Smoke317 Posted June 30, 2016 Share Posted June 30, 2016 29 minutes ago, Lyin' Ned said: Didn't say she was more Stark than Jon, tho. But she is a Stark and he's a bastard (or a Targaryen), and that's a fact. She has a better claim to Winterfell (and therefore to the reign of the North) than him, that's the law. And Jon should've said, "Whoa, whoa, fellas, I appreciate the sentiment but Sansa is the trueborn daughter of Ned Stark here, not me. She's the rightful Lady of Winterfell, Robb's rightful heir. And even if you don't want her, Bran and Arya are still alive out there somewhere, and both of them have a better claim than me." Jon being declared KitN over an actual Stark was literally Catelyn's worst nightmare. She would tear out her face all over again if she was alive. Lol. Good one. Cat really would do that wouldn't she. Part of me still hopes that in the books if Jon is resurrected by the red god that it's Cat that gives him the kiss of life. She treated Jon so terribly in both the show and books. Maybe if she finds out his true parentage, she'll bring him back to avenge the Starks and place one of her children as the Lord of Winterfell again. You kinda have these subtle hints of the BWB heading North in the show. Perhaps they will in the books too. Also in the books there's the vision of Sansa killing a giant in a castle made of snow... I think Sansa will continue her arc of becoming a true Stark by her actions not just her name. She'll kill LF before she lets him harm Jon. And when it's all said and done, I hope Sansa becomes the Lady of the Vale or Riverrun. I think Cat would be even more happy with the latter. Even more so than her becoming the lady of Winterfell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smoke317 Posted June 30, 2016 Share Posted June 30, 2016 38 minutes ago, Future Null Infinity said: At least she's the stark who cared about their homeland and liberated Winterfell from the boltons, and yes she's the most stark of all the starks, other than jon give me another stark who did that? Did she really care? I think she did what she did because of LF's prodding and suggesting. She said herself this episode that she was always trying to leave. I guess her hard times have brought her some clearer perspective... We'll see how long it lasts... This episode and the reunion scene with Jon has been Sophie's best acting and the best Sansa we've seen in the show barring a couple other minor scenes (her walk down the stairs at the Vale and her standing up to Joffrey on the bridge at KL and willing to leap to her death with him being the others). She seemed genuine and not whiny and selfish in that scene and this episode. I hope D&D run with this character arc. I think it would really get the most out of Sophie's acting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smoke317 Posted June 30, 2016 Share Posted June 30, 2016 40 minutes ago, Future Null Infinity said: please respect yourself and respect the posters, you are not on tumblr to throw insults left and right You are very correct. I apologize to all of the Sansa fans. It just baffles the mind that anyone who has watched the show can call Sansa a great leader or tactician. She's been a pawn in everyone else's game thus far until she walked past Littlefinger this past episode. And giving her credit for bringing the Vale after withholding this information from Jon wasn't the sign of a tactical genius. It was quite foolish and selfish. Unless Sansa was hoping for Jon to be killed and thus she can gain control of Winterfell for herself. Which they seem to show wasn't her intention. Her apology brought us back to her first apology during their initial reunion. I hope they don't keep with the yo yo act with Sansa because it's like she takes a step forward then two steps back. Either make her pro family and she sides with Jon until the end, giving him council and being completely honest with him (allowing him to lead because her character has never led a thing) or just turn her dark and make her a badass Cersei type who's playing the game to win and whoever is in her way is her enemy. I'll take and love either. Just no more plot yo yo creations to empower her and make her something she's not then try to justify it to please her fans at the expense of more important characters and the story itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trickrs Posted June 30, 2016 Share Posted June 30, 2016 1 hour ago, Smoke317 said: Good generalship??? Are you joking? What in the hell has Sansa ever led or commanded. Everything she's done has been done as a pawn of someone else... You Sansa fans are ridiculous. Sansa ain't fit to lead anything but a knitting/sewing class. This shit you're giving Sansa praise for was done because of plot. Read first, rant later, I said that she had all of it through the Knights of the Vale, they went there to rescue her, not to serve Jon, so in a claiming, the Vale would back her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smoke317 Posted June 30, 2016 Share Posted June 30, 2016 1 minute ago, Trickrs said: Read first, rant later, I said that she had all of it through the Knights of the Vale, they went there to rescue her, not to serve Jon, so in a claiming, the Vale would back her. She should marry Robin and throw him and LF out the moon door. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TwiceBorn Posted June 30, 2016 Share Posted June 30, 2016 On 29.06.2016 at 8:43 AM, Thror Baratheon said: Not so. Initially kings were elected. Or defeated rival claimants in battle. Yes ... those who elected could unmake the king. Typically, the election involved trade offs where the new king gave concessions to the electors. Not laughable re. breaking oaths. In the Nobles eyes, King Robb broke _his_ oath (abrogated one of his primary responsibilities) by not returning to the north and helping protect them vs the Ironborn. Thus the Nobles were justified in breaking their oaths, in their eyes. EDIT: here are 2 historical example of nations who elected their rulers down until modern times: The Holy Roman Empire (whose Kaisers/Emperors were chosen by the approx 7 Elector Princes) and the Kingdom of Poland (where the entire nobility had a vote ... I think) 1. Unlike warlord or president a king isn't chosen by the people but by the God/Gods themselves. His right to rule is divine. 2. Oh yes, they've justified themselves once, they will again. 3. Well, unlike most people think HRE were not simply elected by the majority of electors, The pope usually had a say in this and the "election" often resulted in war. See Ottokar II of Bohemia as an example. When it comes to Kingdom of Poland - you cannot compare it in any way with Westeros, since even the nobility concept was defined differently, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chib Posted June 30, 2016 Share Posted June 30, 2016 There is a good blog written by a Sansa fan why the Stark must accept the kingship that Northen lords are throwing on Jon: http://him-e.tumblr.com/post/146568264616/so-jon-snow-is-the-king-in-the-north-is-that Quote This is not a private conversation with Stannis where Jon gets to casually throw a “Winterfell belongs to my sister Sansa” line and get away with it. This is an assembly of the lords of the entire North, suddenly and unanimously agreeing that he is their king and acclaiming him—if Robb’s example means anything, this is a critical situation where you basically either accept the title, or are burned forever as a leader. You don’t just shrug and say “no you got it all wrong, I won’t be your king, it’s Sansa your rightful ruler” in such a situation, because saying so means risking to lose the support you just (miraculously, I’d say) gained. Many of the lords in there didn’t even want to pledge for house stark until the day before, and they were brought on board by a stirring speech of Lyanna Mormont and the impending threat of the Long Night that Jon just explained them.Jon backing off and rejecting kingship at this point would have been perceived as him not wanting to lead them into battle, i.e. being weak. THIS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. This is why Robb, when the lords called him king in the North, didn’t say “cool but let me think about it for a while, okay? Maybe it’s a more sensible idea to support Stannis’ claim”. Even though, in hindsight, it totally was the more sensible idea. When your lords are yelling and roaring that you’re their king, you don’t cower and find excuses not to rule, you FUCKING NOD AND ACCEPT THE CROWN. That’s what you do. It’s alpha male bullshit, male posturing 101, but it’s important. 4 And seriously this is technically the north choosing someone to go to war with them, so it's obvious why they chose Jon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Future Null Infinity Posted June 30, 2016 Share Posted June 30, 2016 Good thing that they didn't include Robb's will, it was consistent with Jon Snow's story, he's the boy that didn't like and always lamented being a bastard and yet the destiny always put him in positions that no bastard can dream of (LC, KitN and probably king of Westeros) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TwiceBorn Posted June 30, 2016 Share Posted June 30, 2016 It is important to remember that Robb was not a son of a king. He had no birthright. He was made. The result? Immediately the decisions were forced upon him. He failed to prove himself (merit) and died. The birthright is the easiest way to become a king. Whatever you decide it's OK because you are a king and God/Gods will it. You do something wrong? Blame it on someone else (usually the Hand) and people will eagerly believe you had nothing to do with it. Merit is even better: whatever you decide is OK as long as you left none of your rivals standing. Who will question you when God/Gods favor you so? What are they to do if you are unrivaled beneath the skies? But when you are made, people who made you boss you around, do whatever they want and question your every decision. "You want to behead me? Me? I made you king! You are nothing! You are not a king!". Now for the "critical moment" thing. The book provides us with powerful counterexample: the Tattered Prince. Hence we know that you are not "burned forever as a leader" if you refuse a title. It's only that neither Robb nor Jon could afford to be patient. This is their personal tragedy - they are constantly forced to choose between bad and worse and since they are good people they are ultimately unable to. Now Jon is pretty much screwed, unless something pretty unusual happens. Was that the intent of showrunners? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illinifan Posted June 30, 2016 Share Posted June 30, 2016 Perhaps having Jon make a few more semi-competent decisions prior to the scene might make it more believable. He has shown more flashes of good leadership than the lady with a gazillion titles and dragons, but I think that the ridiculous decision to run out onto the middle of the battlefield is still clouding people's judgment. If the endgame is Dany and Jon and it is based on merit, then the show has to show both of them becoming competent leaders. The Dany and Jon really suck at this arc actually makes sense given their experiences; a deposed princess and the bastard son wouldn't have been groomed to be future kings or lords. It is subverting the King Arthur trope where the hidden prince is suddenly acknowledged as king and becomes the best and most just king of all time. That is just unrealistic but Jon and Dany cannot continue blundering for the story to make sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LazyBazooka Posted June 30, 2016 Share Posted June 30, 2016 On 6/27/2016 at 9:26 PM, Free Northman Reborn said: So the question then becomes - why did Benioff and Weiss deliberately decide to cut Robb's will from the Show? It makes no sense. Because that would've given the audience hope after the Red Wedding. Can't have that, the show thrives on nihilism and hopelessness. That, and D&D simply do not plan ahead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoreOrLess Posted June 30, 2016 Share Posted June 30, 2016 The big issue is surely that Sansa DOES support Jon being named King of the North? she pretty obviously implies this on the scene on the battlements and when she rejects Littlefinger. I would not be surprised if LF creates tension between Jon and Sansa in the future(especially about how to act next, defend the Wall or potentially defend/act against southern enemies?) but right now the story is that he's overestimated his hold on Sansa and the importance of the exact niceties of succession in the north. Jon being "close enough" to a Stark heir that his actions earn him enough respect to be named King of the North is I think perfectly realistic in the shows world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dolorous Gabe Posted June 30, 2016 Share Posted June 30, 2016 41 minutes ago, LazyBazooka said: Because that would've given the audience hope after the Red Wedding. Can't have that, the show thrives on nihilism and hopelessness. That, and D&D simply do not plan ahead. Yep. Or if they do plan ahead, they deliberately avoid throwing in things that might help predict the future story, even things that the majority will have forgotten by then. The will would also have provided greater legitimacy to Jon's decision to leave the NW, given that he had already turned down Stannis' similar offer. Robb naming him his heir would have a more profound affect on him than Stannis' offer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chib Posted June 30, 2016 Share Posted June 30, 2016 2 hours ago, Future Null Infinity said: Good thing that they didn't include Robb's will, it was consistent with Jon Snow's story, he's the boy that didn't like and always lamented being a bastard and yet the destiny always put him in positions that no bastard can dream of (LC, KitN and probably king of Westeros) Without Robb's will, Sansa is the Lady of Winterfell. http://viewers-guide.hbo.com/game-of-thrones/season-6/episode-10/houses/4/house-stark I am still puzzled by this situation though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Future Null Infinity Posted June 30, 2016 Share Posted June 30, 2016 9 minutes ago, Chib said: Without Robb's will, Sansa is the Lady of Winterfell. http://viewers-guide.hbo.com/game-of-thrones/season-6/episode-10/houses/4/house-stark I am still puzzled by this situation though I think that the degree of realism doesn't really matter, the point and the image that they wanted to put by this scene is that Jon earned the KitN like he earned the LC even if he's a bastard (his destiny pushed him up again in a position of power) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chib Posted June 30, 2016 Share Posted June 30, 2016 Just now, Future Null Infinity said: I think that the degree of realism doesn't really matter, the point and the image that they wanted to put by this scene is that Jon earned the KitN like he earned the LC even if he's a bastard (his destiny pushed him up again in a position of power) I think in the book, Robb's will would trip Sansa away all of her rights for Winterfell? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illinifan Posted June 30, 2016 Share Posted June 30, 2016 27 minutes ago, MoreOrLess said: The big issue is surely that Sansa DOES support Jon being named King of the North? she pretty obviously implies this on the scene on the battlements and when she rejects Littlefinger. I would not be surprised if LF creates tension between Jon and Sansa in the future(especially about how to act next, defend the Wall or potentially defend/act against southern enemies?) but right now the story is that he's overestimated his hold on Sansa and the importance of the exact niceties of succession in the north. Jon being "close enough" to a Stark heir that his actions earn him enough respect to be named King of the North is I think perfectly realistic in the shows world. LF, a self made man who thrives on chaos, did not understand how the chaos might benefit another self made man. It makes sense that Jon became king in this world. We've seen a complete breakdown in the political and legal norms of succession. There is no heir to the Iron Throne and it has been seized by Cersei, who has no claim on it. Dorne has been taken over by the Sand Snakes. The Tyrells are decimated. The Lannisters are decimated. The North is actually in better shape than the rest of Westros. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maid So Fair Posted June 30, 2016 Share Posted June 30, 2016 Because foreshadowing and tension building are for eight grade book reports. Seeding the idea of Jon as KITN would mean that the audience would be less shocked (TM) when Lyanna proposed it. It means we could t have the artificial tension between Jon and Sandra, because it's not possible for a conflict we know is imminent to be dramatically satisfying (just like the Battle of Blackwater was so devil's of tension). It would mean that the Northern Lords couldn't be portrayed as complete dunces, eliminating the need for LF to save the day and increasing the odds in the Battle of the Bastards, the outcome of which was so up in the air. Because D&D are evidently incapable of making an anticipated storyline dramatic and interesting and have to rely on cheap shocks to compensate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Future Null Infinity Posted June 30, 2016 Share Posted June 30, 2016 6 minutes ago, Chib said: I think in the book, Robb's will would trip Sansa away all of her rights for Winterfell? Sorry, I don't know Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chib Posted June 30, 2016 Share Posted June 30, 2016 Just now, Future Null Infinity said: Sorry, I don't know I remember Robb did that so her husband will not get a hand on Winterfell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.