House Mosse

Members
  • Content count

    54
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About House Mosse

  • Rank
    Freerider

Recent Profile Visitors

255 profile views
  1. Yeah, it's reminding us where we've come from, shows that that is falling to pieces (even if the players don't yet know it), and that the great war is about to be unleashed. Pretty cool I reckon.
  2. Why not go way back - the coming of the Andals to Westeros, or even to the age of heroes, Bran the Builder etc.? These are legend or even myth at the time of the War of the Five Kings, so why not find out what really happened?
  3. Brienne's Feast chapters are some of the best - a proper study of the feudal system if the core of the Seven Kingdoms.
  4. [Austrian accent]: Sarah Connor...
  5. That is true, in the show they both know that Bran is alive, or at least that Theon did not kill him. Technically, as the next in line and the senior family member present, that would make her Castellan, or acting head of the Stark family and holder of their titles in Bran's absence. Like when Robb was in Winterfell when Ned went south, or like Edmure when Hoster Tully was too sick to rule. That does weaken her authority significantly. Having said that, as far as EVERYONE ELSE knows, Sansa is the Lady of Winterfell (unless she tells them otherwise). In either case, the Starks are back in Winterfell and are the rightful holders of their titles and lands, and their usurping competitors, the Boltons, are dead. That gives them about 1000% more clout than they had before the Battle of the Bastards.
  6. Last week, by virtue of Sansa's marriage to Ramsay, Ramsay was the rightful owner of Winterfell and the rightful holder of the associated Great Lordship of the North. Ramsay had inherited the position of Ned and Robb Stark. Now that Ramsay is dead and without an heir, it reverts to Sansa. Last week she was not the Lady of Winterfell. This week she is. Everyone thinks Bran is dead, and Rickon is dead. Again, this week but not last week, and as far as everybody is aware, Sansa is the heir to and current holder of the Stark lands and titles. For practical purposes she could use either the Bolton or the Stark name. Stark seems more sensible. The reason why first the Lannisters and then the Boltons wanted to marry her is because she is the heir to the North. They both stated it repeatedly. When Tywin Lannister says it it is probably true. By marrying her, Tyrion/Ramsay gains the Lordship of Winterfell, and their children inherit that position. Unmarried, as she is since Ramsay's death, Sansa holds the position. Cersie Lannister is still referred to as Cersie Lannister and was able to inherit the position of Lady of the Rock despite having been married to Robert Baratheon before his death.
  7. 3 weeks ago, Sansa was not a Stark, she was a Bolton. Then Ramsay got his face eaten off. Now she is legitimately the head of House Stark, and she holds Winterfell. The Lady of Winterfell with a bastard son of Eddard Stark to lead her armies is an entirely different prospect than the female beggar Lord, in opposition to her Warden of the North husband and with a bastard Brother, that she was three weeks ago.
  8. "If we follow Westerosei monarchy, is Sansa even able to be Queen?" It's nobility rather than monarchy, but in the North and across Westeros women can certainly inherit the position of great lord if they have no true born brothers. Maege Mormont, Lyanna Mormont, Lady Whent, what's her name in the Vale, etc. And as Kytheros says above, Cersie becoming The Lady of the Rock. So Sansa certainly can become the Lady of Winterfell - indeed, that is the current situation. Now that Rickon is dead, Sansa is the head of the North by Right (unless people realise Bran is still alive), and all the Northern lords owe her fealty. Jon is merely bastard brother to the Lady of Winterfell, though he still carries a certain moral weight as Ned's son. Regarding Monarchy, I guess the Dance of Dragons was fought largely over that point, but I can't remember how it panned out. However, in A Storm of Swords, when Davos is brought from the cells under Dragonstone to see Stannis he asks Stannis why he wants the Iron Throne. Stannis says there is no want about it, as Robert's younger brother it is his by right, and it must pass to his daughter Shireen, unless Selyse bears him a son. Stannis is a stickler for the rules, so it seems certain that if the only descendent of the King is a daughter, she will be ruling Queen. "Daughters have always been bypassed for their brothers in the line of succession." Only trueborn brothers. Bastards are not in the line of succession at all. For instance, with the Freys, the succession is discussed a lot and the bastards are never in it. This is also why Stannis offers to legitimise Jon and make him Lord of Winterfell and Warden of the North. If he is not legitimate, he cannot be these things. "As for KitN, does it even matter if Jon is true born or not? They are rising up in Rebellion against the ruling house. His last name means Nothing if he has the army to follow him." I guess that's technically true, in that the guy with the biggest army will get the crown in the end. Aegon the Conqueror had no right other than might. The Blackfyre rebellions were predicated on a line of bastards and a story about the handing down of the family sword. Renly had a pop, despite being younger brother (though certainly not bastard). Having said that, legitimacy is hugely important, and in these world people believe in the sanctity of the line of succession. Jon would not be viewed as legitimate by his people. Sansa, on the other hand, is. She is the trueborn Stark heir.
  9. Hmmm, yeah, interesting thought...
  10. I think a lot turns on that point. Had she even heard anything from him. She couldn't really receive a raven without anyone knowing about it. It's possible some king of 'little bird'-esque messenger had got through to her, but we haven't seen any sign of that. It seems like if she had been certain, or close to certain, that the Knights of the Vale were on the way, surely she would have said something? But maybe not... we will find out somewhere along the line I reckon.
  11. Exactly. Re his behaviour (as this it is this point I was trying to contribute) this is particularly the case as she had explicitly warned him that Ramsay was going to do something to try and provoke him into acting like an emotional spaz. So yeah, dickish moves from both. Still a great episode though.
  12. Maybe. I am not saying that he doesn't have reason to be angry with her. I am just saying that she also has reason to be angry with him.
  13. Oh, and a follow up point Great Winter Night. Re your point "In fantasy I would like the good guys/woman end on top." I think we will see that, at least to some extent, and it looks like will be from the women. That was what Dany's speech about leaving the world a better place, as opposed to their fathers who left it a worse place, was about. But this is the World of Ice and Fire here. It's not going to be too perfect. These women cannot be naive. They still have to play the game effectively, whilst being as honourable and compassionate as it is possible to be in this world, which unfortunately is some way from perfection.
  14. I agree that Sansa has questions to answer about not telling Jon about the Knights of the Vale. I just think that Sansa also has reasons to be pissed at Jon, for doing EXACTLY what she warned him not to do and leading them all into a death trap. Jon was lining up for a proper battle, fair and square. That is all very honourable and something we all support in theory, but she was telling him that this is not how the game is played in the Seven Kingdoms. She knows Ramsay (as well as the Lannisters, Tyrells etc.) and she knows that he will not play fair and square, that he will pull some devious mind game shit, and she is right. It might work fighting salt of the earth wildlings, but if you fight the honourable Ned Stark way in this world you wind up with your head rolling down the steps of Bealor's Sept.