Rose of Red Lake

I think it might come down to using fire, in smaller quantities, to defend the realm (like in the NW oath) vs. attack the realm in massive, nuclear quantities (wildfire/dragonfire). Tyrion tried to use wildfire to defend the realm against Stannis' red fire, but I dont think that's going to happen a second time. Flea Bottom almost exploded.

Westeros needs checks on royal power, and it also needs a competent civil service. I think that the fact that the NW is supposed to serve the entire realm is incredibly important. The feudal system comes with a lot of in-built factionalism. The NW is supposed to be above this, as is the Citadel. Indeed one could see the Maesters as the foundation for a class of civil servants, not bound by factional loyalties. I don't think the vows of celibacy are necessary though. People ignore them anyway. Back to the fact that Jon received part of his kingly training in the NW, he is taught to serve the realm, and it is service to the land/people, that GRRM stresses in interviews when he talks about the ideal king.

"Toland" literally means "to land." Where the First Men landed in Westeros, through the land bridge?

Just want to add, I find the mud thing interesting. It could be symbolic of being grounded, down to earth, and this is why Barristan views mud positively. Mud is also associated with life. Arya is thankful of the mud because it protects her from fire. The "people above" and "people below" in a hierarchy could be reflected in "dragon flight" vs. "dirt/mud." The Doctrine of Exceptionalism implies that the people who can fly are inherently better than the sad, pitiful earth-bound people who have to walk around in the mud. Mud/frogs are also associated with the crannogmen, some of the most stigmatized, poorest, and and looked-down on people in Westeros. I know they're making a sacrifice to help Bran, but he also doesn't show much sign of a superiority complex toward them.

The Rhoynar who were displaced by the Valyrian conquerors are established as the only "brown" people in Westeros. While they did have to fight to settle in Dorne, they seem to have an immigrant story akin to the Jews and other refugees. They intermarry and adapt to Westerosi customs eventually. I'm glad that the author gave the Dornish their dignity and had them resist when the dragonlords came knocking. Dragons as a form of power is shown to be limited with their story. Targaryens consistently lost in the field and Dorne wins by making them water down their "special" blood and lessening the dragon bond. Is Dorne vs. Targaryens a critique of white imperialism? How do you think F&B part 2 will play into this? Winds?

I don't think it's a bias on the author's part, I'm giving him the benefit of making a critique of imperialism/racial exceptionalism through the Targaryens. I think that he is critical of aspects of Targaryen ideology and basis for their rule, but he is very subtle about it. What do you mean "could get herself off with Irri?" It's controversial what Dany does. She holds all the power in the relationship with Irri and some could argue that it’s problematic for her to use a former sex slave who’s been taught her whole life to please her khal/khaleesi, as a human vibrator, ‘summoning’ her to her bed chamber to get her off. Dany also says that the bloodrider guy (can't remember his name) belongs to her when J'Hiqui and Irri are arguing over which one of them he'd want. Dany also slaps her handmaiden who is one of the Lamb Men she "saved." Her views on the Lamb Men reflect a benevolent master role. She starts to take on the superior attitude of the Dothraki toward the people they conquer: “Once Dany might have taken them for Dothraki, for they had the same copper skin and almond-shaped eyes. Now they looked alien to her, squat and flat-faced, their black hair cropped unnaturally short.” But then her own beliefs about her superiority over the Dothraki are reflected in how she believes that being a wife of a khal is not enough, that the blood of dragons have a better life waiting for them in Westeros. Her lack of concern toward the Dothraki's superstitions about the poisoned water suggests she doesn't respect their own beliefs. If she's pushing them to break their belief system to conquer Westeros, I think the author is challenging readers to identify these exceptionalist ideas, and be critical of them. I think the Drinkwater thing is ambiguous, may mean more on re-read once (if) the story is finished.

Yeah I agree. Targaryens whose incest is based on Egyptian pharaos are light-skinned, light-haired and light-eyed, and the original Ptolemies were Greeks who likely looked very different than the Egyptian people they ruled over. He puts Dany in a pyramid, and she notes how different they look from her. You can see also this when Dany thinks Brown Benn is a "mongrel." She also likes Gerris' blonde hair, whereas Quentyn, who is brown, is unattractive. Her views on "wiry, oily" Ghiscari hair also reflects some kind of racial coding. And I keep using that phrase because I dont mean Targaryens=white supremacists as a 1 to 1 historical reference, but that the text will use positive or negative symbols that reflect racial ideas in our world, i.e. coded as "racial". Unsure if its conscious or subconscious on the author's part.

It does kind of reflect the hypocrisy whites had about their own racial purity though, that they were pure white all the way back to some Nordish ideal, when in reality their great-great grandmother was a person of color. The more important thing was how they perceived themselves as above mere mortals, which is written to be racially coded, and the doctrine of exceptionalism gave them "permission" to carry on with blood purity if they wanted. Whites wrote these kinds of special rules for themselves in the legal code all the time.

This is sort of what I'm getting at. If the author thought that House T was "the best" for Westeros why did he show this. It must be a critique of empire overreach and hubris of some sort. That dragons are shown to be ineffective means their power is checked. By showing Dorne specifically to be the one to resist, he chose a region with people who had encountered dragons before on the other continent in the past. Garin's curse and Dornish defiance are both repeating the same message, that this kind of power is brittle.

I dont think the Starks oscillated wildly in this destroy-build-destroy doom loop. You can see this loop playing out with Valyria, they built their empire on fire and blood and they were served that in the end. For Dany, Valyria and Robert's Rebellion are two doom loops are that right there, waiting to repeat. The Kings in the North stayed afloat for - what is it? 8,000 years, compared to the Targaryens' 300? They must have done something right. I also don't think the Starks are known for being "madmen with nuclear weapons." Or even better, "some of them will be mad...some will be good...you just don't know which ones!" What a fun game to play with the people. The Starks are normal. Normal is good. Edgelords think its cool to be critical of the Starks which means being critical of Targaryens is actually saying something radical and different.

Thats an interesting historical comparison. Yes, the Orphans seem to fit the Jews. The wiki says the Rhoynar have "smooth olive skin, black hair, and dark eyes," so Moorish would work. I think any non-Targaryen blood is "tainted," in the mind of a monarchy built on incest.

It's funny how these two conversations are going on right now in different threads. Another thread: Robb didn't rescue Sansa and he's a terrible guy who lets her suffer. This thread: Jon refuses to let his sister suffer and he's a terrible guy for abandoning his post.

Yes, more folks should ask if this is a positive or negative prophecy, and for whom is it positive or negative. If AA and the Prince/Princess are the same person, it could be negative. Reason being that, if I was a writer I would go for maximum irony because of how much it whipped the Targaryens into a frenzy about how they thought it was a good thing and how they are the saviors of humanity, which actually led to 1) more incest marriages, madness, and Aerys, and 2) rash decisions over Stark women and a rebellion that overthrew their dynasty. So the best writing choice would be to have this promised prince/princess continue acts of rash decisions that actually end the Targaryen line. So maybe they thought it was good for their House, but she was actually predicting was their doom, and they self-fulfilled it. If it is a positive prophecy for someone else but still negative for House Targaryen, you can still get to this irony above by having the promised prince end the Targaryen line himself (Jon the Dragonsbane?) while being a prince Ned promised to protect. But what does he actually do? I still dont think its a savior of humanity because its not a big enough twist. So maybe its something more grounded, for instance, if we see Jon make a promise to protect the Starks, he fulfills it without knowledge of it. We already see Jon attempting to protect his sister...a promise could be made directly in the future. Jon having to go against his own House, the Targaryens, to fulfill that promise would be another good use of irony. If its positive for everyone involved and the only two remaining Targaryens are both the saviors of humanity then the prophecy is played straight. If its just a question of which Targaryen is the savior of humanity then its not very interesting, and also delivers no irony to the doorstep of this House, because they were able to predict things right, for the most part. Nobody has luck like that when prophecy is involved.

Robb didn't directly violate his sister's bodily autonomy by grabbing her, pinching her breasts, unnecessarily controlling what she had to wear/say/do around her betrothed, so that he could pursue an unjustified war. That's the difference. And Robb admitted he made a mistake with Sansa, so I'm good with his characterization in this regard. It makes Robb look more human. The author chose that brush to paint him with. Yes, I'm mad at Robb for abandoning Sansa, but as someone who is also interested in the other Starks, I also understand that Sansa has her own story independent of Robb's, and if he had rescued her, it would have stunted her characterization. That he happens to be right is because the author chose to write it that way. He had many chances to "retreat" in Book 1 but he kept pushing it, not realizing the danger he was in so...I doubt it. Yes. And we directly witness these betrayals in real time, which is why it's much easier to have sympathy for Robb returning to Winterfell than Viserys returning to Westeros. There's a reason Viserys gets the flashback treatment--we're not supposed to care what he thinks. Rescuing Ned is the origin of Robb's war. The origin of Viserys' war is revenge. These are written differently to evoke different emotions in the reader. And, the idea that every single war must be held as morally equivalent isn't even in the author's own politics. GRRM is a critic of unjust war, and while he's said he thinks certain wars are more "noble" than others, from a writer's perspective he needs to make it seem like every war in the story is equivalent, so as not to make it very blatantly obvious that the Targaryens are aggressive conquerors hellbent on dominating all the other Houses. So that the readers can be surprised when they actually end up the antagonists in Westeros at the end of the story. "I’m forcing to explain why you’re holding the Targyens to a much higher standard than other houses in story." I gave you my answer. In general, they have had - and will have - the most power. That's why I hold them to a higher standard, collectively, as a House. No "typical nobleman" is invading Westeros from across the narrow sea with a Dothraki horde, expecting them to violate their own customs of never crossing the sea, and constantly disrespecting them by calling them filthy savage horselords. That's just, so...extra. And hey, don't Targaryens do exceptional things? Madness/greatness and all.

I think we'll see more wall falling disaster because of Jon/Dany team up. I think Bran is the key to defeating the WW. But these are big questions. I'm just thinking of the politics because I think those are sometimes harder than defeating generic fantasy big bads. Aragorn's tax policy after all.

He'll be known as a Targaryen with a claim to the IT, not to Winterfell. This is one flaw in him fulfilling the "Stark" part of the Pact, because his Starkness will probably be questioned by his recent escapades with Dany. If he's flying dragons around, and in a relationship with Dany, and now has a Targaryen dad how does that prove he's a Stark in their minds? Omitting the gender which doesn't really matter, what the pact is about is really a Stark heir + Targaryen heir to unite the kingdoms. Jon is not a Stark heir. The North has to support him as King and approve of his marriage choice. The rest of Westeros also has to approve. A good conflict for Jon would involve a political situation where he's forced to choose, the North or Dany. Sam's suggestion and Sansa's question makes for good drama.

True. R/L could fulfill the pact with a Targ/Stark but their marriage didn't unite the kingdoms, which is what the Pact should have done. So it must be about how their son does it. I think politically, marrying Dany would be too divisive for his own men, especially after R+L=J. Sansa sounds like she's testing him to prove if he's loyal to the North with her question. I'd argue, Northern independence still matters and two Targaryens on the throne isn't going to cut it.

Conquering, kneeling, or marriage: I feel like this is the ASOIAF game of rock, paper, scissors. To illustrate, in the World of Ice and Fire, when comparing Dorne and the North, this stood out to me: I believe the author wants to keep Dorne/North similarities all the way to the very end, especially this ^ one. I'll just make some predictions based on these three options, holding conquering constant. Dany can't win Dorne/the North with conquering, the people will resist. Her other two options are marriage or kneeling. The ruler who kneels also has to be respected enough by their people for them to follow suit. Dany won't be able to conquer Dorne by roasting Arianne. Dany has limited marriage choices in Dorne (Trystane?), and Quentyn is a huge liability. Would Doran kneel to a woman with the dragons that killed his son? If he dies and Arianne is the heir, how would she respond? In the North, if Jon is the son of Rhaegar and does not claim Winterfell for himself, Dany has no one to marry to claim the North except for Bran. Sansa, Bran, Rickon, Arya (nearest eligible Stark) could kneel, but their power to control their lords may be tenuous. They'll probably want to rule themselves again (if Lyanna is any indication). The wildlings will never kneel. What am I missing? How do you see this playing out?

I don't believe everyone who plays the game of thrones have all crossed the same moral event horizon and should be viewed the same way in terms of personal morality. Viserys crossed it further than Robb by being directly abusive. His abuse of Dany wasnt just a personal trait independent of politics, he harmed her directly to get her to do what he needed. Their ambitions aren't the same at all in terms of sizeable egos. Did Robb want all 7 kingdoms? He only wanted the kingdoms who declared for him. He was fighting to protect the borders of his kingdom. He was retreating to go home to Winterfell because he realized he had bitten off more than he could chew and needed to protect his own castle. I'm just saying...Viserys would have never done that. I think the main difference between Robb and Viserys is that Robb was trying to free his father and seek justice for their men who were wrongly killed while Viserys was trying to reclaim all 7 kingdoms that his family lost through a justified rebellion. I do hold Targaryens to a higher standard because overall, they have the most power. And once dragons are grown Dany will be the most powerful person in the world. People with the MOST power should be scrutinized MORE because how they wield it affects the MOST people.

In its ideal form the Night's Watch was set up to make a sacrifice for the rest of the kingdoms to protect them from the Others. If the North asks for their independence in exchange, seems like a fair trade. Give them food via trade. Let them keep their independence as long as they defend the South from Northern threats. I'm noting that it's a common sentiment among fans that Northerners are prideful assholes, just like the Dornish who had the gall to resist a conqueror. Meanwhile, the conqueror's own pride and expectations are rarely examined or scrutinized. I had no idea that so many people were pro-conquest and pro-imperialism. Dorne/the North are poor but should poor countries' sovereignty be taken away by rich countries, just because they're poor? Does GRRM believe that colonialism and conquest of poorer nations is the best way to rule? Kneeling may be a "reality" but it also wouldn't make the Targaryens look like the heroic underdogs.

Yes, exactly. I think in the books his bastard status is going to be much more of an obstacle for his ability to make alliances through marriage. In the show they're not really mentioning it. As a bastard he could be Dany's consort, and now that he's knelt he looks like another Daario. His status is weakened considerably. But, Jon hasn't married Dany yet. I think Jon's political decisions + marriage decision is crucial to the plot of the story. It's a rare instance of shippers arguing over something that actually matters, although they might not frame it that way.

Interestingly, the Pact of Ice and Fire could be satisfied by Jon marrying Dany or Sansa. It works both ways, but the politics have to work too. The Pact should bring the North and benefit the North somehow. A Jon/Dany marriage wont happen if Jon cant bring the North with him. Not only is he unwilling and unable to claim Winterfell, which is how he would claim the North for Dany, he cant bring the North with him if he gave it away so carelessly for love like Robb. His people wouldn't follow him. This seems to be why Sansa asks him about this in the leaks, is my guess? If Jace and Sara did actually marry, Cregan would likely want their child to marry his child, which makes the Pact fulfilled through cousin marriage. Jace is a brown-haired half Targaryen like Jon, Sara is a daughter of Winterfell like Sansa. Jace rejected a Targaryen girl he was supposed to marry, and instead married a "wolf girl". This is suuuuuuper interesting.

How is this scene about Northern independence, which is still very much a thing right now, evidence for the Northerners kneeling to a dragon queen? Emphasizing the word "wed." - If Sansa is a Northerner married to a dragon, it could be Jonsa foreshadowing. I'm a delusional Jonsa myself so, ask me anything. I'm not understanding what Torrhen kneeling out of fear of what Aegon could do to his people is supposed to prove. Are you saying Jon knelt to Dany out of fear of what she could do to his people?

If Dany is truly as magnanimous as folks claim and "didn't want Jon to bend the knee anymore," she shouldn't care if the North rejects her. Jon/the North just needs her army, they dont need her breaking the wheel platform or whatever political platform she's running on. If its a rejection of her as their ruler, she can either accept it or force them to kneel or die. Jon kneeling doesnt really mean anything, the power is with the lords. Dany cant claim Winterfell by marriage to him either. Now that RLJ is out of the bag, the Northerners have no reason to support a Targaryen restoration with two Targaryens, and they have no reason to support Jon and Dany as a "couple" because he gave the North away for love. If Jon keeps saying Dany is the Queen, he's kind of forced to say that because he needs her armies.

Ah that explains it then, yes a transcripted version would be better, thanks!