Will Jon and Sansa become romantically involved?

[Britisher]

I know that this theory is an unpopular one as it insinuates some form incest between Jon and Sansa and contradicts the popular endorsement of Daenerys and Jon ending up together by the end of the series, but hear me out!

There's no solid evidence that Jon and Sansa will end up together, but there are some strong indications which I will outline below:

Parallels between Jon and Sansa's stories

See here: 

Although this might not be apparent for most readers their are some clear parallels between Jon and Sansa's story arcs, examples include-

• Sansa being the Stark child most associated with the Tullys (in terms of her appearance), the South and the New Gods / Jon being the Stark child most associated with the Starks (in terms of his appearance), the North and the Old Gods.
• At the beginning of Game of Thrones Sansa understands Jon in respect to the bastardised term "half-brother": she is in a position of power (a lady to be wed to the heir of the Seven Kingdoms) whilst Jon is not (a bastard joining the Night's Watch). By A Feast for Crows Sansa is a bastard, Alayne Stone - who she models after Jon, whilst Jon is the Lord Commander of the Night's Watch: their roles have reversed.
• Both have romantic ideals of the world at the beginning of the series which are smashed by the gritty reality of the real world: Jon believes the Night's Watch to be a place for honourable knight's etc. whilst Sansa whole concept of reality is literally beaten and bruised out of her across the series.
• Jon and Sansa both want children to replace the rest of their family, and they both believe that love is secondary to marriage.
• [King Crow]: Sansa wishes for a hero to take Janos Slynt's head and later Jon beheads Slynt. Since the hero always falls for the princess in the songs, this instance has a strong romantic connotation.
• [A more dubious link]: Part of them has died: Sansa's direwolf, Lady, dies in her first chapter whilst Jon actually dies at the end of A Dance with Dragons.
• Sansa hears a ghost wolf howling in her final chapter in A Feast for Crows:

Quote

There was ice underfoot, and broken stones just waiting to turn an ankle, and the wind was howling fiercely. It sounds like a wolf, thought Sansa. A ghost wolf, as big as mountains.

Arguably this links Sansa to all of the Stark children: ice underfoot = Arya Underfoot; wind howling fiercely = Bran and the ghost wolf = Jon. Daenerys also hears a wolf howling off to the distance in her final Dance with Dragons chapter.

This is perhaps the weakest link which brings Jon and Sansa together, I think it is an interesting one nonetheless. 

George RR Martin's initial outline for the series

(See here: http://watchersonthewall.com/george-r-r-martins-original-plan-game-thrones/)

In George RR Martin's apparent outline for the series it is suggested that Jon and Tyrion will develop a bitter rivalry over their "hopeless" love for Arya.

In the outline we are told:

Quote

Arya will be more forgiving... until she realizes, with terror, that she has fallen in love with Jon, who is not only her half-brother but a man of the Night's Watch, sworn to celibacy. Their passion will continue to torment Jon and Arya throughout the trilogy, until the secret of Jon's true parentage is finally revealed in the last book.

This, of course, must be read with a bowl of salt. Significant changes have been made from this apparent original outline and the Jaime and Sansa characters in particular have developed substantially from this outline. It seems that Sansa has taken on a good part of Arya's role from the original outline, and I feel that she has subsumed her role in this respect (if a romantic relationship between Jon and one of the Stark girls is still on the cards) as Sansa is closer to Jon's age and has actually interacted with Tyrion, even married him, whilst Arya has not. This does not prove that Jon and Sansa will end up together, but - if this outline is to be taken seriously - it does suggest that GRRM was considering Jon to be romantically involved with one of the female Stark characters.

Tourney at Ashford

(Full post: https://www.reddit.com/r/asoiaf/comments/1vsuxb/spoilers_all_the_tourney_at_ashford_and_sansas/)

The Tourney at Ashford theory is where we can begin to draw some (contentious?) links between Jon and Sansa's characters in a romantic capacity.

During The Hedge Knight, a novella written by GRRM set within the A Song of Ice and Fire universe (set in 209 AC), a tourney is held in Ashford to celebrate Lady Ashford's name-day. By the end of the tourney five knights champion the Lady Ashford:

• Lyonel Baratheon
• Leo Tyrell
• Tybolt Lannister
• Humfrey Hardyng
• Valarr Targaryen

This parallels Sansa's story within the A Song of Ice and Fire series who has been married to/promised to marry the following men:

• Joffrey Baratheon
• Willas Tyrell
• Tyrion Lannister
• Harry Hardyng

Note how they share the same family names as Lady Ashford's champions. With this in mind if the theory is to be believed then Sansa will be married to or promised to marry a man with the House name Targaryen - this could possibly relate to Aegon, Jon or Tyrion (if Tyrion turns out to be a Targaryen).

Spoiler

From an Arianne chapter published for Winds of Winter it is likely that Aegon will end up marrying Arianne instead of Sansa.

One issue with this theory is that Sansa was also promised to Robert Arryn by Lysa upon the execution of Tyrion Lannister for the murder of Joffrey Baratheon.

The Snow Castle in the Eyrie

Full post:

I will shamelessly cut parts of this post out into this article for ease.

Quote

The snow drifted down and down, all in ghostly silence, and lay thick and unbroken on the ground. All color had fled the world outside. It was a place of whites and blacks and greys. White towers and white snow and white statues, black shadows and black trees, the dark grey sky above. A pure world, Sansa thought. I do not belong here.

Yet she stepped out all the same. Her boots tore ankle-deep holes into the smooth white surface of the snow, yet made no sound. Sansa drifted past frosted shrubs and thin dark trees, and wondered if she were still dreaming.

This could be foreshadowing a meeting between Jon and Sansa.

The black in the passage links to Jon's Night's Watch garb (which is black from head to heel); the white links to Jon's albino direwolf, Ghost, and the dark grey could also link in to Jon's eye colour. The "ghostly silence" of the snow and the fact that Sansa makes no sound as she walks across the snow also links in to Ghost who is noted as making no sound when he walks (hence his name).

Quote

That was a lighter fall than this, she remembered. Robb had melting flakes in his hair when he hugged me, and the snowball Arya tried to make kept coming apart in her hands.

This again links her to Jon who sees Robb with snowflakes in his hair as he goes to say goodbye to Bran.

Quote

When she said she wasn’t, Arya hit her in the face with another snowball, but Sansa grabbed her leg and pulled her down and was rubbing snow in her hair.

Another Jon reference: Jon used to rub Arya's hair which she closely associates with Jon.

Quote

She pushed two of her snowballs together, added a third, packed more snow in around them

OP suggests this could refer to Jon and Sansa marrying and having a child given all the Jon references in the chapter.

 

The Red Herring

Now, onto the subject of Daenerys and Jon. I have encountered two major arguments to suggest that they will end up together (I'm sure that there are plenty more!)

The first is that the title of the A Song of Ice and Fire series relates to the martial union of Jon Snow ("Ice") and Daenerys Targaryen ("Fire"). The problem with this interpretation is that it is not implicit: Ice and Fire may relate to a number of things, it could relate to othors (ice) and dragons (fire), the Great Othor (ice) and R'hollr (fire) or even Jon Snow himself embodying the union of Houses Stark and Targaryen.

The main piece of evidence to support the idea that Daenerys and Jon will marry comes from Daenerys' House of the Undying chapter:

Quote

Then phantoms shivered through the murk, images in indigo. Viserys screamed as the molten gold ran down his cheeks and filled his mouth. A tall lord with copper skin and silver-gold hair stood beneath the banner of a fiery stallion, a burning city behind him. Rubies flew like drops of blood from the chest of a dying prince, and he sank to his knees in the water and with his last breath murmured a woman‟s name. . . . mother of dragons, daughter of death . . . Glowing like sunset, a red sword was raised in the hand of a blue-eyed king who cast no shadow. A cloth dragon swayed on poles amidst a cheering crowd. From a smoking tower, a great stone beast took wing, breathing shadow fire. . . . mother of dragons, slayer of lies . . . Her silver was trotting through the grass, to a darkling stream beneath a sea of stars. A corpse stood at the prow of a ship, eyes bright in his dead face, grey lips smiling sadly. A blue flower grew from a chink in a wall of ice, and filled the air with sweetness. . . . mother of dragons, bride of fire . . .

The suggestion is that Daenerys will be the "bride of fire" to "a blue flower... from a chink in a wall of ice" - that she will marry Jon Snow. The problem is that within the same prophecy she was described as the "mother of death" to Viserys, "A tall lord with copper skin and silver-gold hair stood beneath the banner of a fiery stallion, a burning city behind him" (Rhaego) and " Rubies flew like drops of blood from the chest of a dying prince, and he sank to his knees in the water and with his last breath murmured a woman‟s name" (Rhaegar) - yet she is not the literal daughter of any of them.

 

From the bride of fire section of the prophecy she sees "Her silver was trotting through the grass, to a darkling stream beneath a sea of stars" (Khal Drogo) and "A corpse stood at the prow of a ship, eyes bright in his dead face, grey lips smiling sadly" (Jon Connington?) as well as Jon. This could be a red herring - she could in fact wed Jon Snow to fire as she did to Khal Drogo by burning him.

 

See here for some additional foreshadowing relating to Jon and Sansa.

 

What are your thoughts on this? 

[Jon's Queen Consort]

I will not expatiate and will go straight to the point. No, I don't see Jon getting romantically involved with either of his sisters. I believe that Val is Jon’s true Queen. 

 

[marsyao]

EW, I mean, EW!

[sweetsunray]

Please stop using the "original outline" as an argument for anything. George has recently explained during a coffeeklatsh at Balticon how the original outline came into being. In a nutshell,

George has never ever before wrote outlines for his books. He always wrote and finished the book first and sent the whole thing for publishing. However, when he started on the series in the early '90s he was very much involved in writing scripts for Hollywood (Beauty & The Beast series) and barely got any writing done. In order to become entirely independent from Hollywood to write a series of books (and not just one stand-alone), he needed a publishing deal without having any book finished yet. So, he had to write an outline. He basically made one up, sent it in and disregarded it while he wrote it.

An outline is basically how to go from the written beginning (first 3 chapters) to the end. And that's exactly why George normally doesn't write outlines - he's a gardener. He lets the characters make the plotroad. He doesn't force his characters into a preset plotroad. And that is exactly the reason why he disregarded his own outline the moment he put it on paper even. It never mattered to him, except to convince publishers to give hm a deal, so that he could write without needing to rely on Hollywood for a living.

Notice how the ending of the leaked outline is blacked out. That's most likely the only thing that is ever relevant. Not how he goes from A to B, but B itself, which is blacked out, and we don't know what it is. 

So, throw the whole outline away, just as George did.

His remarks at the same event regarding Jon-Arya in the actual books (not the outline) stipulate sibling feelings, not romantic ones - they bonded as siblings over being both the outcasts of the Stark children, and a type of model of what they like as a type of personality in the women Jon is attracted to. It's like a child admiring traits of one of their parents and then later falling in love with men or women that also have that trait.

58 minutes ago, Britisher said:

Although this might not be apparent for most readers their are some clear parallels between Jon and Sansa's story arcs, examples include-

Parallels can be made between a whole lot of characters. Even whole chapters are parallels. Read the HH chapter of Arya the night of the Weasel soup and the escape chapter, and then read the Mereen chapters of Tyrion as a slave and escaping. It's always a trio of 2 males and 1 female, and 2 of those characters display enslaved/bondage attitudes. Should we now all of a sudden ship Arya and Tyrion?

Arya and Bran are also "dead" or in a "dead world". Should we ship Arya-Bran now? All the Stark children are in an underworld phase somehow, because that is basically what George sets the Starks up to be - the Lords and Ladies of an underworld (the North). It's what they gain power from. Even though they're physically worlds apart, they're in the same world and state metaphysically - dead, in the underworld.

George uses parallels because it's a bare bone scenario that can be used in many variations, which helps the writing for a sprawling thousands of pages and multiple pltos, and you can use the understanding gained from one of the scenarios to understand the other. Hence, if you read Tyrion's ideas on what slavery does to its victims, it puts Gendry's reluctance in HH to escape in a new light for example.

As for romances, George set them up already: Sansa <-> Sandor; Jaime <-> Brienne. These characters think in romantic terms of each other, but not 'they are alike so they'll end up together'. 

Sansa's snowcastle: I'm sorry but that is really forcing links there that aren't there imo. As for foreshadowing and paralleling of the snow castle scene - you might want to read my essay Sansa and the Giants. The snow castle building scene is a parallel to the team-work we witness developing between Sansa and LF from the end of that very same chapter, as well as the destruction of that mutual team-dream.

Dany's HoYU prophecy - first of all, the blue rose can hardly be a red herring, since Jon hasn't been outed as Lyanna's son yet. A red herring is something that has been obviously set up for a first-time reader who reads the finished series from start to finish in one go and must be declared within text as a certainty, like Stannis being AA, like Jon being Ned's son. 

[kissdbyfire]

Imo, not gonna happen. And I really, really don't see where/what is the 'foreshadowing' for this. Like, not at all. 

I agree with @Jon's Queen Consort, if there's anyone in Jon's future, it's Val. 

[Britisher]

37 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

Please stop using the "original outline" as an argument for anything. George has recently explained during a coffeeklatsh at Balticon how the original outline came into being. In a nutshell,

George has never ever before wrote outlines for his books. He always wrote and finished the book first and sent the whole thing for publishing. However, when he started on the series in the early '90s he was very much involved in writing scripts for Hollywood (Beauty & The Beast series) and barely got any writing done. In order to become entirely independent from Hollywood to write a series of books (and not just one stand-alone), he needed a publishing deal without having any book finished yet. So, he had to write an outline. He basically made one up, sent it in and disregarded it while he wrote it.

Within the original outline there are elements of the plot which have not changed considerably, for example we have Eddard Stark's death and Catelyn Stark's undeath (which came about differently in the actual books versus the outline). The outline does not support a romantic relationship developing between the two characters but it underlines the fact that it is a possibility - as I have mentioned the actual plot of the series is considerably different to the outline.

 

37 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

Parallels can be made between a whole lot of characters. Even whole chapters are parallels. Read the HH chapter of Arya the night of the Weasel soup and the escape chapter, and then read the Mereen chapters of Tyrion as a slave and escaping. It's always a trio of 2 males and 1 female, and 2 of those characters display enslaved/bondage attitudes. Should we now all of a sudden ship Arya and Tyrion? 

As I've stated it links the two together, it doesn't make them a couple. In the case of Sansa/Jon it is very specific role reversal which defines the two characters: Sansa was defined by her role as the "lady/princess" in the opening of Game of Thrones just as Jon was defined by his role as the "bastard". I think this is interesting, but I will again emphasis the fact that this does not suggest they will become romantically involved.

 

37 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

Arya and Bran are also "dead" or in a "dead world". Should we ship Arya-Bran now? All the Stark children are in an underworld phase somehow, because that is basically what George sets the Starks up to be - the Lords and Ladies of an underworld (the North). It's what they gain power from. Even though they're physically worlds apart, they're in the same world and state metaphysically - dead, in the underworld.

In the books Arya and Bran are linked with death, Sansa and Jon have literally experienced death. This could all change - as I've said it's a dubious link.

37 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

Sansa's snowcastle: I'm sorry but that is really forcing links there that aren't there imo. As for foreshadowing and paralleling of the snow castle scene - you might want to read my essay Sansa and the Giants. The snow castle building scene is a parallel to the team-work we witness developing between Sansa and LF from the end of that very same chapter, as well as the destruction of that mutual team-dream.

The snow castle chapter is laden with symbolism and foreshadowing, I have just included the parts linking Sansa to Jon here. It is quite apparent that Jon is present throughout the chapter - I don't think that should be overlooked: have a look at the points referenced, they all point to Jon. The snowball is a subtle hint which can be interpreted in many different ways.

37 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

Dany's HoYU prophecy - first of all, the blue rose can hardly be a red herring, since Jon hasn't been outed as Lyanna's son yet. A red herring is something that has been obviously set up for a first-time reader who reads the finished series from start to finish in one go and must be declared within text as a certainty, like Stannis being AA, like Jon being Ned's son. 

A red herring is a piece of information which is intentionally misleading. For those who understand that she is referring to Jon I feel that this is a red herring as most will interpret this as referring to a wedding between Daenerys and Jon.

[The Fattest Leech]

I agree with the other posters here like @kissdbyfire @sweetsunray and @Jon's Queen Consort that nothing between Jon and Sansa, or any of his siblings, will happen.

While I do appreciate the work you put into your post, most just say something lame like "I have a gut feeling", I can see your effort. However, I think your own line says it best: "There's no solid evidence that Jon and Sansa will end up together, but there are some strong indications which I will outline below:"

And yes to the please don't use the outline to try and validate anything. George has said in past interviews, and just about 6 weeks ago, that the only reason he wrote the outline was because his publisher required one and he was, and I quote, "making shit up." He did this before book one was ever finished, so chances are high AGOT doesn't even really fit the outline.

[kissdbyfire]

Regarding the outline, it's worth mentioning that Cersei didn't exist in it. And in the actual story, we have Cersei and Jaime and twincest, possibly the most toxic relationship in the series. Maybe Martin used the incest idea with the Lannister twins instead of going for the very sad and very overused trope - having a couple fall in love, but oh noes, they can't because one is a noble and the other isn't, or they're siblings or both, and then, yoo-hoo, the non noble is a hidden prince and they're not related. 

[Wolf of the Steppes]

1 minute ago, The Fattest Leech said:

While I do appreciate the work you put into your post, most just say something lame like "I have a gut feeling", I can see your effort. However, I think your own line says it best: "There's no solid evidence that Jon and Sansa will end up together, but there are some strong indications which I will outline below:"

Well said.  The only reason I opened the post was the absurdity of the title.  "A" for effort though.  You made some interesting parallels, though I think you're just reaching too far.  

Might mean I'm on the bandwagon, but I agree with everyone about Val.  

[The Fattest Leech]

1 minute ago, kissdbyfire said:

Regarding the outline, it's worth mentioning that Cersei didn't exist in it. And in the actual story, we have Cersei and Jaime and twincest, possibly the most toxic relationship in the series. Maybe Martin used the incest idea with the Lannister twins instead of going for the very sad and very overused trope - having a couple fall in love, but oh noes, they can't because one is a noble and the other isn't, or they're siblings or both, and then, yoo-hoo, the non noble is a hidden prince and they're not related. 

I agree with this. I think the idea of sibling incest was moved from the Starks to Jaime and Cersei when the idea of Cersei came to fruition. Jaime's arc is about him battling for his own identity; he loses his hand, distances himself from Cersei, re-finds his honor slowly as he realizes Brienne is the one for him. Jaime and Cersei are "two sides of the same coin" so the incest "makes more sense" here when battling one's own self identity.

Thank god George went this way!

[kissdbyfire]

Just now, The Fattest Leech said:

I agree with this. I think the idea of sibling incest was moved from the Starks to Jaime and Cersei when the idea of Cersei came to fruition. Jaime's arc is about him battling for his own identity; he loses his hand, distances himself from Cersei, re-finds his honor slowly as he realizes Brienne is the one for him. Jaime and Cersei are "two sides of the same coin" so the incest "makes more sense" here when battling one's own self identity.

Thank god George went this way!

Yeah, that's my take. And I especially like that he made the incestuous relationship a really nasty and toxic one, instead of romanticising it in the cheapest, most boring way possible - siblings who come to love each other romantically and are tortured by their feelings only to discover that they're not siblings. 

[sweetsunray]

25 minutes ago, Britisher said:

Within the original outline there are elements of the plot which have not changed considerably, for example we have Eddard Stark's death and Catelyn Stark's undeath (which came about differently in the actual books versus the outline). The outline does not support a romantic relationship developing between the two characters but it underlines the fact that it is a possibility - as I have mentioned the actual plot of the series is considerably different to the outline.

All that is left of the outline is the bare bones of the set-up in aGoT: Ned dying, Sansa betrothed to Joffrey, Jon joining the NW, and Dany in Essos... This is point A, setting stage, no more. aside from having WF burned down, but not by Tyrion, it is completely different. It's not a book source and not even a story source per George's comments about it,at the recent Balticon event. What's more - he brought up the outline himself, voluntarily, because someone had been asking about Arya-Jon quotes in the actual books (not using or mentioning the outline at all), and in no uncertain terms said to dismiss the outline. And here you are trying to use the outline and exactly the part he was so dismissive about to have Jon romantically paired with an adopted sister of his.

 

25 minutes ago, Britisher said:

In the books Arya and Bran are linked with death, Sansa and Jon have literally experienced death. This could all change - as I've said it's a dubious link.

Arya was present at the RW and her last chapter in aDwD is one where she only sees and remembers people who are dead and believes herself to be no one, not Arya Stark anymore. That is experiencing death.

 

25 minutes ago, Britisher said:

The snow castle chapter is laden with symbolism and foreshadowing, I have just included the parts linking Sansa to Jon here. It is quite apparent that Jon is present throughout the chapter - I don't think that should be overlooked: have a look at the points referenced, they all point to Jon. The snowball is a subtle hint which can be interpreted in many different ways.

No they don't. It's dragging Jon into it by imaginary hairs. She thinks of Robb and Arya, and somehow that's about Jon?

 

25 minutes ago, Britisher said:

A red herring is a piece of information which is intentionally misleading. For those who understand that she is referring to Jon I feel that this is a red herring as most will interpret this as referring to a wedding between Daenerys and Jon.

No, that's not how literary red herrings work. Red herrings are not the hidden secrets you need to figure out. Red herrings are the identities and roles given to you on a silver platter with fanfare and touting and characters saying: that's PtwP, that's the son of Ned and Ashara, Robb's going to show them Lannisters for killing Ned, Rhaegar raped Lyanna, Dany is the Targ heir, Sansa's gonna be queen, Sansa has a claim on WF, etc

[Joan Jett]

First off OP, the very first line in that post by tze you linked is incorrect. 

Quote

Sansa and Jon are, as far as I can tell, the only two Starks we never actually see interact in "present" time, and I don't think that's a coincidence from a literary standpoint.

Sansa and Rickon. Sansa and Bran. Sansa and Robb. They never interact in "present time". Jon and Sansa never interacting is not a special case that will lead to romance. 

Getting onto the other things in your post:

Quote

• Sansa being the Stark child most associated with the Tullys (in terms of her appearance), the South and the New Gods / Jon being the Stark child most associated with the Starks (in terms of his appearance), the North and the Old Gods.

Jon is not the only Stark child most assocated with the Starks. Arya and Jon both have the Stark looks and they both are connected to the Old Gods. So there is no opposite ends anti parallel between just Jon/Sansa here. 

Quote

• Both have romantic ideals of the world at the beginning of the series which are smashed by the gritty reality of the real world: Jon believes the Night's Watch to be a place for honourable knight's etc. whilst Sansa whole concept of reality is literally beaten and bruised out of her across the series.

This "parallel" applies to every other Stark child. Robb, Arya, Bran, Rickon as well as other characters.  It's not a parallel between Jon and Sansa. 

Quote

• [A more dubious link]: Part of them has died: Sansa's direwolf, Lady, dies in her first chapter whilst Jon actually dies at the end of A Dance with Dragons.

How exactly is this a parallel? If they had both lost their wolves, then I might understand, but this just doesn't work. With this logic you could create a parallel between Sansa and any character that has died. 

Quote

Sansa hears Ghost howling in her final chapter in A Feast for Crows

She did not hear Ghost howling. The quote says that she heart a "ghost wolf". What is a ghost wolf? A wolf that has died. Sansa's wolf died. It's the ghost of her own dead wolf, Lady.

Looking at the rest of the parallels, they're super shaky, especially the one foreshadowing their marriage. 

Anyway, I think this parallel talk is pretty useless in this case because Jon has waaaaay more unique parallels with both Dany and Arya. Like a lot of them, throughout the series. Meanwhile Jon and Sansa hardly think of each other. 

I imagine Val will die in TWOW because of the foreshadowing about Jon being surrounded by skulls, and I never really took her seriously as a candidate anyway, she's just too stereotypical big-boobed blonde for me. 

[OuttaOldtown]

1 hour ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

I will not expatiate and will go straight to the point. No, I don't see Jon getting romantically involved with either of his sisters. I believe that Val is Jon’s true Queen. 

 

As of now this seems most likely, I don't really see Jon with Sansa..

[Joan Jett]

About blue flower quote being a red herring....I don't think so. The idea that Dany will marry Jon or that the flower symbolizes Jon is dependent on the R+L=J theory. So for that hint to be a red herring would mean that back in 1997/1998, GRRM was aware that most fans knew about Jon's true parentage. That's just not true. The theory was not as widespread back then. 

 

[Philokles]

I like how the outline is the exactly right amount correct to support your ideas whilst being perfectly wrong enough to avoid contradicting them, because what you suggest is not included.

[The Weirwoods Eyes]

No, they don't seem to me to be likely to end up together, and I will admit I had entertained the idea previously. But there just isn't anything solid there. 

And other plot lines for both of them as well as other romantic partners for both of them work far better. 

[Arya_Stupid!]

If we are going the Starkcest route (which i don't really see as 'in world' incest, as cousins marrying is quite normal in Westeros), my money is on Jon and Arya, not Jon and Sansa.

The connection between them is just so much more profound. They accept each other unconditionally and without the societal judgements that literally Everyone else places upon them. There are tons of hints to this outcome in the books as well, i don't have time to hunt quotes right now, but they're there if you care to look.

Now, none of this means that Jon wont be politically forced into a marriage with Sansa, but it would break my heart if he had to spend his entire life married to a woman who looks so much like the woman that made his life miserable as a child and forced the issue of him not 'having a home' in Winterfell. I know (before the Sansa fans attack, LOL) that none of that is Sansa's fault and it may be unfair of me, but my sympathies have always lay with Arya - and by extension Jon.

[kissdbyfire]

2 minutes ago, Arya_Stupid! said:

If we are going the Starkcest route (which i don't really see as 'in world' incest, as cousins marrying is quite normal in Westeros), my money is on Jon and Arya, not Jon and Sansa.

The connection between them is just so much more profound. They accept each other unconditionally and without the societal judgements that literally Everyone else places upon them. There are tons of hints to this outcome in the books as well, i don't have time to hunt quotes right now, but they're there if you care to look.

Now, none of this means that Jon wont be politically forced into a marriage with Sansa, but it would break my heart if he had to spend his entire life married to a woman who looks so much like the woman that made his life miserable as a child and forced the issue of him not 'having a home' in Winterfell. I know (before the Sansa fans attack, LOL) that none of that is Sansa's fault and it may be unfair of me, but my sympathies have always lay with Arya - and by extension Jon.

Cousins who grew up as cousins, like Tywin and Joanna, sure. The problem with Jon and Arya or Jon and Sansa is that they grew up as siblings, they see each others as siblings. If you grow up with someone who you believe is your sibling, you are not going to suddenly see them differently just because you just found out you're not really siblings. I've said this elsewhere, but it's not a switch you just flick and change how you feel about someone you thought was a sibling your whole life. "I love my little sister. Wait, what, you're not my sister? Cool, let's make babies." 

[Arya_Stupid!]

17 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Cousins who grew up as cousins, like Tywin and Joanna, sure. The problem with Jon and Arya or Jon and Sansa is that they grew up as siblings, they see each others as siblings. If you grow up with someone who you believe is your sibling, you are not going to suddenly see them differently just because you just found out you're not really siblings. I've said this elsewhere, but it's not a switch you just flick and change how you feel about someone you thought was a sibling your whole life. "I love my little sister. Wait, what, you're not my sister? Cool, let's make babies." 

I'm sure it doesn't work like that, just 'flipping a switch' as you put it. But we also have in world examples of children being fostered from very young ages, growing up 'as close as siblings' and then 2 children from the same household being betrothed later in life. Hell, we have examples of babies being married off to thirteen yr old boys. Lol. Nothing is 'normal' in this world.

 

Look, all i'm saying, is that, because of the type of relationship that Jon and Arya share - the emotional depth and mutual understanding between them - it would make more sense to me for a romantic relationship to develop between them, as opposed to Jon and Sansa who have exactly no feelings besides familial duty and perhaps a desire to protect (on Jon's part).

Everyone gets so up in arms about the possibility of any Starkcest. It will all be okay. They are only fictional characters... Lol.