lojzelote

Members
  • Content count

    2,171
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About lojzelote

  • Rank
    I am but a young girl who knows nothing

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Female
  • Location
    Europe

Recent Profile Visitors

5,169 profile views
  1. He added to it some later: source
  2. @Lord Varys Well, but you also say that not all of the North was reconciled to the Stark rule. I'd think that trying to solve that issue would have been their #1 preference. It's either that they were secure in their dominion over the North and could have married whom they wished... or they were not and had to take it into account while choosing who they married. Either way, if the Boltons had given them repeatedly reason to consider them untrustworthy, they should have attainted them after last such incident and give the the Dreadfort and the surrounding lands to another family or at least reduce their power substantially. Letting them fester in spite and unfulfilled ambition without doing about it anything is like leaving a ticking bomb to explode. It's hard to say without meeting him, but Domeric Bolton sounded like a decent boy. At least if the part about visiting Ramsay, because he wanted a brother is a true story. The Tyrells in the Reach are much bigger upstarts, but they have solved the problem of their lacking pedigree by marrying into the most prominent houses of the region. Mace Tyrell is a half Redwyne and his wife Alerie Hightower is half Florent. Their second son is married to a Fossoway, and as far as their heir and only daughter they are concerned, they tried to get the Stark heiress and the king himself. Olenna Redwyne is very open about the fact that it's Mace's way of raising the prestige of House Tyrell that is poor compared to other great houses of Westeros and the Reach itself. The very same thing could be said of the Tullys. They had also been raised to their post by Aegon the Conqueror, they had not come to rule over the riverlands due to the natural pecking order. We know that Hoster Tully had also been very eager to find prestigious matches for all his family members. I don't think that she would have been a direct and clear heiress (in that case her brothers would have come first anyway), but I think it is possible she might have some sort of competing blood claim that together with her claim by marriage holds her safely in power? If the Dustins are supposedly so powerful, it is strange that the surviving Dustin heirs have no powerbase that would try to put them in their rightful place instead of an outsider dowager lady. True, we see something similar happening with the Hornwood inheritance. It is apparent that the Northmen believe that marrying the widowed dowager lady will give them the right to control the Hornwood lands, although the last Lord Hornwood's sister and her two sons are still around. I'd think that it's obvious that Lady Berena or her oldest son should inherit. Instead everybody in the North waits for Robb to decide if he does not command Dowager Lady Donella to marry a Blackwood or a Frey to give them the rule of the Hornwood to to suit Robb's own political ends. It is even apparently feasible for Roose Bolton to inherit through his unlegitimized bastard son who kidnapped and forcibly married the said lady dowager and got executed for it. Frankly, if the Starks have been playing at autocrats in a similar manner for their entire history, then I am not surprised they had been victims of multiple rebel lords. Let's imagine if the next king on the iron throne decided to hand over WF and the North to the Westerlings or the Tullys because of political expedience, although Sansa or Arya and their hypothetical sons would had given him no reason to disposses them of their house's ancestral seat and lands. That sort of treatment would have bred resentment. But long story short, I don't see how the Dustins can be so powerful and prestigious and at the same time so easily discarded by the Starks. Well, I don't expect GRRM to turn Winterfell into Shirley Jackson's Hill House anytime soon. I suppose it's there for atmosphere and to show that historical Starks had been kinda bad guys. But, it is clearly a permanent theme in regards to Winterfell. Back in AGoT Ned is unnerved by the idea of the spirits of the dead escaping their graves and he thinks of the cold hell that is reserved specially for the dead members of his house. It's a strangely anatagonistic way of thinking of one's long dead noble ancestors. It returns again with Theon in ACoK through ADwD to his TWoW spoiler chapter. (As for iron swords, didn't Old Nan claim that the Others hated iron?) In TWoIaF GRRM further put a spin on their history by alluding that the ancestor of Bran the Builder was Brandon of the Bloody Blade. That guy sound like one of the aggressive humans whose existence might have had persuaded the Children that the creation of the Others is a good idea after all. Similarly, I doubt that the Boltons are vampires (though the Bolt-On crack theory is great), but there is vampiric subtext to them. Roose (together with Euron Greyjoy) is greatly reminiscent of the evil vampire master from Fevre Dream, and Ramsay is similarly reminiscent of the said vampire's lowly, disgusting human servant that hopes that his master will reward him for his service by transforming him into a vampire as well. Then there's all the focus on the tainted blood, leeching, paleness, ageless appearance, and eating near raw meat. The Dustins seem to be the latest addition to GRRM's Northern kingdom of horrors. I have no idea if anything will come out of it, but it is there. I wonder if these ancient powerful Northern houses like the Starks, the Boltons, and the Dustins had not been into some kind of dangerous magical practice. Maybe it's all just creepy atmospheric talk, maybe not. At the very least we can be certain that the tales of the ancient Northmen practising human sacrifice are true. (Hey, GRRM have corrected moderators in past interviews by saying that he's not only a writer of fantasy and science fiction, but also of horror. ) Actually, I think that the Willam-Melantha match must have been great for the Starks. Marrying a kinswoman of the Queen is nothing to scoff at. The rest not so much. From the Doylist POV, I guess that GRRM simply wants to keep his family trees simple. He doesn't want the Starks to have scores of unaccounted for cousins he would have to deal with in future books. OTOH
  3. Well, you gotta wonder then, why GRRM had Mel establish that the Wall is imbued with powerful magic and why Maester Aemon told us that it has healing and preservative properties. "The fire consumes" part of Aemon's quote fits very well the way in which GRRM describes his "fire wights" as burning away, so I think Aemon is right on the point with the "ice preserves" part as well. And what is it going to serve if not a certain event in which a major character is resurrected at the Wall, right? It's not like if Jon didn't have a dream in which his body is covered by black ice instead of black cloth or black armor. I concede that the idea of his ultimate survival seems strange and unlikely, but for the time being he should be a mostly functioning and relatable human being. There's pretty much no point in telling us his personal story otherwise. GRRM likes to use the Faulkner quote that human heart in conflict is the only thing worth to write about. I see little chance he has decided to swap a major character like Jon with an automaton zombie without memory or ability to feel emotions midway the story. Especially now when it's de facto confirmed that Jon's story is half the key to the heart of the series. As to the second point, I think that GRRM kinda sucks at planning. At this point I doubt he's any better at estimating the scope of his story any better than what a realistic publication date for the next book is.
  4. The answer is simple: GRRM introduced the concept of the cold of the Wall keeping Aemon alive and in good health for a reason, just sayin'. The ice of the "magical hinge of the world" (as Melisandre puts it) will balance the worst effects of the kiss of life. Both fire and ice will unite to preserve and resurrect Jon. He will be ultimately nowhere near as damaged as Beric (though still damaged) because of the added factors. It's kinda having a cake and eating it too, but that has always been inevitable since Jon is a major character that is instrumental to the endgame. There's no way he could actually lose most of his memory etc. and still be of any use in the War for Dawn. He's got to remember who is who beyond the small gang around him if he's to be a central player in any way. There's not a snowflake's chance in the hell that Jon/Dany won't happen in the books at this point. What else are supposed to be the "rough strokes of the story" if not the relationship between the two most important characters of the saga?
  5. @Lord Varys Well, to me the entire point of a dynastic marriage is marrying someone whom you neccessarily don't like for reasons of state. Sometimes it is an instrument to strengthen an already existing friendship, but not always. Besides, I refuse to believe that the Boltons are a long line of exclusively bad eggs. Even so, I may understand why they wouldn't want to marry one of their daughters to a scary guy whose ancestors flayed their ancestors, but certainly a Lord Stark could have married a female Bolton? It's not like she would actually kill her own children to ensure the Bolton supremacy in the North. Anyhow, the Starks cannot be surprised that the Boltons are not content with their rule if they have ignored them as political partners for hundreds of years. I don't think we have any reason to believe that the Dustins were historically opposed to the Stark rule? Sure, they had been forced to bend the knee and the mutual relations might not have always been sunshine and roses, but I don't think we know enough to put them on the Bolton level. The only Dustins we have heard of were Roderick Dustin from the period of the Dance and Willam Dustin, whom Ned had taken with him to the Tower of Joy. Lady Barbrey is actually a Ryswell by birth, and her dislike for the Starks seems like a personal thing. Although, I suppose it is possible she is some kind of a Dustin cousin as well. After all, the houses that didn't marry into House Stark had to marry into some other houses to keep going. [That said, I find it suspect that in ADwD GRRM introduced a woman ruling Barrowton that seems somewhat shady and speaks of what would she do if she were a queen, and in TWoIaF we find out that the Night's King corpse queen might have been a Barrow princess and that Barrow kings placed on themselves a curse that should have held them in power at the price of sucking off their vitality and life. It kinda makes me wonder... isn't Barbrey looking too old for her age? Half of her hair is supposed to be grey already and she even describes herself as dried-up. It seems pretty normal that in the medieval era a woman entering her fourties might appear much older to us than she really is, but Catelyn and Cersei had/have to be only a couple years younger, and were still considered beautiful and desirable. I swear, the way the old North is described is vampiric. There were these corpselike Dustins and pale-eyed, brutal Boltons whose current lord happens to be obsessed with bloodletting, raw meat, and prunes, ... and the ancient Starks, who had to be locked in their tombs with iron swords lest they terrorize the living. Then they've got sacred blood-sucking trees, tales of “ghosts, cold vengeful spirits of the north who hunger for southron blood,” and it doesn't help that at the Neck there is the Bite in which lie the Three Sisters, which is an obvious reference to the three brides of Dracula. Brrrr, what an unplesant place and people. If I were an Andal warlord, I wouldn't have tried to invade their Twilight Zone land at all.] Anyway, I understand why secondborn, thirdborn etc. sons wouldn't have made a prestigious match, the Serena/Arrana/Aregelle marrying Umbers and Cerwyns I get too, since they had been apparently excluded from succession, but the likes of Cregan Stark marrying Arra Norrey boggle my mind. Surely that had to be another love match on his part? Glovers are not that important either. They are merely a masterly house at the moment, aren't they? And Jocelyn Stark, the only female Stark in two generations, leaving for the Vale to marry a younger son of a junior branch of House Royce. What sense does it make? Was she pregnant with a bastard or what? I guess that some Lockes will likely pop out of the woodwork in TWoW. Much like the Dustins, they have probably become the object of GRRM's literary "gardening".
  6. That's true. I guess that a couple of Northmen could have come to court at some point as well? Though I suppose not many since they are a rather isolationist lot for most past... except for the Manderlys, which makes sense since they have southron roots. We should definitely find out more about the mermen, since J&A's daughter was betrothed to one and another Manderly was the Hand at the end of Aegon III's regency. I must say I was a bit surprised by the overabundance of Manderlys in TWoIaF (well, "overabundance" may be a too strong a word). Aside of the Roderick Dustin stuff, they seem to have been the most prominent Norhtmen (at least outwardly) after the Starks. The same goes for the Stark family tree - there are two Manderly marriages, but zero marriages to the Boltons and the Dustins in the last 200+ years? One would expect they would like to shore up relationship with them. There's a chance that that one of the Starks daughters went to these houses, but I'm doubtful, because from we've seen so far they either kept them in the family or squandered them on the likes of Rogerses, Cerwyns, or cadet branch Royces. It makes me think they maybe they didn't want any of the prominent Northern houses getting a possible blood claim on WF? Otherwise I seriously question their dynastic choices. That aside, I'd love to know if marrying vassal houses from another kingdom was a pre-Conquest thing. It seems like something that could in case of a war potentially bring problems to all involved. Honestly, wouldn't it have been preferable to marry an Arryn or a Tully to a Royce or a Blackwood? I do wonder if perhaps the later Targaryens might have followed in Rhaenys' footsteps by playing at matchmakers.
  7. I found this today on Tumblr. It's from his currect visit of Russia: Hm... How do we get to the subject of House Bolton in FaB?
  8. Who do you think has the better right to Winterfell - Sansa Stark or Harrion Karstark? It's incredibly clear what the Westerosi think of that. It's daughter/sister of the last lord/king, not his fifteenth cousin five times removed. They may not care for the idea of female rulers very much, but they clearly don't follow the salic law either. If you look at real life dynasties, most of them daughtered out at some point. In some cases the children of the heiress became members of a new dynasty, in others they carried on her family name. There's no reason why the Starks should be any different. Well, that was the point of my post.
  9. @Lord Varys Yeah. It's confusing to look at the real life history, too. England is a wonderful example of this. Empress Maud has almost become the first English queen regnant, but ultimately she lost her war against Stephen. Philippa Plantagenet was completely ignored in favour of her male cousins. After the War of Roses it was still unthinkable that Elizabeth of York could have become Queen on her own. Henry VIII was so desperate for a son at least in part because he believed that the remants of the Plantagenets will never accept his Tudor daughter on the throne... but surprise surprise. After her brother's death, Mary was very quickly acknowledged as the rightful queen by majority of the country, and the same goes for Elizabeth after her. OTOH in Spain you several queen regnants ruling the individual small kingdoms, then you have a very strong queen in Isabella of Castile.... folowed up by her daughter Joanna whose rights were usurped by her father, husband, and son. Ultimately the Habsbourgs lost control of Spain because the only male heir died without issue and his sister was unable to inherit. But, back to my earlier point, I simply find it unlikely that the Starks are an unbroken male line... even if they have lasted only a thousand years, not the unbelievable eight millennia, at some point they should have daughtered out. We can see with the current generation how easy is to lose all male heirs. So, if no woman has ever ruled the North, what other explanation is there than that it were their husbands and sons that were preferred? We have no idea how much - if at all - has Northern mentality changed in regards to female succession. Acceptance of ruling ladies does not automatically equal acceptance of ruling queens, and the Starks in the North have been regarded as kings in pretty much all but name even before Robb's crowning. Long story short, Sansa or Arya might be pretty quick to nope out out of any such arrangement that the North may have in store for them.
  10. @Lord Varys Yeah. I don't find that all that odd that Ygritte wouldn't have been able to properly distinguish titulature of kneelers at the Southern side of the Wall. I mean, for most of the Northern history, the King in the North was also Lord of Winterfell, so she might not understand why she should not call him "Lord Stark", especially since the last couple of centuries the family patriarch was called Lord Stark. Also, the official title of the king on the Iron Throne happens to be "Lord of the Seven Kingdoms". No wonder the girl was confused lol. You misundestand me. Sansa is (or is thought to be) the heiress, but she may be an heiress the way Brandon the Daughterless' daughter was his heiress. We see this with other Westerosi families as well. In the Reach, the Peakes and the Manderlys fought over which of them has the better right to become king "by the right of their wife". It was not assumed that either of the Gardener princesses should rule, but which of their husbands. Similarly with Joffrey Lydden, who married a Lannister princess and continued House Lannister. In the RL terms, it's the difference between Elizabeth of Luxembourg, the heiress of Emperor Sigismund, who became a queen consort to Vladislaus III of Poland, and Maria Theresa, who would after her father's death become the empress regnant of the Austrian Empire. In theory Sansa as a heiress may have more rights than to become her husband's consort, but it doesn't mean anyone in the South or even in the North would want to apply that theory to reality. That happened to Elizabeth of Luxembourg, too. It's hard to say how it goes with nobility. IRL it seems to differ wildly depending on the exact time and place. For example there didn't seem to be any problem with Eleanor of Acquitaine inheriting her family's ancestral lands, and from what I read on the topic (admittedly not much) it appears that her lords actually answered to her, not to her husbands. Even after the establishment of the salic law, women at the level of nobility could have inherited peerdoms, an example being Queen Claude, the Duchess of Britanny. Claude was born as the daughter of a French king and a duchess of Brittany, but since her parents had no surviving sons, the French crown passed to Claude's cousin Francois. But, Claude was also her mother's daughter and heiress, and because it was thought important to keep Britanny bound to the Crown, a marrige was arranged between Claude and the new king. I have no idea how much power Claude or her mother had over their lands once they entered their respective marriages, but it shows well that noblewomen may enjoy greater rights than princesses. Similarly, lower ranked noblewomen in Westeros may actually have it better than daughters of high lords... or at least daughters of high lords from the more bigoted places. Not gonna disagree. I'd show them my middle finger and continue on my merry way south. I wouldn't use Visenya's reaction to Rhaenys' death as a proof of her affection. Cersei was also absolutely livid when Catelyn carried off Tyrion and Tywin started a bloody retribution in answer. At the same time, they both utterly loathe Tyrion. But touching him meant to touch House Lannister. So, even if Visenya hated Rhaenys at the personal level, she could not have been pleased that she and Meraxes had been put down by the Dornish. It proved that they were not invincible after all. That said, I don't think she must have hated her. Human relationships can be very complex. Without an access to their thoughts, it's pretty much impossible to tell how they felt about each other. I guess that Visenya and Aegon were never at the same wavelength so to speak, but they may not have disliked each other initially. But as time went, Visenya's resentment at being the third wheel might have grown, and Aegon might have become disgusted with her if she kept pressing him with making Maegor his heir instead of Aenys. Well, it depends. The early medieval kings pretty much ruled from horseback, no? Jon has very little reason to care about his seat if he doesn't plan on staying there anyway. He's got different priorities.
  11. @Lord Varys I suppose they trust the audience to remember that Sansa and Arya's relationship from S1. According to Ygritte, she lived: It's likely a highly stylized story even if there is a snippet truth somewhere. But the last sentence sounds oddly accurate... I mean, we hear from other sources as well that the ancient Boltons killed and skinned Starks and that some of those skins may be still lying around at the Dreadfort. But back to the point, if the North has never had a female ruler, than it is quite likely that this was the way succession was solved. It happened in my country's history as well. A princess passed the royal blood of the previous dynasty, but it was her husband and later her sons that ruled. Actually, I think her job may be taking out your namesake, Lord Varys. ;-) She did overhear Illyrio and Varys scheming back in AGoT. She could piece together the whole picture at some point. There would be a certain symmetry to Sansa killing Littlefinger and Arya killing Varys. The two masterminds taken out by the two Stark girls. Besides, if anyone can fool Varys' little birds, it's likely a Faceless Man. She may also take out some other guys who serve as a distraction from the War for Dawn. It's unlikely that her ninja powers would be any good against the Others or wights, but she could spare Jon and Dany and co a lot of work by helping them with getting rid of their political opponents that refuse to cooperate. Well, I assume she will take care of food redistribution and she will try to keep people's spirits up as she did during the Blackwater. (Not sure how she will manage the former since she apparently sucks at math, but GRRM seems to be setting her up as such a figure.) Well, it happened kinda quickly. Lyanna Mormont led the hype, and the next moment they were waving with their swords in the air. I guess Jon was still in shock from the battle and all. But, it would have made for a funny, awkward scene if in the next second he started embarassedly, "Wait..." Given GRRM's history of portraying sisters and female friendships, I tend to believe that they would have ended up tearing each other's hair soon enough. Maybe a childless Rhaenys would have been content to follow Visenya, but I'm not so sure of that in case she had already given birth to Aenys, and Visenya would have most likely resented the idea of her younger sister having the last word, especially since Rhaenys basically stole her position as Aegon's wife and mother of his heir. Particularly if Aegon really wasn't Aenys' progenitor. Why should she let herself be commanded by Rhaenys just because she gave birth to a child. I'm not sure. I mean, people are used to Winterfell as the 'capital' of the North, so from this point it has value... but it may be that the wardenship and rest would have from now on remain with the line of the Boltons of the Dreadfort. Going by your scenario, there would likely start a civil war between the Boltons of the Dreadfort and the Boltons of Winterfell the next generation at the latest. I doubt Jon cares much. If he wasn't trying to make allies in the South, I fully expect he would be seeing to the defences of the Wall personally. He wouldn't sitting in some castle hall listening to petitions. He'd let Sansa deal with that.
  12. I'm not sure how they could have built it up. Arya and Sansa only reunited last episode. Well, Arya is a girl. We know from GRRM that there has never been a ruling Lady of Winterfell or Queen in the North. Even in that old wildling legend about Bael the Bard, the lordship passed from Brandon the Daughterless straight to his bastard grandson, leaving out the Stark daughter in the middle. To be honest, I don't think that Book Arya would have been too happy about the idea of beeing left out of the succession at the basis that she is a woman - after all, she actually believes that women are important too, but then, I'm not sure how much she would care to push the issue. Especially if she arrived in the North after the fact. I've never gotten the impression that she's ambitious or has some kind of political or social program she'd like to apply. Either way, I don't think it's ever going to become an issue. Don't you think it is a bit extreme to kill guards who don't recognize you and do their job of not letting you in on your say so? They could have been more pleasant, but Arya has seen far worse dickheads. And they were still Stark soldiers. LOL, I agree with you that Sansa deserves the North... and the North deserves her, but for very different reasons than you believe. Objectively, Sansa in the show is a shady manipulator that at the same time happens to be very stupid, but the showrunners want us to buy into the idea that she's some kind of briliant political player and stuff. Now, Jon has not been portarayed as the sharpest tool in the box either, but at least he is honest. The way I see it, he should follow his dream of finding somewhere warm to live. He and Dany can stay together in the South - the North doesn't want the Targaryens and other foreigners anyway - and meanwhile Sandra Bolton can lead her small band of xenophobic, overproud pricks against the WW. Should be almost as amusing to watch as a Monty Python sketch. Frankly, I believe that both Rhaenys and Visenya were more important for the survival of the Targaryen dynasty their brother, but Aegon acted as a very important symbol. Think of the monikers that the Westerosi lavish upon him - Aegon the Conqueror and Aegon the Dragon. Even during the Baratheon reign they speak of the Iron Throne as the throne of Aegon the Conqueror. Visenya and Rhaenys do not receive the same treatment. That said, it's not impossible that they would not have conquered and ruled Westeros on their own - Nymeria managed to prevail in Dorne, after all - but it would have been harder. And why make things harder, no? Besides, as I said, it's better to have three dragons than two. On HBO: I doubt they would reveal that Jon's father is Rhaegar Targaryen to change it the next season lol. I assume that there much guest chambers for noble guests? I mean, when Robert's court had arrived in S1, it's unlikely that he and his family were sleeping in the stables. I guess that Jon would ultimately ended up with the Dreadfort. I mean, that kind of thing would happen in the books with the Boltons if they proved victorious. Roose Bolton can be Warden of the North (and according to Lady Dustin maybe even a king) without becoming Lord of Winterfell.
  13. Well, Jon and Arya may not have seen each other for a long time, but Sansa and Arya have not seen each other almost equally long, and their relationship until their parting wasn't a warm one. They were fighting constantly. Right now they are at the point of resolving their issues (even GRRM said that Arya and Sansa have issues to work out). Hence Arya's snide remark that Sansa has always liked nice things. And while the show has never put much emphasis on the Jon-Arya relationship (partially probably due to the difference of the television medium), it seems that they still keep it, going by Sansa's remark about Jon's immense joy upon seeing Arya. The show has been playing with the notion of Sansa's ambivalent nature for some time now, and Arya serves as a mouthpiece of that. Besides, according to the leaked scripts there is actually supposed to be sibling rivalry going on between Jon and Sansa and Sansa is supposed to be somewhat resentful, so Arya actually picked up on an existing sentiment, although she has probably taken it too far in her conclusion, hopefully. Hard to say about Visenya. It may be she cared for Aegon than he cared for her, but not neccessarily. Either way, Visenya was a clever and capable woman, and she would see that Aegon's survival is important for the fledgling dynasty. If only because he rode the biggest dragon. Besides, the Westerosi take better to the idea of male rulers. Visenya and/or Rhaenys alone wouldn't have gained acceptance as comparatively easily. As for the canonicity of supplementary material, HBO also released a flowchart to explain who Jon’s father was. They kinda count on the idea that people watch Inside the Episode and visit their webpages to get a firmer grip on what's going on. And for what it's worth, Jon has never been titled Lord of Winterfell by anybody anywhere, so empty title or not, nominally Sansa rules Winterfell in her own right. This arrangement was probably D&D's idea of making it 'fair' - ie, Sansa and Jon each receive a title. Either way it doesn't really matter because it's seems that for this or that reason Jon will not remain King in the North long enough to need a seat of his own.
  14. LOL, the way things are shaping up they should wind up at a similar mental place. Arya's a cold-blooded assassin with scary magic and Jon is going to be some sort of a wolfman wight. I doubt that either of them is going to clutch their pearls at the sight of the other. I don't see why they shouldn't get along splendidly. Frankly, her reaction to that hypothetical situation is dependent on the exact kind of scenario. It would all depend on the exact way Jon to power, on the exact reasons why his siblings were skipped, on his success at dealing with the threat to the North etc. What's got marriage to do with anything? Jon Arryn and Lysa Tully were married and had a child together. Does it mean they were closer than Jon and Arya, too? It has been made clear that Aegon married Visenya only because the custom dictated to marry the oldest sister. There's absolutely nothing that suggests they had ever been close prior to that. Later on they had a working relationship and they had to preserve appearances during social events, but there's little that has the air of true affection between them. Look, there is a lot of problems with the show's portrayal of characters, but Arya being shown as partial to Jon is not one of them. Arya loves Sansa, but she loves Jon more. If the Northern dunderheads chose Jon over Sansa in the first place without having much reason to do so, then Arya preferring her favorite brother to a sister whom she's never been particularly close to is a no-brainer. I read it after S6 ended in HBO's Game of Thrones Viewers' Guide. I remember it being discussed in the fandom as well. After the finale, Sansa was clearly titled as Lady of Winterfell and Jon as King in the North.
  15. Well, his parentage would be a big deal for him, for Dany, probably for the Stark children. He grew up as a Stark bastard, the realization that he may be a prince in theory should rock his world, his self-image, his opinion on Ned, etc. OTOH I doubt that in the books it will be all that clearcut that he is legitimate. Rhaegar Targaryen already had a wife and polygany had fallen into disuse ages ago (and the annulment BS is impossible in the books). The only one that has allegedly attempted to revive the custom was Daemon Blackfyre, so he could get married to Rohanne of Tyrosh and Daenerys both, which kinda says it all. Jon's claim to legitimacy would be... highly controversial, to say the least. That doesn't mean that Dany won't regard him as a Targaryen all the same, because she doesn't want to be the last one. Other than that, mayhaps D&D thought that having Jon to be revealed to be a bastard of another family would not be a big enough shocker? I mean, I've had plenty of discussions in which people have asked me what's the point of Jon's secret parentage if he's still a bastard. Might be that D&D found the revelation that Jon's legitimacy should be still doubtful similarly underwhelming. On the whole, I agree with you on the wight Jon point. I believe that he will be somewhat different from Beric, but the core of what GRRM says about the undead makes it clear that there is no true coming back from death for anybody. Having Jon return as for most part the same guy would entirely defeat what he has tried to do with Beric - and his point regarding Tolkien and Gandalf the White. Reading through fan discussions, I have usually come across idea that Jon will return more savage, his death will be a convenient loophole to get him from his vows, etc. He's supposed to be the same old Jon, but cooler, and he's supposed to get out of his vows without any moral dilemma... which is just totally missing the heart of GRRM's writing. If our traumatized wolfman wight survives it's imho far more likely that he will hole up in a place like the Nightfort, not wanting to have anything to do with the living, rather than live among crowds in some capital to care for mundane matters of ruling. After all, he wouldn't be the first melancholic Targaryen to react that way, would he? Aegon I was a mostly absentee king that isolated himself on Dragonstone and left the actual job of ruling to his sisters. Aegon III dealt with his childhood trauma by staying in his rooms and not speaking to other people for days. Jon's own bilogical father's favorite pastime was to spend days by squatting at Summerhal not taking much notice of his father's madness etc. Btw, that Jon pets Drogon doesn't mean that he's supposed to be his new master. I mean, if Dany pets Ghost next season, would you take from it that Jon dies and Dany inherits his wolf? Drogon is Dany's spirit animal. He accepts Jon, because Dany's in love with him, although it's a new feeling that she's struggling with. It's true that it shouldn't work that way in the books, but show dragons are different from book dragons. For one, Rhaegal and Viserion seem to follow Dany and Drogon without any trouble to the extent that no other dragonriders are really needed. Also, didn't someone on the show say at one point that their dragons are supposed to cleverer than humans? That's not a thing in the books either.