TheCasualObserver

Members
  • Content count

    1,077
  • Joined

  • Last visited

2 Followers

About TheCasualObserver

  • Rank
    Council Member
  1. Stark name will cease to exist - Spoilers

    Doesn't that seem simplistic though? I don't believe that is an accurate representation of life in the Medieval era.
  2. Trying to understad the northern lords : saying is not doing

    Is it even deep down though? Roose was the sole noble survivor of the massacre and is immediately given the wardenship of the north by the enemy. The existence of collusion is common sense.
  3. Trying to understad the northern lords : saying is not doing

    Did we watch the same episode? Ramsay's army was far larger than Jon's and was comprised of his own and the two other largest Houses in the north. He mentions needing Karstarks, Umbers and Manderlys to control the north and he gets two out of three. Jon was literally trampled underfoot in the battle. That was a thing which happened, because it was all going so badly. LF showing up at the last minute to stab Ramsay in the back with his fat stack of knights was the only thing which brought Ramsay down and it had nothing to do with his political decisions.
  4. Counterpoint: It was smart of Balon to attack Robb

    Some nice ideas, but I have to disagree on a couple of points. If Balon is eager to see the return of the old way, he is presumably planning for this long term. But the war can't possibly go on forever; eventually someone has to win and whoever does will do one of two things: establish a new realm of just a handful of kingdoms, or resume control of all seven kingdoms as high king. Of the five kings who started the war, Renly, Stannis and Joffrey all supported the latter option. Balon and Robb support the former. "Breathing room" is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. Any king capable of uniting the continent will always have more ships, more men and more money than the iron islands, so in the long term, Robb is the only sensible choice. Admittedly, he's an all or nothing choice, but that's better than a couple of years plundering the tough land of the North before being smashed once again by the winning faction.
  5. Trying to understad the northern lords : saying is not doing

    Yes, but disaster for plot reasons, not political ones. Militarily and political speaking, Ramsay goes from strength to strength in early season 6 when logic dictates he should be floundering. Murdering his father, mother-in-law and brother is welcomed by his bannermen and he receives the support of the two strongest houses in two successive episodes, without really needing to do anything to get them. You can argue that Ramsay's position was weak, but the show provides no evidence of that being the case - quite the opposite. In the end, neither Ramsay's bloodthirsty nature, nor his political mistakes contribute in any way to his downfall. He loses because LF teleports thousands of enemy knights onto the battlefield. Before that his power was shown to be supreme, which is what I take issue with.
  6. Trying to understad the northern lords : saying is not doing

    Well, in this instance it wasn't Ramsay who was figuratively feeding them for the last twenty odd years - it was Roose, who Ramsay murdered. And Ramsay is the rightful inheritor and Lord of the Dreadfort through royal decree... which he spat on when he married Sansa. How much allegiance do the Bolton men really owe him when he is not trueborn and murdered his father?
  7. Trying to understad the northern lords : saying is not doing

    "Status quo is not a trivial thing". It certainly was trivial in season 6 of Game of Thrones! The point to be made here is that I have no idea why Ramsay was STILL the status quo in season 6. He sacrificed his legal right to the North from the Iron throne (and presumably his own legitimacy) when he married Sansa, in the hope that Stark legitimacy was more valuable. Then he loses Sansa and becomes a violent, unpredictable, despot who even murders his own father. Why is anyone following him at this point? Because they are scared of him? He is neither charismatic, nor physically intimidating. Realistically his own soldiers would have been trying to shank him, let alone other northern lords trying to join him.
  8. Trying to understad the northern lords : saying is not doing

    You didn't address my points about what Ramsay actually does.There is no real reason why anybody would follow Ramsay.
  9. Trying to understad the northern lords : saying is not doing

    My biggest issue with the end of the season is that Ramsay had any political power at all. His actions were a cavalcade of idiocy which should have isolated him from both his allies and his men. Marrying Sansa broke the Bolton/Lannister alliance, removing any legal reason why the Bolton's specifically should be in charge of the North. Ramsay then spent his time trying to cow the Northmen into submission by flaying them alive in their own castles - hardly a popular policy on tax. He then loses his wife (a hugely embarrassing moment for a feudal lord, proving he cannot control his own household) which removes what little authority or legitimacy he had left. Finally, he murders his father, mother in law and baby brother making him a kinslayer, the most reviled type of criminal in Westerosi society. The question of realism might well be asked in regard to the book plot's "Grand Northern conspiracy" or the Northmen fighting for "The Ned's little girl", but Ramsay's continuing hold on power is still a far more egregious break from reality. It's a mistake to think that simply because Ramsay is a bad guy, that makes the show gritty and realistic when he starts winning. Rasmay's actions are presented in the show because the writers wanted the audience to hate him, but really, it just turns him into a cartoon. There may be monsters like Ramsay in the real world, but none of them have the capacity to wield political power.
  10. Stark name will cease to exist - Spoilers

    If the series ends with Jon on the throne then he will have no choice other than to take the Targ name. I think I mentioned upthread that Bael's son isn't exactly a good legal precedent; it happened millennia ago and we have no reason to suspect it's true at all - it was a story Ygritte used to flirt with Jon. The naming conventions of an entire society cannot change on a whim.
  11. Stark name will cease to exist - Spoilers

    My point was that nobody in the grand scheme of things cares about Bear Island. It's got to a point where the Mormont women can be entirely elusive about who the fathers of their children are and still inherit, because as a distant and poor island off the mainland coast it doesn't have significance. It's important to note that Westeros is a fiercely patriarchal society where women are second class citizens. This is cruel, sexist and unfair I freely admit, but our only evidence of a son taking the family name of his mother comes from a quiet backwater and a story told to Jon by a woman who wants to get in his pants. We might wish it were otherwise, but legally speaking the Stark name will become extinct when this generation dies of old age.
  12. Trying to understad the northern lords : saying is not doing

    Unfortunately it requires the vast majority of the northern lords to just pretend that the Red wedding never happened. This is a reflection of the fact that it happened three years ago for audiences and they don't care any more, so the momentum of that desire for vengeance couldn't carry over. As for the Karstarks and Umbers, Karstark fights the Starks because he is infuriated that his father was killed. Umber fights the Starks because he doesn't care that his father was killed. This is called "narrative convenience".
  13. Stark name will cease to exist - Spoilers

    As far as I can tell the Stark name is finished. The North is not bear island and we've yet to see any kind of legitimate matrilineal marriage. If Sansa or Arya have children, they will have the names of their father, not the mother. Rickon is dead, Jon is a Targaryen (and will have to keep that name if he wants to be king at any point) Bran cannot have chiildren and Sansa and Arya are girls. RIP House Stark.
  14. Biggest Dropped Ball in Season 6 (S6 spoilers)

    I agree that there is inconsistency here. One of the first things the show presents in ep 1 of season 1 is a guy being killed for deserting the watch. We know that Jon has died and been resurrected, so it makes sense to the audience, but how many people in the story do? The Northern Lords really should have been ignoring Jon the deserter and competing with one another on who get's to marry Sansa and rule through her.
  15. Sansa: A passion for Killing. The New "psycho"?

    This is just bizarre. Sansa has had no experience ruling over people whatsoever. Jon might be a bit useless at times, but he does have experience being a leader at the very least. And LF's points are legitimate? Oh dear.