purple-eyes Posted July 2, 2016 Share Posted July 2, 2016 14 minutes ago, Chib said: Well actually Tyrion can still come back and claim to be Sansa's husband if he wanted. The question that Lyanna Mormont asked Sansa was pretty much the confused situation of Sansa: "Are you a Lannister or Bolton?" The North is not convinced that Sansa is totally free from her marriages. And I think that in many parts of Westeros, they still think of Sansa as Tyrion's wife. this is the problem of show. in the book, it will not be confusing. they will officially dissolve her marriage with tyrion before make her marry somebody as sansa stark. GRRM is careful about these details. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLastLibrarian Posted July 2, 2016 Share Posted July 2, 2016 29 minutes ago, Chib said: Well actually Tyrion can still come back and claim to be Sansa's husband if he wanted. The question that Lyanna Mormont asked Sansa was pretty much the confused situation of Sansa: "Are you a Lannister or Bolton?" The North is not convinced that Sansa is totally free from her marriages. And I think that in many parts of Westeros, they still think of Sansa as Tyrion's wife. What a poor excuse you are giving here, you are saying that because a trueborn stark married a lannister and a bolton it's mean that she's no longer a stark and she don't have any right on Winterfell?? it's the poorest excuse I ever seen it's like you are saying that Daenerys by her mariage to Khal Drogo, she's no longer a targaryen and don't have any claim on the IT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chib Posted July 2, 2016 Share Posted July 2, 2016 4 minutes ago, TheLastLibrarian said: What a poor excuse you are giving here, you are saying that because a trueborn stark married a lannister and a bolton it's mean that she's no longer a stark and she don't have any right on Winterfell?? it's the poorest excuse I ever seen it's in the show when Northern people questioned her identity, you're the poorest troll ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frejac Posted July 2, 2016 Share Posted July 2, 2016 About Bran: Jon and Sansa do not know that he is still alive. They know that he was still alive. They hope that he is still alive. But he's been north of the wall for quite a while now, and they do not know that he is still alive. It makes no sense to try and wait for him before figuring out northern leadership. About Jon being a bastard: Just because there is a stigma around bastard blood, and just because bastards are generally disregarded when it comes to inheritance, does not mean that the show is giving Jon special treatment by giving him a title while being a bastard. It has been well established in the show that bastards can be a threat to more legitimate claimants. Why do you think Joffrey has all of Roberts bastards killed in King's Landing? Because they were a potential threat to his power. I think at that point he'd begun hearing the incest baby rumors and saw his position weakened; he saw that people might choose to support a bastard over him if that bastard could rally enough support. When a legitimate claimant to a title has factors that weaken their claim, bastards become a more appealing option for many of their supporters. This is what happens with Sansa. She is a woman, and she has twice been married to Stark enemies. Because of this, the North chooses Jon. It's not fanservice. Side Note: Just because the show hasn't depicted conversations about Jon's resurrection, his leaving the Night's Watch, and the threat from beyond the Wall, does not mean those conversations have not happened. While I would like to have seen them made explicit, it is implied that these issues have, in fact, been discussed. First, Davos and Jon tell Lyanna about the war between the living and the dead, and this is what ultimately wins her support. It would make no sense if they never tried this tactic again after it was successful once. Second, when Jon talks about the war not being over and how the true enemy brings the storm, no one asks him what he's talking about. This implies that, at the very least, he has tried to tell them about the White Walkers before. While I would have preferred the show be a bit more explicit in showing us conversations around the White Walkers, and while I would have preferred it be much more explicit in showing us conversations around Jon coming back to life and leaving the Watch, I think we have to assume that some versions of those conversations have taken place off screen in order to fit the rest of the plot on screen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLastLibrarian Posted July 2, 2016 Share Posted July 2, 2016 17 minutes ago, Chib said: it's in the show when Northern people questioned her identity, you're the poorest troll ever. the northern people?? the same people that didn't want to help the starks in the first place?? if it wasn't sansa and the knight of the vale, those northern people are being flayed by now by Ramsay, they are a gang of "ass kissers", don't throw your poor excuses saying Sansa is no longer a stark, People here convinced me that KitN and Lord/Lady of winterfell are separate titles and there is no conflict between the starks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chib Posted July 2, 2016 Share Posted July 2, 2016 22 minutes ago, TheLastLibrarian said: the northern people?? the same people that didn't want to help the starks in the first place?? if it wasn't sansa and the knight of the vale, those northern people are being flayed by now by Ramsay, they are a gang of "ass kissers", don't throw your poor excuses saying Sansa is no longer a stark, People here convinced me that KitN and Lord/Lady of winterfell are separate titles and there is no conflict between the starks 3 There is conflict between the Starks or not, we will only know by the time the book will be released or the next season happens. True born or not, Sansa is still a woman who has been married 2 times to the enemies and can't go to battle herself, and her first husband can always be a threat to the North if he wants to. If you were them and want to risk to that threat then go on. Stop quoting me, troll. I have no more words with someone who idolizes a guy who burns his own daughter to ash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
schweiny91 Posted July 2, 2016 Share Posted July 2, 2016 If you say Jon keeps getting all kinds of fanservice least he's not flat out being given everything like Dany is simply because she's flame retardent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darksky Posted July 2, 2016 Share Posted July 2, 2016 3 hours ago, Morgana Lannister said: I personally would favour this separation, i.e. one Lord (or Lady) of Winterfell and the King (Queen) in the North. The don't seem to be going this way in the show though and this leaves Sansa a little "out of a job" Yes, they are going this way. http://viewers-guide.hbo.com/game-of-thrones/season-6/episode-10/houses/4/house-stark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jedi Renee Posted July 2, 2016 Share Posted July 2, 2016 22 hours ago, captaindargo said: HA! Stannis burned his daughter at the stake and lost. Jon tried to save his brother. Jon got to beat the snot out of Ramsey. Stannis got an off screen death. I would say Jon was smart to reject Stannis. We haven't seen stannis die or his body. Long live the one true king (at least in the books ) 8 hours ago, KingInTheBay said: The true king Stannis? The baby burner? You do realize Shireen would be Queen the moment Tommen dived out the window if her father hadn't cooked his heir. The work of d and villainsing stannis so the could give his story to Jon :^). Jon should have helped stannis like in the books get the northern men to help Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jedi Renee Posted July 2, 2016 Share Posted July 2, 2016 21 hours ago, TheLastLibrarian said: This is why always I hated him and the extreme favouritism of the story towards Jon, first they killed the True King Stannis and gave his story to Jon and now they are making Sansa looks like a traitor because she's siding LF against Jon, she didn't like get usurped by a targaryen, she's the rightful heir 23 hours ago, TheLastLibrarian said: Respect yourself please and respect the other opinions, putting my opinion in this forum is not trolling, I don't know who you are and I don't know why you are playing the police in this forum? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xjlxking Posted July 2, 2016 Share Posted July 2, 2016 1 minute ago, Jedi Renee said: The work of d and villainsing stannis so the could give his story to Jon :^). Jon should have helped stannis like in the books get the northern men to help That's funny! I forgot that he didn't kill his brother in the books. Also, the SHOW build him up naturally over 4 seasons as a man who changes. This is the guy who without a thought got his brother killed. He thought about killing his daughter before but rejected her. He lost every battle he could have but still demanded to be the true king. Even in the end, he refused to stop and kill his daughter trying to do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jedi Renee Posted July 2, 2016 Share Posted July 2, 2016 6 minutes ago, xjlxking said: That's funny! I forgot that he didn't kill his brother in the books. Also, the SHOW build him up naturally over 4 seasons as a man who changes. This is the guy who without a thought got his brother killed. He thought about killing his daughter before but rejected her. He lost every battle he could have but still demanded to be the true king. Even in the end, he refused to stop and kill his daughter trying to do it. If stannis didn't have him killed first Renly would have done the same thing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xjlxking Posted July 2, 2016 Share Posted July 2, 2016 4 minutes ago, Jedi Renee said: If stannis didn't have him killed first Renly would have done the same thing We don't know that, he could have beaten him in battle and exiled him afterwards. The truth is, reply had the support of a much bigger realm and was in a position to take control of the seven kingdoms; his brother thought he had the right to be king because he was born a earlier, despite having a lot less support. So he resorted to what I'd say is black magic and kill his brother in cold blood Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jedi Renee Posted July 2, 2016 Share Posted July 2, 2016 he did it because Renly wrongfully usurped his claim and wouldnt surrneder when stannis offered this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xjlxking Posted July 2, 2016 Share Posted July 2, 2016 Just now, Jedi Renee said: he did it because Renly wrongfully usurped his claim and wouldnt surrneder when stannis offered this. Right of conquest. It was wrongful of Robert to become king but that enabled him. But let's say it was wrongfully, he still killed his brother in cold blood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yakisikli123 Posted July 3, 2016 Share Posted July 3, 2016 14 hours ago, Darksky said: Are you kidding? How does Jon usurp anything when he didn't seek out to seize power? It was bestowed on him by the Lords. Jon is King by right of acclamation just like Robb was. Robb wasn't King based on birthright because Ned WASN'T King. King in the North is made, not inherited. Sansa deserved shit for withholding crucial information regarding the Vale and contributing to the deaths of the Stark loyalists. She even admitted to her own mistake. Why can't her fans? It's ridiculous. What did she do for their cause anyway? She sent one letter wow what a daunting and life-risking task that was. She didn't do anything beyond that. She failed to rally the Northerners, she failed to assemble her own army (Jon and Davos did the work), she didn't help out with the battle strategy, she didn't fight in the battle. She was nothing more than a figurehead. BTW I fully believe the Vale and LF would have come anyway, Sansa begging for help or not.. Bran didn't earn shit either. He can be Lord of Winterfell if he ever returns there, just like Sansa is Lady of Winterfell now. But what has he done to earn the title of King? What has he done for the North? A cripple King who cannot father heirs is not a desired option. Never is. Jon has done a lot for the North over the years, while in the Night's Watch. And now he was the only one who actually tried to save Ned's heir, Rickon. He put his life on the line for the Stark family. Sansa just wanted revenge and Winterfell back. The Northerners see strength, nearly legendary skills, warrior spirit, determination, dedication and great potential in Jon. They are more like Dothraki and Wildlings when it comes to choosing their leaders. Jon can do a lot from the position of King in the War for the Dawn, what would Sansa be able to do as Queen? Barely anything, again she'd just be a figurehead. The plot demands Jon in a position of power, not Sansa. The Northern story is past this awful birthright entitlement and classicism. It's a huge progress. People shouldn't be shocked that the writers prioritise Jon over Sansa. He is one of the Big Three, he is the way more popular one. Sansa is second-tier, her fans need to accept the fact she will always play second fiddle to a top-tier character. And yet, the writers still have made her important and gave her something to do in the show. In the books, she's less of a character. Pushed to the edge of the plot, she serves as a camera. A way to look into Littlefinger. That's her role. Finally, a reasonable post thank you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meera of Tarth Posted July 3, 2016 Share Posted July 3, 2016 On 1/7/2016 at 10:44 PM, sj4iy said: It's essentially right of conquest at this point. Also, no one really knows if Bran is alive at this point anyway...the last time someone saw Bran was Sam and that was in season 3. Jon knows is alive (s4). and Sansa knows (s5). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meera of Tarth Posted July 3, 2016 Share Posted July 3, 2016 On 1/7/2016 at 1:45 AM, of man and wolf said: We all know Sansa knows that Bran is possibly still alive. We also probably know that Jon saw Summer and Shaggy kill some wildlings when he ran from them, and I think, if memory serves me right, that Sam even mentioned seeing them alive. So how can Jon be named king in the North? He would have to tell his Northern lords and make them aware of this. Then they would have to hold out until Bran returns or some such thing??? And Jon knows than Bran in alive in S4. It happenS this way because the show has 4 protagonists, and Bran is not considered one in the show, at least NOT YET.. It's like changing Asha to Yara (so as not to confuse viewers a.k.a big plot hole and favoritism+bad storytelling). Maybe that will be discussed in S7, but I suppose that would make Jon's story in the finale less epic if they reminded viewers that Bran exists. But it would have been nice to see Jon or Sansa at least remember they have a brother (and a sister) alive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yakisikli123 Posted July 3, 2016 Share Posted July 3, 2016 On 1.7.2016 at 1:45 AM, of man and wolf said: We all know Sansa knows that Bran is possibly still alive. We also probably know that Jon saw Summer and Shaggy kill some wildlings when he ran from them, and I think, if memory serves me right, that Sam even mentioned seeing them alive. So how can Jon be named king in the North? He would have to tell his Northern lords and make them aware of this. Then they would have to hold out until Bran returns or some such thing??? Why should they wait, the war is coming and they need a leader. I also dont want Jon be only the King in the North, he should take the Iron throne or destroy it and Bran or Sansa or Arya anybody can rule the north, if you so desperately insist that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tywin Tytosson Posted July 3, 2016 Share Posted July 3, 2016 On 7/1/2016 at 7:23 PM, Mistress of Lemon Cakes said: Then why does Lyanna Mormont go out of her way to say "Bear Island knows no king but the King in the North, whose name is Stark' It is absolutely a hereditary thing when the House of their Liege Lord is mentioned. This world is based on a feudal society. You don't just get to go "lol you are an awesome commander (even when you're not in the only example they have of you) here's the title of King. have fun!" He certainly did not win by right of conquest because he did not conquer anything. No ...what Mormont stated was that only a member of the Stark family has ever been recognized as KitN. The tile KitN was not nherited by any member of the Starks, but it was elected by the Nobility. Jon did conquer something -- Winterfell iitself.. EDIT : when Lady Mormont said "Bear Island knows no King but the King in The North", she was effectively declaring or calling for the North's independence from the Iron Throne. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.