Is it possible that Sansa will return to KL?

[Colonel Green]

The Northern storyline next season looks to be internal Stark tension, which will probably play out over most of it until Littlefinger's downfall.  After that, the Wall falls, and I can't imagine there being time (or reason, really) for Sansa to go south.  Dany and co. will be coming north.

[House_Tony_Stark]

1 minute ago, Colonel Green said:

The Northern storyline next season looks to be internal Stark tension, which will probably play out over most of it until Littlefinger's downfall.  After that, the Wall falls, and I can't imagine there being time (or reason, really) for Sansa to go south.  Dany and co. will be coming north.

I agree but part of me is starting to think that the whole White Walker plot is going to be another show entirely. 14 episodes just seem like too much cramming when it has taken half a season to do small battles.

[The Arthur Smith]

13 hours ago, House_Tony_Stark said:

He has not cared about politics ever. He will never care about sitting on a throne. He would rather be by his men on the front lines putting his life at risk for them.

14 episodes left he won't be going south.

Absolutely this. Jon became too emo to care about anything, especially politics which he felt pointless when there's the White Walker that people need to be concern about.

if anything, I believe all the Starks will stay at the North. Bran and Arya are returning to Winterfell, so we wouldn't have time for them to go back to KL with the White Walkers attacking.

[House_Tony_Stark]

12 minutes ago, The Arthur Smith said:

Absolutely this. Jon became too emo to care about anything, especially politics which he felt pointless when there's the White Walker that people need to be concern about.

if anything, I believe all the Starks will stay at the North. Bran and Arya are returning to Winterfell, so we wouldn't have time for them to go back to KL with the White Walkers attacking.

Yeah, Sansa is the only one of them who is even a cultural fit for cities. All the other Starks have that....Wolf look to them like they should be running around in the snow.

[illinifan]

57 minutes ago, House_Tony_Stark said:

No, these are just your personal opinions and wishes. It's a fact that in the show Jon has not really thought past the current weeks events. And he has never been to Kings Landing and has never expressed any desire to go there at all. You can't say someone is doing something when they literally are not doing it.... I have my opinions also and things that I think would be cool such as Sansa taking over the Dreadfort but I always make sure to state that it's just my opinion prior to saying it.

Now back to your theory, I personally just find that to be too much of a stretch to actually happen. Here are things to consider.

1. The Starks are an enemy of the Lannisters and they are currently an enemy of Danny. There is no way for him to go south while Cercei is still alive and she is not just going to vanish in 1 one the 14 episodes left. And even when she dies there is going to need to be a reason for Danny not to want to fight him. His father kind of assisted in the war that overthrew her family and put her in this position.

2. Jon is the King of the North he literally has no reason to be in Kings Landing. And even if he wanted to contact them he would just use a Raven or send someone else.

3. It would be completely out of character for him to just sit back and let the wall fall. There isn't exactly a bunch of fun things to do in the North.....I'm sure he will be building the defenses in the North.

4. And again, melting the throne while it would be cool and all would be pointless. Joe Smo the peasant has never seen the Iron Throne and never will. Nor will people who do not live in Kings Landing, so it being gone would not really be a big dead. The only people who really ever see it are those who are granted an audience with the King/Queen, members of the court, and soldiers. And again Jon has no political ties to Kings Landing......he is a northern boy who was raised in the cold and is never far from his sword. So why anyone would listen to him in wanting to move a heavy throne to a furnace and melt it for no reason is a little unlikely.

They could replace the Iron Throne with a gold one. It's just a chair.

1.  Jon is already playing politics.  He skipped out of his NW vows on a technicality to go capture a castle with his sister this season.  And at the end of the season he was declared king.  Remember the I will wear no crowns part of the NW vow.  How is what Jon is doing jive with that? 

2.  There are some telegraphed signals about what happens with Dany and Jon.. They probably marry.  That is why the line about political marriage was in the finale.  The only eligible bachelor who brings something to the table in Westros right now is Jon.  It gives both sides what they want without war (i.e. a personal union.)  It is also how the War of the Roses ended, a marriage between Henry Tudor and Elizabeth York.

3.  R+L=J is bound to come up and complicate things.  I am of the belief that Jon is legitimate, which gives him a better claim than Auntie Dany.

4.  If the Iron Throne scene goes down as imagine it will, Jon will be the one in charge when it happens.  It is the King ordering the Iron Throne melted.  I suspect that it will be destroyed and it would be so cool if it was done purpose by a potential king - the ultimate test about his fitness to rule.  

And I suspect that Westros will look very different than it did at the beginning of the series by the end of it.  The Iron Islands will leave as will Dorne.  And the North will technically be independent but in confederation with the rest of Westros through marriage.

[House_Tony_Stark]

59 minutes ago, illinifan said:

1.  Jon is already playing politics.  He skipped out of his NW vows on a technicality to go capture a castle with his sister this season.  And at the end of the season he was declared king.  Remember the I will wear no crowns part of the NW vow.  How is what Jon is doing jive with that? 

2.  There are some telegraphed signals about what happens with Dany and Jon.. They probably marry.  That is why the line about political marriage was in the finale.  The only eligible bachelor who brings something to the table in Westros right now is Jon.  It gives both sides what they want without war (i.e. a personal union.)  It is also how the War of the Roses ended, a marriage between Henry Tudor and Elizabeth York.

3.  R+L=J is bound to come up and complicate things.  I am of the belief that Jon is legitimate, which gives him a better claim than Auntie Dany.

4.  If the Iron Throne scene goes down as imagine it will, Jon will be the one in charge when it happens.  It is the King ordering the Iron Throne melted.  I suspect that it will be destroyed and it would be so cool if it was done purpose by a potential king - the ultimate test about his fitness to rule.  

And I suspect that Westros will look very different than it did at the beginning of the series by the end of it.  The Iron Islands will leave as will Dorne.  And the North will technically be independent but in confederation with the rest of Westros through marriage.

How can you say he skipped out on his vows? Here is what the vows say

Night gathers, and now my watch begins. It shall not end until my death. I shall take no wife, hold no lands, father no children. I shall wear no crowns and win no glory. I shall live and die at my post. I am the sword in the darkness. I am the watcher on the walls. I am the fire that burns against the cold, the light that brings the dawn, the horn that wakes the sleepers, the shield that guards the realms of men. I pledge my life and honor to the Night's Watch, for this night and all the nights to come.

You can't say a vow should be a law but only honor certain parts of it. It literally says it shall not end until my death and he died. You can't saw oh well, that doesn't count! Or else you are changing a vow to suit your own personal situation rendering it pointless. Jon fulfilled his vows plain and simple, and if they want to to change the vow to include more power to them....

Again it's fine to have an opinion but if it happens in the show it's cannon.

[illinifan]

30 minutes ago, House_Tony_Stark said:

How can you say he skipped out on his vows? Here is what the vows say

Night gathers, and now my watch begins. It shall not end until my death. I shall take no wife, hold no lands, father no children. I shall wear no crowns and win no glory. I shall live and die at my post. I am the sword in the darkness. I am the watcher on the walls. I am the fire that burns against the cold, the light that brings the dawn, the horn that wakes the sleepers, the shield that guards the realms of men. I pledge my life and honor to the Night's Watch, for this night and all the nights to come.

You can't say a vow should be a law but only honor certain parts of it. It literally says it shall not end until my death and he died. You can't saw oh well, that doesn't count! Or else you are changing a vow to suit your own personal situation rendering it pointless. Jon fulfilled his vows plain and simple, and if they want to to change the vow to include more power to them....

Again it's fine to have an opinion but if it happens in the show it's cannon.

A technicality. He used a technicality not in the spirit of the vows.  That is what Edd pointed out to him and what I hope Sam does as well.  I prefer where Jon's character is now but he is clearly breaking the spirit of his vows.  That is not a bad thing.  Jon's whole arc is going from a naive and idealistic boy who puts too much stock in vows and honor to a pragmatic leader who learns that sometimes vows must be broken.  (Like say committing treason against the king and spending decades lying about your nephew's identity.)

[House_Tony_Stark]

26 minutes ago, illinifan said:

A technicality. He used a technicality not in the spirit of the vows.  That is what Edd pointed out to him and what I hope Sam does as well.  I prefer where Jon's character is now but he is clearly breaking the spirit of his vows.  That is not a bad thing.  Jon's whole arc is going from a naive and idealistic boy who puts too much stock in vows and honor to a pragmatic leader who learns that sometimes vows must be broken.  (Like say committing treason against the king and spending decades lying about your nephew's identity.)

Again, you can't hold someone responsible for what is not included in a vow or law. What you are saying would be like saying the Nights Watch should be allowed to chop Jon's head off for eating lobster. If it's not covered in the vow then you can't hold them accountable for it. Like I said before if the Nights Watch would like to go back and update the vow in-case this ever happens again they can. But no brother of the nights watch cannot be held accountable until they choose to take the vow again.

And I feel like I'm repeating the same time. That's just you inserting your own spin on what's actually happening, Jon has never broken his vows and he has never been a naive idealistic boy......I'm not sure where that is coming from. He literally joined the Nights watch because he felt like there was no future for someone like him in Winterfell. Cat wanted him dead, he had family members who showed him nothing but hate, and the only  two people (Arya and Ned) who thought well of him was heading to Kings Landing where he was not allowed to come because he is an illegitimate child.

Maybe you should understand more about his character? The real story of Jon Snow is a kid who should not have been worth anything rising against the odds and becoming a King that his people idolize.

[House_Tony_Stark]

The only crime he has ever committed is falling in love a woman who was also his enemy. And even that's debatable because given the first opportunity he choose his duty over her.

[illinifan]

17 minutes ago, House_Tony_Stark said:

Again, you can't hold someone responsible for what is not included in a vow or law. What you are saying would be like saying the Nights Watch should be allowed to chop Jon's head off for eating lobster. If it's not covered in the vow then you can't hold them accountable for it. Like I said before if the Nights Watch would like to go back and update the vow in-case this ever happens again they can. But no brother of the nights watch cannot be held accountable until they choose to take the vow again.

And I feel like I'm repeating the same time. That's just you inserting your own spin on what's actually happening, Jon has never broken his vows and he has never been a naive idealistic boy......I'm not sure where that is coming from. He literally joined the Nights watch because he felt like there was no future for someone like him in Winterfell. Cat wanted him dead, he had family members who showed him nothing but hate, and the only  two people (Arya and Ned) who thought well of him was heading to Kings Landing where he was not allowed to come because he is an illegitimate child.

Maybe you should understand more about his character? The real story of Jon Snow is a kid who should not have been worth anything rising against the odds and becoming a King that his people idolize.

Yes and my interpretation of Jon's character is that he is breaking the spirit of his vows blatantly.  It is even more obvious in the books.  Jon was going to skip down to Winterfell and kill Ramsay even prior to being asassinated.  I do not think it is a bad thing because Jon needs to learn that honor and vows are paper.  What is right is not necessarily what is "honorable."  Some of the most morally courageous acts in the book are also outside Westros' code of honor.  This includes Jaime killing the Mad King and Ned lying about Jon's identity.

And Jon's journey as a leader is based on him learning this concept.  That is how he becomes a worthy king.