults them, as well as others, including his family, Davos, and Tormund. But that doesn't mean he is subservient to any of his advisers. He hears them out, then chooses what to do (see the dispute about the Karstark kids). And they let him because he's their king. That's typically how monarchies work, particularly in a place like Westeros, where there isn't a parliament as well. 

Also, the northerners aren't going around declaring their ruler to be the King of the Seven Kingdoms, just the King in the North (note: not "of" the north, but "in" the north). It's a bit of a cheat, really. On the one hand, by declaring one of their own to be their king, they're in open rebellion against the crown. But on the other hand, their king isn't trying to gain dominion over all the land. Even without the threat of the Night King and his minions, would the northerners be marching south to fight Cersei's forces and take the Iron Throne? No. They would be banking on either Cersei's forces being unable to get to them and wage war successfully in the north or on Cersei just deciding they're not worth the hassle as long as they don't come south.

So, calling Jon "King in the North," especially in light of current events, makes sense for the north. The original decision to revisit the King in the North concept and crown Robb arose out of necessity once everything went to hell in King's Landing. The situation is even worse now, with the north squeezed between Cersei's rule and the threat of the Night King and Co. But enter Daenerys, who has a much better claim to the throne than Cersei, as well as a decent track record of ruling from her time in Essos. Also, she has dragons and a formidable and incredibly loyal army at her disposal. I'm not convinced that, if Daenerys proved to be a more competent, just and benevolent ruler than Cersei, the northern lords would still think they needed a king of their own.

Sure, there might be some initial grumbling and a "show me" attitude from certain lords, but being a part of a well-run Seven Kingdoms would benefit the north far more than simply going it alone. Of course, all of this is going to be swept aside once the dilemma is not whether the north should bow to Daenerys Targaryen, but instead to Aegon Targaryen. There's so much potential here -- how will Jon react, and what about Daenerys and the northern lords?  Jon Snow, Ned Stark's bastard, worked hard and overcame the (assumed) circumstances of his birth to become Lord Commander of the Night's Watch and then King in the North. Aegon Targaryen, son of Rhaegar and grandson of the Mad King, is heir to the Iron Throne simply by existing. Jon's identity crisis is going to be delicious (or at least I hope so)!

P.S. I must add my voice to those disappointed that Lyanna named him Aegon. At first, I thought she said Eddard Targaryen, which I would have much preferred. Have any of the show runners discussed this yet?

[Oscirus]

4 hours ago, taurusrose said:

As I've said previously, I'm done with the discussion. You're not saying anything new or even supporting your faux arguments with anything that makes sense to me. See you next season.

Sorry, your disagreeing with my premise, doesn't make it false. 

 

27 minutes ago, freebie said:

Jon is the head of a monarchy, not a democracy. His decisions are not subject to a vote by the northern lords. Yes, he consults them, as well as others, including his family, Davos, and Tormund. But that doesn't mean he is subservient to any of his advisers. He hears them out, then chooses what to do (see the dispute about the Karstark kids). And they let him because he's their king. That's typically how monarchies work, particularly in a place like Westeros, where there isn't a parliament as well. 

He's not even consulting them, he's ultimately  making decisions based on what's best for him. At this rate, he's no better then Cersei when it comes to decision making.  Sansa just told him about this, this season and he's still doing it.

Dany rules by conquest and blood and even she consults her advisors. Just saying.

Edited September 6, 2017 by Oscirus

[Bryce Lynch]

2 hours ago, freebie said:

Jon is the head of a monarchy, not a democracy. His decisions are not subject to a vote by the northern lords. Yes, he consults them, as well as others, including his family, Davos, and Tormund. But that doesn't mean he is subservient to any of his advisers. He hears them out, then chooses what to do (see the dispute about the Karstark kids). And they let him because he's their king. That's typically how monarchies work, particularly in a place like Westeros, where there isn't a parliament as well. 

Also, the northerners aren't going around declaring their ruler to be the King of the Seven Kingdoms, just the King in the North (note: not "of" the north, but "in" the north). It's a bit of a cheat, really. On the one hand, by declaring one of their own to be their king, they're in open rebellion against the crown. But on the other hand, their king isn't trying to gain dominion over all the land. Even without the threat of the Night King and his minions, would the northerners be marching south to fight Cersei's forces and take the Iron Throne? No. They would be banking on either Cersei's forces being unable to get to them and wage war successfully in the north or on Cersei just deciding they're not worth the hassle as long as they don't come south.

So, calling Jon "King in the North," especially in light of current events, makes sense for the north. The original decision to revisit the King in the North concept and crown Robb arose out of necessity once everything went to hell in King's Landing. The situation is even worse now, with the north squeezed between Cersei's rule and the threat of the Night King and Co. But enter Daenerys, who has a much better claim to the throne than Cersei, as well as a decent track record of ruling from her time in Essos. Also, she has dragons and a formidable and incredibly loyal army at her disposal. I'm not convinced that, if Daenerys proved to be a more competent, just and benevolent ruler than Cersei, the northern lords would still think they needed a king of their own.

Sure, there might be some initial grumbling and a "show me" attitude from certain lords, but being a part of a well-run Seven Kingdoms would benefit the north far more than simply going it alone. Of course, all of this is going to be swept aside once the dilemma is not whether the north should bow to Daenerys Targaryen, but instead to Aegon Targaryen. There's so much potential here -- how will Jon react, and what about Daenerys and the northern lords?  Jon Snow, Ned Stark's bastard, worked hard and overcame the (assumed) circumstances of his birth to become Lord Commander of the Night's Watch and then King in the North. Aegon Targaryen, son of Rhaegar and grandson of the Mad King, is heir to the Iron Throne simply by existing. Jon's identity crisis is going to be delicious (or at least I hope so)!

P.S. I must add my voice to those disappointed that Lyanna named him Aegon. At first, I thought she said Eddard Targaryen, which I would have much preferred. Have any of the show runners discussed this yet?

I agree that Jon is a monarch and has the authority to do pretty much whatever he wants, including putting the North under Dany's control.  But, even in a monarchy in Westeros, with no Parliament or other official check on the monarch's power, that power is not as absolute or irrevocable, in practice, as it is in theory.

Remember when Joffrey was having Trant beat and strip Sansa in the throne room?  When Tyrion came to put a stop to it and Joffrey said, "The King can do as he likes!" Tyrion replied that the Mad King did as he liked and asked him if Uncle Jaime ever told him what happened to the Mad King.  

There was also Varys' riddle about the 3 great men and the sell sword, with the moral being that power resides where people believe it resides.  The Lords of the North declared Jon King in the North, so the perception might be that they can depose him.  He could also be murdered (like the Mad King) if someone believes he has gotten too far out of line.  Also, Jon's has no real hereditary claim to the throne.  He is a bastard (as far as everyone knows).  So, his hold on being King in the North is much more dependent upon the will of the Lords, than a typical monarch's would be. 

I think it would have been much wiser for Jon to either consult the Lords about bending the knee, or waiting until after Dany had rescued the North from the NK.

BTW, the King IN the North was the traditional title given to the monarch (always a Stark)  of the North for thousands of years when the North was an independent kingdom.   Declaring Robb and later Jon King in the North was a declaration of independence, with the Lords indicating that they were going back to the way things were before the Targaryen conquest of about 300 years earlier.  

1 hour ago, Oscirus said:

Sorry, your disagreeing with my premise, doesn't make it false. 

 

He's not even consulting them, he's ultimately  making decisions based on what's best for him. At this rate, he's no better then Cersei when it comes to decision making.  Sansa just told him about this, this season and he's still doing it.

Dany rules by conquest and blood and even she consults her advisors. Just saying.

I agree that Jon should be consulting his advisers and the Lords, especially on something as huge as giving up the North's independence.  But, I don't think he is making decisions to benefit himself.  He demoted himself from King in the North to Warden of the North by bending the knee.   I think he truly believes he is doing what is best for the people of the North.   

Edited September 6, 2017 by Bryce Lynch

[Oscirus]

34 minutes ago, Bryce Lynch said:

 

I agree that Jon should be consulting his advisers and the Lords, especially on something as huge as giving up the North's independence.  But, I don't think he is making decisions to benefit himself.  He demoted himself from King in the North to Warden of the North by bending the knee.   I think he truly believes he is doing what is best for the people of the North.   

Admittedly, I'm exaggerating a bit, but he is making major decisions based on how he personally feels about Dany. So even if he's trying to look out for their best interests, his decision is still a bit suspect.

[freebie]

There is a difference between what Jon, as KitN, can do with his power and what the northern lords can do in response to that. Simply because they *can* rise up against him does not mean that he does not have the authority they have bestowed on him. Also, what has Jon done that is similar to the brutish acts of rulers like Aerys burning people alive or Joffrey ordering his minions to beat people? Jon's actions have been focused on the big picture, not personal vendettas against his rivals or petty shows of force against innocent young women. He's ruling, not arbitrarily wielding his power in ways that benefit only him.

As for whether he should consult the northern lords -- and by that, I mean seek their input, not take a vote and then do whatever the majority chooses -- he actively held open discussions with all and sundry while in Winterfell. Since he left, you could argue that a few more ravens would have been helpful, but shit's getting real. Having a Winterfell-style discussion with the northern lords via ravens whizzing back and forth is just impractical at this point. And unnecessary. The northern lords named Jon KitN. He made a reasoned decision to call Daenerys his queen. It's the north's move, now. They can choose a new KitN if they don't like Jon's decision. Or they can follow the man they annointed their leader because he made a smart choice. Either way, Jon will still fight alongside Dany and her forces to try and defeat the Night King. The north can sit back and hope that works out to their advantage, or they can join in to save their own damn lives

I'm hard-pressed to think of a decision Jon has made as KitN that was based on what's best for him. Unless he is somehow selfish for wanting to vanquish the Night King? Yes, that would benefit him, but thousands of others, too. If he wanted to save only his own skin, he could have slipped away from King's Landing and crossed the Narrow Sea to avoid the conflict with the Night King. Instead, he's heading north again. The thing about Jon, as they've shown time and again, most recently when he wouldn't lie to Cersei, is that he's *not* like other rulers. Saying he's worse than Cersei is just not supported by what's been shown on screen. Sure, his decisions will have consequences that will mean not everyone lives, but hopefully his approach to this crisis will yield the best possible outcome for many people who otherwise wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell. If the north doesn't think what he's doing will benefit them, what's a better alternative that will yield a better outcome for them?

Quote

[H]e is making major decisions based on how he personally feels about Dany.

Just saw this and wanted to add that there is only one decision Jon has made that could possibly be perceived as being based on how he personally feels about Dany, and that's the decision he made to acknowledge her as his queen. But there is so much more to that one decision than just what he personally feels about Dany. He didn't even make the decision until she tried to articulate how she felt about her dragons, how much the loss of one of her children affected her, and how she still wanted to forge ahead to defeat the Night King. In that moment, he saw her, not just as a person with a decent claim to the Iron Throne who might (or might not) be better than the last batch of rulers the Seven Kingdoms have witnessed, but as a *queen* who is willing to make sacrifices for the greater good and who is worthy of his fealty. Would he have made the same decision if he knew about his own claim to the throne? We'll find out. But in that moment, he understood her to be not just the rightful heir, but the *right* heir. That understanding goes beyond his personal feelings for her. He now sees her as the person who should be on the Iron Throne because she is deserving of that seat. 

Edited September 6, 2017 by freebie

[tangerine95]

I really think if the northern lords try to hold on to the independence despite everything that's been going on they're unbelievably dumb and aren't being realistic at all.I mean isn't the north the biggest kingdom or something?There's no way anyone who wants to sit on the iron throne would just be okay losing a huge part of the territory.And the north rn isn't at all in condition to be independent,they're the first in line when the white walkers attack,they don't have the men,the weapons or the food apparently to fight them alone,they already had to look for outside help and the way it usually works is they won't get that help without giving something in return.So idk how they expected to remain independent or really even neutral in the whole situation.

Imo Jon really worked out the best possible outcome with what he had to work with and I think when they inevitably complain,it will be more about their pride than anything.

[Bryce Lynch]

29 minutes ago, tangerine95 said:

I really think if the northern lords try to hold on to the independence despite everything that's been going on they're unbelievably dumb and aren't being realistic at all.I mean isn't the north the biggest kingdom or something?There's no way anyone who wants to sit on the iron throne would just be okay losing a huge part of the territory.And the north rn isn't at all in condition to be independent,they're the first in line when the white walkers attack,they don't have the men,the weapons or the food apparently to fight them alone,they already had to look for outside help and the way it usually works is they won't get that help without giving something in return.So idk how they expected to remain independent or really even neutral in the whole situation.

Imo Jon really worked out the best possible outcome with what he had to work with and I think when they inevitably complain,it will be more about their pride than anything.

a) Dany was eventually willing to help fight the NK without Jon bending the knee.  She realized that stopping the NK was just as important to her and her people as it was to Jon and his people.  She was even willing to form a temporary alliance with Cersei to stop the NK's army.

b) The North is the largest area geographically, but the population is not that large.  Jon said there were more people in tiny King's Landing than in all of the North.  Pride would be the main reason a would be Iron Throne sitter would insist on ruling the North.  For Dany, a strong alliance with a friendly North might be more beneficial than having a bunch of discontented, rebellious Northern Lords as part of her Kingdom.  

c) The North would not necessarily have to remain neutral.  Since Cersei is obviously bent on keeping them as one of her Kingdoms the North might be willing to fight with Dany, as allies, to defeat Cersei.

d) Jon's decision to bend the knee might be sound, but I think the process was unsound.  Once Dany have given up her demand that he bend the knee, there was no urgency for him to make the decision.  He could have consulted with the Northern Lords and tried to convince them it was the right thing to do.  If they were still unconvinced, he could still choose to do it, against their wishes.  In this scenario, the Lords might not be happy, but they would be less likely to feel betrayed as he consulted them and overruled them, rather than going behind their backs and acting as though their opinions were irrelevant.   

While a monarch in this situation has vast authority, I think there is an implicit understanding that he/she would not surrender the Kingdom to foreign rule, unless a) He consulted the Lords b) It was an emergency where there was no other choice and no opportunity to consult the Lords.  (e.g., If , while she held him at Dragonstone, Dany had threatened to fly her dragons to the North and destroy every castle in the North starting with Winterfell, if he did not bend the knee immediately, Jon would have been forced to make a decision without consulting anyone.  

[dragonsbite]

On 9/5/2017 at 5:27 AM, WindyNights said:

I do agree that female characters get less breaks than male characters.

 

*fewer

 

(Davos made me do it)

[Blonde Gator]

17 minutes ago, dragonsbite said:

 

*fewer

 

(Davos made me do it)

[bardgal]

6 hours ago, Bryce Lynch said:

1) I'm not sure the Iron Islands or Dragonstone are really safe from the NK.  Euron asked if they could swim, he didn't ask if they could sail on ship or otherwise make it across water.

Or Essos.... In the books, Dany sees dead men with blue eyes sailing on a ship in her vision in the House of the Undying. So yeah.... just because they can't swim, doesn't mean they can't sail if they need to. Not sure it will matter in the show, that remains to be seen. But it's likely to matter in the books. 

6 hours ago, Bryce Lynch said:

As for Dragonstone, it is a small and desolate rock, that produces no food at all (as the Iron Bank loan officer pointed out to Stannis).  There is no way 50,000 Dothraki, 8,000 Unsullied, etc. could survive there for an extended period, without access to the mainland.

Regarding Essos, I had brought that up earlier, but all the talk among the characters is about everyone in the "world" being doomed if the NK is not stopped.  That makes me assume Essos is probably not safe.  If it were, I would think Dany and her advisers would be discussing returning to Meereen, at least as a backup plan

So much this.

Edited September 6, 2017 by bardgal

[tangerine95]

1 hour ago, Bryce Lynch said:

a) Dany was eventually willing to help fight the NK without Jon bending the knee.  She realized that stopping the NK was just as important to her and her people as it was to Jon and his people.  She was even willing to form a temporary alliance with Cersei to stop the NK's army.

b) The North is the largest area geographically, but the population is not that large.  Jon said there were more people in tiny King's Landing than in all of the North.  Pride would be the main reason a would be Iron Throne sitter would insist on ruling the North.  For Dany, a strong alliance with a friendly North might be more beneficial than having a bunch of discontented, rebellious Northern Lords as part of her Kingdom.  

c) The North would not necessarily have to remain neutral.  Since Cersei is obviously bent on keeping them as one of her Kingdoms the North might be willing to fight with Dany, as allies, to defeat Cersei.

d) Jon's decision to bend the knee might be sound, but I think the process was unsound.  Once Dany have given up her demand that he bend the knee, there was no urgency for him to make the decision.  He could have consulted with the Northern Lords and tried to convince them it was the right thing to do.  If they were still unconvinced, he could still choose to do it, against their wishes.  In this scenario, the Lords might not be happy, but they would be less likely to feel betrayed as he consulted them and overruled them, rather than going behind their backs and acting as though their opinions were irrelevant.   

While a monarch in this situation has vast authority, I think there is an implicit understanding that he/she would not surrender the Kingdom to foreign rule, unless a) He consulted the Lords b) It was an emergency where there was no other choice and no opportunity to consult the Lords.  (e.g., If , while she held him at Dragonstone, Dany had threatened to fly her dragons to the North and destroy every castle in the North starting with Winterfell, if he did not bend the knee immediately, Jon would have been forced to make a decision without consulting anyone.  

Jon didn't have to bend the knee but I don't think he's someone who would let her take those kind of risks without offering what he can and his only reason for not doing before seemed to be the fact that he wasn't convinced Dany would be any different than previous rulers.

I would think the geographically largest kingdom is a pretty big deal for anyone who wants to rule the seven kingdoms tbh.And Dany will be going there to defend it with all her resources and stopping her war for the iron throne  so pretty much doing what their queen would do if they still belonged to the seven kingdoms.Sure it benefits the whole kingdom to fight the WW but we've seen rulers who won't and would rather let the north deal with it alone and wait it out.About them being rebellious,I guess Jon and Dany don't think it will be something they can't solve with Dany believing they'll accept her if their king does and Jon telling her they will once they see her for what she is.

I agree maybe the way Jon went about it wasn't the best way and Dany herself seemed willing to keep it quiet for a while since she didn't tell her advisors but with the dragon pit meeting it was probably impossible to keep it a secret because clearly Jon isn't willing to lie.But tbh I don't think consulting them would have done much good,they seem to still not be fully aware of just how big a threat they're about to face,I mean they have an issue with him just asking for help from a Targaryen even tho they had no other options at that point.He probably knew he'd have the same argument he has over every other decision he made.

[anamika]

On 9/6/2017 at 7:31 AM, screamin said:

Re: Jon, while I think that his alliance with Dany was inevitable, I do think he could have done it more smoothly...just as I think a little more communication with Sansa over the time he went off to Dragonstone sending no messages 'for weeks' at a time turned out not to ABSOLUTELY necessary, but still would have been much appreciated. I have no doubt Sansa will have words with Jon when he gets back about how he broke the news in the signature of a tiny message that he was no longer king, that therefore she was no longer regent (and therefore is now - what, exactly?) without letting her know whether she should try to sell this shit-sandwich of an unadorned scrap of news to the lords, or try to keep it quiet till he gets back (if that's even possible), or what. 

Actually, in hindsight, I think it's a good thing that Jon did not keep Sansa informed of what he was doing considering that she was confiding all in LF. Even in the finale, the moment Sansa knew, LF knew. He already started shit with Arya because Sansa unintentionally let him know about the presence of the letter. We see him meeting with Glover and Royce and they are the Lords that want to make Sansa queen instead of Jon. LF manages to get Brienne send away from WF. Who knows what he would have done had Sansa let him know what Jon was doing in Dragonstone. He would have probably stirred up shit and made it even worse than it is now.

If only Bran learned to control his powers and took over as Lord of Winterfell. In the books, he has already ruled over WF and dealt with the Northern Lords. He seemed more mature than either of his sisters were this season and understands that the threat beyond the wall is more important than petty squabling.

Since Arya has been reduced to executioner on the show, I don't think she is also going to care too much about Northern independence and all that. The Northern Lords are wishy washy and since they hate Targaryens, they would have told Jon not to bend the knee.

Which brings up the question... Who is it that Jon should consult in the North regarding this whole bending the knee stuff? Everyone up North seems to be a dunderhead...

The only person Jon should have consulted before making this decision is Davos, since he seems to be a wise man. Jon should have also informed Davos that he had bend the knee before springing that announcement on everyone at the Dragonpit. Just like he should have let Sansa know that he was putting her in charge in front of everyone instead of pulling her aside and letting her know ahead of time. He seems to like making big announcements in big settings without letting people know ahead of time about his big decisions - I guess because the show is all about the shock and surprise.

[screamin]

18 minutes ago, anamika said:

Actually, in hindsight, I think it's a good thing that Jon did not keep Sansa informed of what he was doing considering that she was confiding all in LF. Even in the finale, the moment Sansa knew, LF knew. He already started shit with Arya because Sansa unintentionally let him know about the presence of the letter. We see him meeting with Glover and Royce and they are the Lords that want to make Sansa queen instead of Jon. LF manages to get Brienne send away from WF. Who knows what he would have done had Sansa let him know what Jon was doing in Dragonstone. He would have probably stirred up shit and made it even worse than it is now.

If only Bran learned to control his powers and took over as Lord of Winterfell. In the books, he has already ruled over WF and dealt with the Northern Lords. He seemed more mature than either of his sisters were this season and understands that the threat beyond the wall is more important than petty squabling.

Since Arya has been reduced to executioner on the show, I don't think she is also going to care too much about Northern independence and all that. The Northern Lords are wishy washy and since they hate Targaryens, they would have told Jon not to bend the knee.

Which brings up the question... Who is it that Jon should consult in the North regarding this whole bending the knee stuff? Everyone up North seems to be a dunderhead...

The only person Jon should have consulted before making this decision is Davos, since he seems to be a wise man. Jon should have also informed Davos that he had bend the knee before springing that announcement on everyone at the Dragonpit. Just like he should have let Sansa know that he was putting her in charge in front of everyone instead of pulling her aside and letting her know ahead of time. He seems to like making big announcements in big settings without letting people know ahead of time about his big decisions - I guess because the show is all about the shock and surprise.

Fine, if Jon wants to keep the news quiet till he's good and ready to explain himself, keep it quiet. If he wants it known, then go North and proclaim it, or give Sansa, his proxy, full guidance on who and how he wants it told and sold to the lords. But casually dropping the information in the signature of one ravenmail message that he just abdicated his crown and swore the fealty of all Northerners over to Dany, without giving her the least guidance of what he wants her to do with that info - try to keep it quiet? Proclaim it and try to justify it to the lords, without knowing what it is that Jon promised Dany in return for their fealty? - is a half-assed approach that gives the Starks the worst of both worlds, at the same time that he undercuts his own proxy's authority - if Sansa's not the king's regent anymore, what mandate can she claim over the lords now? He's not giving her anything to work with.

Edited September 7, 2017 by screamin

[anamika]

6 hours ago, screamin said:

 or give Sansa, his proxy, full guidance on who and how he wants it told and sold to the lords. But casually dropping the information in the signature of one ravenmail message that he just abdicated his crown and swore the fealty of all Northerners over to Dany, without giving her the least guidance of what he wants her to do with that info - try to keep it quiet? Proclaim it and try to justify it to the lords, without knowing what it is that Jon promised Dany in return for their fealty? - is a half-assed approach that gives the Starks the worst of both worlds, at the same time that he undercuts his own proxy's authority - if Sansa's not the king's regent anymore, what mandate can she claim over the lords now? He's not giving her anything to work with.

Hey, Sansa can do what she already is doing - Just give them the news and then tell them that Jon is doing what Jon thinks is best. It's not like she has ever defended his decisions to the Northern lords or agreed with them before. Quite the opposite - she openly disagrees with his decisions in front of the houses. It's clear that Jon and Sansa think very differently on almost everything.

Basically, if she thinks Jon made the right decision, then she should be able to clearly make a case for it and get the Northern Lords to agree.  After all she is supposedly this great politician who was explaining to Arya about how to deal with the Northern Lords.

If she thinks that Jon made the wrong decision, then by all means, let her make a case for it, get the Northern houses on her side, kick Jon out and make herself queen - this is what LF suggests she do. If the Northern houses disagree with Jon's decision they would go for it - they elected Jon as KITN - What is done can be undone and they were already considering it a few episodes back just for Jon going south alone.

Either way, I wish Sansa would finally be decisive and do something instead of being discontent and whiny from the sidelines.  If she thinks she knows better than Jon and can do a better job ruling the North, then she should put her money where her mouth is, rally the houses to her side - I WON THE BATTLE OF THE BASTARDS, YOU INGRATES! - and become QITN. 

Apropos of nothing, here's a cnn article on Trump's wiretapping accusations that uses the Jon Snow quote!

Quote

But, facts are facts. And, if Trump is allowed to cavalierly make false assertions like Obama wiretapped Trump Tower, then facts lose all meaning.

"When enough people make false promises, words stop meaning anything," said Jon Snow in the Season 7 finale of "Game of Thrones." "Then there are no more answers, only better and better lies, and lies won't help us in this fight."

Jon is a fictional character. But every word in that quote is truth.

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/09/05/politics/trump-doj-wiretap/index.html

Edited September 7, 2017 by anamika

[screamin]

6 hours ago, doram said:

How do you imagine Jon expects - or even wants - Sansa to keep this quiet when he'd already proclaimed to the world and sundry in King's Landing that he had bent the knee?

Er... dragons and armies vs Army of the Dead? The whole point of going South in the first place? And he put that in the raven quite clearly. 

Warden of the North is a three-hundred-year-old job. Does Jon really need to re-explain it for Sansa and the Lords?

She's the Warden's Regent. The way Robb, then Bran played the role of Lord of Winterfell and held court when Ned went to King's Landing to be Hand of the King. The Northern lords are still bannermen to the Lord of Winterfell. 

There isn't anything to give Sansa to work with. He's just returned the North to the status quo they had during the reign of Robert Baratheon. Even using the show-time of 7 years, it wasn't that long ago. The North remembers, right? ?

Every treaty is different. Sansa cannot just ASSUME that Dany has been as generous to Jon as she was. She cannot know whether Jon drove a shrewd bargain with her or gave away the store to get her support. To questions that the lords WILL absolutely ask her - such as "will she demand we be conscribed to fight in her war?" for example, she can give no answer.

[Bryce Lynch]

8 hours ago, doram said:

How do you imagine Jon expects - or even wants - Sansa to keep this quiet when he'd already proclaimed to the world and sundry in King's Landing that he had bent the knee?

Er... dragons and armies vs Army of the Dead? The whole point of going South in the first place? And he put that in the raven quite clearly. 

Warden of the North is a three-hundred-year-old job. Does Jon really need to re-explain it for Sansa and the Lords?

She's the Warden's Regent. The way Robb, then Bran played the role of Lord of Winterfell and held court when Ned went to King's Landing to be Hand of the King. The Northern lords are still bannermen to the Lord of Winterfell. 

There isn't anything to give Sansa to work with. He's just returned the North to the status quo they had during the reign of Robert Baratheon. Even using the show-time of 7 years, it wasn't that long ago. The North remembers, right? ?

1) Good point, Jon bending the knee and handing the North over to an uncrowned Targaryen queen will be well known.

2) Decent point - There are valid reasons for Jon bending the knee.  IMO, he should have first explained them to the Northern Lords before putting them in subjection to Dany, though.

3) King in the North was a 7,700 year old job.  It is clear the North has always preferred to be independent and only grudgingly accepted being under Targaryen rule because it was either that or being burned with dragon fire.

4) True, Sansa's authority over the North and the Northern Lords is unchanged.  

5) The "status quo" means the existing state.  That would be Northern independence.  The argument that they were under Southern rule until fairly recently has some validity, but going back under it is not maintaining the status quo.  Also, Robert Baratheon was a friend of the North and a dear friend of Ned Stark.   They trusted him and I believe he gave the North a great deal of autonomy.  Dany's father murdered 2 Wardens of the North.   Then the next Southern King arranged to have their King in the North and his family disgracefully murdered at a wedding.  The "North remembers" that.   They don't know Dany and will naturally distrust her.  

The Northern Lords would not see being under Dany's rule as anything like being under Robert's Rule.  In the end, she could very well be a much better ruler for them than Robert, but from the perspective of the Northern Lords, it would be totally reasonable to distrust Dany and wonder if Jon had betrayed them.  

Jon's "You'll thank me later." style of ruling can be effective, but it can also be dangerous.  It already got him killed once, by men under his command.   

Edited September 7, 2017 by Bryce Lynch

[screamin]

8 hours ago, anamika said:

Hey, Sansa can do what she already is doing - Just give them the news and then tell them that Jon is doing what Jon thinks is best. It's not like she has ever defended his decisions to the Northern lords or agreed with them before. Quite the opposite - she openly disagrees with his decisions in front of the houses. It's clear that Jon and Sansa think very differently on almost everything.

Basically, if she thinks Jon made the right decision, then she should be able to clearly make a case for it and get the Northern Lords to agree.  After all she is supposedly this great politician who was explaining to Arya about how to deal with the Northern Lords.

If she thinks that Jon made the wrong decision, then by all means, let her make a case for it, get the Northern houses on her side, kick Jon out and make herself queen - this is what LF suggests she do. If the Northern houses disagree with Jon's decision they would go for it - they elected Jon as KITN - What is done can be undone and they were already considering it a few episodes back just for Jon going south alone.

Either way, I wish Sansa would finally be decisive and do something instead of being discontent and whiny from the sidelines.  If she thinks she knows better than Jon and can do a better job ruling the North, then she should put her money where her mouth is, rally the houses to her side - I WON THE BATTLE OF THE BASTARDS, YOU INGRATES! - and become QITN. 

Apropos of nothing, here's a cnn article on Trump's wiretapping accusations that uses the Jon Snow quote!

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/09/05/politics/trump-doj-wiretap/index.html

King Jon left the North saying he was going to get dragonglass and to try the get the dragon queen's help. Weeks (months?) later he sends a tiny message back saying he's bent the knee to Dany, given up the crown the Northerners gave him, and is coming to the North with Dany's army, united against the White Walkers - oh, and just by the way, he's also bringing a Lannister army, the soldiers of the people who murdered his father and started the war - into the North itself, where no Lannister army has ever managed to get even in the worst of the War of the Five Kings - but don't worry, they're allies now! That is a whole HELL of a lot of mission creep to drop on the North.

The lords will have many questions about this - and it won't be all whiny 'windvane' questions. Some of them will be very important ones. Like, for example, whether Jon gave up his kingdom of his own free will or at dragonpoint, like Torrhen? A related question - how are the armies coming to the North going to act? Are they going to feed themselves the way armies usually do in this universe - commandeering supplies from the country around them - supplies that are already too short for the locals, who are already facing winter starvation? What did Jon get for the North in return for giving up his kingdom besides the presence of that hungry army, those scary dragons, and those treacherous Lannister forces amidst them that are liable to do who knows what? Did he get a promise of marriage to ensure Dany's continued favor, some promise of eventual compensation for the North, or just the privilege of being the poorest and most war-ruined grateful vassal to Dany when the fighting is over?

I get how Jon got to this point, and I do think Jon was totally justified in making that alliance with Dany. (The whole 'get a wight to convince Cersei,' though, I have problems with.) Trouble is, it would be really helpful to Sansa in her presentation of the facts to the lords to learn something of Jon's reasons and justifications for the choices he's making. As it is, when she's faced with the inevitable battery of questions from the lords, like, "Did he bend the knee willingly, or under threat of dragons like Torrhen? Is she like the other conquering mad Targaryens? Who's going to feed her Dothraki armies when they get here? For how many months before the WW get here? What about the Lannister army? What kind of guarantee of their good behavior did Jon exact of them to not backstab the North in some manner?" all she has for answer is "I don't know. Just trust him."

Now, maybe you think it's just Sansa's job to convince the lords to do exactly that on no more information than she has...that Jon has no obligation to make her job easier by telling her anything about Dany's incredible acts of generosity that caused him to trust her to the extent he has, so that she might use this information to convince the lords to trust him in turn. And maybe it will be a source of great satisfaction and comfort to Jon and you to be able to blame Sansa for everything if Jon finally makes it North and finds that most of his Northern armies have taken their men and gone home. "I gave you enough information about what I did to fill a whole unrolled cigarette butt about how I knelt to the dragon queen and was coming home with a Lannister army! Any competent regent could have DEDUCED all my reasons why what I did was an absolutely awesome deal and sell that to the lords! You suck!" Maybe it'll warm his heart and yours, but it won't help the North. Which is why I think it might have been better if he'd kept Sansa in the loop here.

The more I think about it, the more I think GRRM must be pretty pissed off at the showrunners by now. In the books, it's fairly clear that the Wall will eventually fall by the magical Horn that GRRM has carefully hinted about. The showrunners didn't do the groundwork to establish that. But they wanted a cinematic and quick resolution for the show. So they went and posited a situation where Jon will be the savior of the world by defeating the White Walkers - but they ALSO engineered him to have facilitated the Night King's invasion to begin with, by making him be the author of a contrived harebrained scheme to convince a totally unreliable and treacherous ally to help them...a scheme that failed, required Jon's rescue and thus put the key to the Night King removing the greatest obstacle in the way of his world invasion into his hands.

I'm pretty sure that GRRM doesn't intend Jon to be the combo savior/bungler the showrunners have made him.

Edited September 7, 2017 by screamin

[GraceK]

@doram love your above post. I feel like you read my mind! Lol

Edited September 7, 2017 by GraceK

[Bryce Lynch]

22 minutes ago, doram said:

No, it's not clear. Yes, 7,700 years sound impressive. But no one alive even remembers a time when the North was independent. Robert's Rebellion could just as easily have been North vs South but it wasn't because the North still wanted to stay in the Seven Kingdoms. The Starks were quite involved in "southron" affairs during the time of the Targaryen Kings. While some Kingdoms stayed neutral during civil conflicts like the Dance of the Dragons & the Blackfyre Rebellions, the North always took sides. You can even tell from the way Jon and Robb idolised famous Targaryens like Daeron I and Aemon Dragonknight that the idea that the North always hated the rule of the dragon is false. 

 

 

The North already had autonomy during Targaryen rule. Robert Baratheon, that incompetent buffoon, made little to no changes to that. Under Robert's rule, Ned had to hide a baby, and dishonour himself to prevent it from being slaughtered. Meanwhile, the rule of law was going to the dogs because Lannister gold made the rules. This idea that Robert was the Bestest King for the North is false.

 

In the TV show, the North barely remembers that the Boltons were the ones who betrayed their King and the other banner lords in the Red Wedding. So the North remembers but suffers from short-term memory loss?

 

What's the difference? Not trying to be disingenuous but again, this is not the 21st century. What difference did it make to "Northern Independence" when Torrhen knelt at the sight of Aegon's dragons? They lost it, either way. 

 

LOL! I almost wish that would happen so that Dany can pack up her toys and go South of the neck with Jon. Let Sansa and the Northern Lords fly that "Northern Independence" flag as the army of the dead marches onto Winterfell. 

So do you expect all the Northern Lords to say, "Great job, Jon!  Thank you for surrendering our independence and putting us under the rule of the Mad King's daughter and her armies of Eunuchs and Dothraki savages!  You are the best KITN, evah!!!!" :)

I'm not saying what Jon did was wrong,  But, I think it would be unrealistic not to expect pushback (if not outright rebellion) from at least some of the Northern Lords.

Again, it is about perspective.  From Jon's perspective, he is doing what is best for the North (and all of Westeros), and he is probably right.  From some of the Northern Lord's perspectives, he could look like a weakling, coward or traitor.  

It is similar to Jon letting the Wildlings through the Wall.  Jon believed he was doing the right thing (and he was), but those who mutinied against him and assassinated him also genuinely believed they were doing the right thing.  They had a point, it seemed "crazy" to let the savages who had been murdering (and eating) them through the Wall.  It was also what was best for Westeros.  

[screamin]

50 minutes ago, doram said:

The North already had autonomy during Targaryen rule. Robert Baratheon, that incompetent buffoon, made little to no changes to that. Under Robert's rule, Ned had to hide a baby, and dishonour himself to prevent it from being slaughtered. Meanwhile, the rule of law was going to the dogs because Lannister gold made the rules. This idea that Robert was the Bestest King for the North is false.

 

Robert the buffoon was still a significantly better king than Aerys for the North. Now that's an undoubtedly extremely low bar to clear, but it's as far back as most people now alive can remember anyway. And they have seen many examples of worse rulers among the kings vying for the country's attention over the last few years (Stannis, who burned his daughter to get a throne, just as an example the North saw personally). Dany is an unknown quantity to them, and to assume she's going to be good - without any concrete reason to believe it - is unwarranted optimism in Westeros.

 

Quote

What's the difference? Not trying to be disingenuous but again, this is not the 21st century. What difference did it make to "Northern Independence" when Torrhen knelt at the sight of Aegon's dragons? They lost it, either way. 

It makes a difference in what kind of absolute ruler Dany shows herself to be. If she generously offers to help them without demanding their subservience as a price (as she did), she will be a far different ruler than one who takes advantage of the North's starving, threatened state to hold a knife to their throat and demand homage. In a land in which there is no mechanism for throwing off a bad ruler other than bloody, painful rebellion, this information is vital. Why withhold it?

 

Quote

LOL! I almost wish that would happen so that Dany can pack up her toys and go South of the neck with Jon. Let Sansa and the Northern Lords fly that "Northern Independence" flag as the army of the dead marches onto Winterfell. 

I beg your pardon. My entire response was centered around the idea that Sansa DOES want to do her job well and convince the lords to trust and follow Jon...I'm just saying that Jon communicating his (very good) reasons for trusting Dany would help Sansa IMMENSELY in doing the job he needs her to do. Where do you get the idea that I think Sansa wants to declare her independence and crown herself queen against Jon? Why do you still think she wants to? Even Arya's stopped believing in that bogeyman by now.

As for the lords...I do think that a lot of them ARE craven windvanes looking for any excuse to abandon him. But they ARE all facing pretty big problems. They already don't have much food. Sansa is demanding they bring most of their stores to Winterfell, where she promises she'll keep them safe and dole them out as needed, and allow them in return to take refuge at WF if they have to fall back from their own estates. This is asking an enormous act of trust on their parts already...trust that their rulers won't take their precious food and then slam the gates in their faces when they come to them in need. Now to hear without preamble or warning that Jon is bringing a huge army of Dothraki (who have a bad reputation) and Lannister armies (who among the Northerners have a worse one) requires them to ALSO trust that Jon won't feed this enormous army with their food and that these armies will behave perfectly and NOT do what such armies usually do in foreign territory, which is pillage all the lands around of food for themselves and whatever else they fancy. Jon is asking them to hand over their food and to stay assembled for battle around Winterfell, and ignore their most deeply embedded instinct when a foreign army occupies your territory - go to your homes, protect your women, children and dependents, and slam the gates on them and your winter stores for a siege.

And I do think their inevitable question, "WHY does this Targaryen woman deserve so much trust from us? How do we know she doesn't have your balls in her pocket and will screw us?" DOES deserve an answer. Since Jon actually HAS a good answer, I can't see any rationale for withholding it.

Edited September 7, 2017 by screamin