Daeron the Daring

If the Red Wedding never happened, Robb would already be King of Westeros and the Free Cities. By the time of ADOS, the first Stark ships to resettle Valyria would've began their journey, Robb would've married Daenerys, Margaery, a Frey girl, Arianne, Sansa, Arya, Young Griff, Cersei, Myrcella, and the Night's Queen, fater hundreds of children, build a dining table for his family (which would be hard, given, you know what...), and send the first expeditons to the West to see if he can find another way to trade with India, due to major disturbances occuring on the Silk Road.

Exactly. Ultimately it was Edward's favoritism towards Gaveston and later Hugh Despenser what made him lose the throne and later his life too. He wasn't the only one ever to lose the grip on power because of favoritism, he just happened to had chosen his favorites because they were his gay lovers. And while Edward's sexuality certainly made a lot of people dislike him, that alone was never enough.

To understand the attitude towards Renly, you would have to understand the attitude people had for Edward II of England, John II of France or even William II of England. People were either (and often) patient with gay monarchs, discredited the story, or saw it as opportunities. I think if you've seen HOTD, Corlys' attitude towards Laenor was what many people had in those times. And while, for example, Edward's sexuality became his cause of being deposed and murdered, it took people a long-ass time to get to that point.

No it hasn't. But name a better story for a live-action sequel. The problem of Dunk and Egg is that it's heavily lacking material (or any kind of ending and purpose), the Conquest is linear and not interesting on screen, the Maegor v the Faith and Aenys' sons is a short story, just as the war of the Ninepenny Kings, and the Tragedy of Sumerhall is just tragic. I guess a spinoff with 3-4 seasons at best could work with including (starting out with) the Tragedy of Summerhall, Jaehaerys' reign, Aerys' reign and Robert's Rebellion, but do people really want to see something with such a great interconnection with GoT? The best options for another spinoff are Nymeria's conquest of Dorne and the Blackfyre Rebellion/s. The options are actually very few. And even if GOT had been good, the number would rise only to 3 (with RR). And I'm not sure if George can block HBO from using any of his material, if they want to. And that's still not meg saying a Blackfyre spinoff should happen. I just tought about how Daena the Defiant most probably presented her grandfather, Daemon, as this great hero of the Dance, and in case HBO plans on doing a sequel to HOTD/prequel to GOT about the Blackfyres, this would've been a great way to lay the groundworks to it.

Didn't read the conversation before this, but it's not like only characters suggested or suspected by the authors of FnB could be behind certain events. I like book Rhaenyra, but I think it's not ruled out she may have had a hand in Laenor's death. After all, it was her who approached Daemon at that point, not the other way around.

Just tought about it: HBO should've had Daena the Defiant be the narrator of the intro, with possibly having a few more lines too (kind of How I Met Your Mother style, but with way way less narration) in the coming episodes and seasons, and in the end it should've been revealed that she was telling the story to Daemon Waters, later Daemon Blackfyre. Of course, the story should've still been present from an omnipresent POV. Imagine that setup for a Blackfyre Rebellion series.

So, everybody here saw the leaked EP10?

Well, I guess we know what those marble balls are for at the Small Council. I mean, damn, they looks sharp, but not that sharp.

Vaemond Velaryon: U bitsch. Daemon: Keep my wife's name out your fucken mouth!

I tought I will have a hard time with Viserys finally going. It took so fucking long (in in-universe years) and it was so ridiculous that it became a relief to me, with no feelings attached. If only they showed him as this real family person who cared about his other children (and grandchildren) beside Rhaenyra, who finds joy in telling Helaena's children stories of the Targaryens of the past, like in the book. I really don't like that part about his character. I may at this point think that there wasn't enough material for 2 seasons (altough with a limited amount of subplots and stuff added, that could've been achieveable too) for the pre-Dance era, this season really could've used 13-14 episodes total. I also don't like how they want to keep the pan hot by throwing sudden violence in my face, this time with Vaemond. And even if Daeron isn't cut, I find his absence or of a mention of him a mistake at this point, with the toasts and all that never even mentioning him. I wonder why would he even feel attached to the Greens or be passionate about the death of his own kin if he doesn't even know them (especially not the children of Aegon and Helaena). The mistakes are becoming overwhelming to me, but I think I should have a casual sense of what the show is, not one who read the books, to judge it. And despite the complaints (again, from a reader of the source material), this is quality TV content.

The names Aenys and Frey are no good implications tho. You show up with that name and people know you're bad signs.

That's some sort of a certainty to me. But Jon riding a dragon is like my son (I don't have one) getting his driver's license. Cool thing, really happy for it, but doesn't change him. Puts more pressure on him, which may lead to more seriousness, but Jon is already serious enough.

My personal belief is that we are gonna lose Jon as a POV, simply because he will be going through drastical changes and critical times. That's why Melisandre may had been introduced as a POV: To replace Jon. It would make an interesting situation for us, the readers, if we're not allowed into Jon's head anymore, just when it would be the most important. This may work well for George too, as he never seems to be keen on explaining magical stuff on his pages. It would stage a mistery that we might only bunk down along the way, instead of giving a clear and nailed down explanation to what exactly was the process of Jon's return. At the very least it would be really interesting to not have the power of looking into Jon's head. It would certainly hype me up.

That's my point too. He's not gonna be king (if only), and thus his real identity has to give him something, which should be legitimacy, something he wanted his entire life. If he happened to be someone else's mistake, then he basically gets nothing back in return of the things he faced due to his bastardhood. He may ride a dragon as a bastard too, but that's not what we want from him.

There has to be. Qyburn supposedly did terrible things, (more than likely things he should've been executed for normally), and his punishment was stripping him of his chains. I assume it was the Citadel itself dealing with the issue, and also protecting it's own reputation by not going too hard on him.

Now rank every living Frey.

Well, that depends. I like to imagine that he's gonna find it out after many others already know. It would make quite an interesting scenario if people (of significance to him, obviously) wouldn't know how to deal with this information. Otherwise, he living with this tought alone, or in the need to spread it to everybody would just be weird to me. And I explicitly mean Daenerys in this case. Imagine: They meet while she knows it (even if she doesn't totally believe it), but he doesn't. Anyway, I think this will be something he'll have a hard time acceping, but once he does, it'll give him a great relief of some sort. You know, he always wanted to be a Stark, but that's just the same as being legitimate, aka not a bastards. He hates himself for being a bastards, not for not being a Stark, and being a child of Lyanna and Rhaegar is not an attack on his Stark identity, but rather an extention of it. It doesn't undermine Ned's legacy on him, it explains why he had to deal with so much shit all his life. Oh, so we're not talking about Jon being a legitimate son of Lyanna and Rhaegar? Well, that's why he has to be, to make him develop emotionally. Otherwise, it would be like "Great, I'm not a Stark bastard, I'm a Targaryen one. So happy for it." Let's all be honest here. Despite the (many) hints that Jon may end up as king, he won't (those hints may only be hinting that he's a rightful heir/pretender of the IT). And his hidden identity has to offer something for the character, otherwise it's just another punch, only this time from the opposite side.

I like Snowhead too. The best one I heard is Hoe Joe (developed around S8), but you have to be hungarian to understand that. (Basically the hungarian word for snow is "hó" which sounds exactly like the word hoe, thus the name)

Punchbag Prince is a better nickname thou.

I guess I envy you for having such an easy time dealing with this question.

Brutha, it was a joke. Meant to mean that adultery is still amoral, brothels or not.

The Seven believes in heaven, and believers of the Old Gods mention hell, so there might be a counterpart to that. He was. But that's another matter. That's the moral dilemma I talked about. That he takes a blow, an L, a black patch on his honor both ways. We don't know if Eddard and Ashara ever had sex, or that he was the father to her stillborn daughter. But even if Ned is the person in question, Ashara was considered to had been dishonored, which is an L for Ned's honor too. That's the point. It was the worse strategical choice, but as you yourself said it before, there isn't one good choice. Maybe not even a better one (If we choose to look at morality only).

But Robb didn't marry Jeyne because people would've cared about him leaving Jeyne Westerling dishonored or pregnant. It's because he didn't want to make her suffer for something he is responsible for too. This, for him, is about protecting Jeyne, not himself. And banging whores isn't something you'll get to go to heaven. Not even in ASOIAF.

Surely nothing wrong is with making someone "suffer a loss of social standing" then.

Although the legal definition of adultery differs in nearly every legal system, the common theme is sexual relations outside of marriage, in one form or another. (Wikipedia) It is adultery (and dishonorable in traditonal, medieval settings) if you have sex with someone you are not married to. You don't have to be married to commit adultery, nor does the other person.