Lady Ella

I think the main purpose of this prologue will be to signal growing trouble for the Lannisters. I agree with the theory that there's going to be a rescue attempt. While I would like to think that both Edmure and Jeyne will survive, those archers that Jaime appointed make it likely that at least one of them will die. The scenario that would cause maximum disruption for the Lannisters would be Edmure being rescued and Jeyne being killed by Lannister archers in front of her father. The Westerlings may not have much hard power, but they do have soft power. And Lord Westerling will surely not be the only western lord counting the cost of the Lannisters' war. I'm not saying the western lords will launch a full-scale rebellion against Casterly Rock, but I do think they'll start causing trouble for the Lannisters. I also like the idea of magic coming into play through Sybelle Spicer or even Jeyne. Surely the connection with Maggy the Frog has to come into play somewhere. I can't imagine what form the magic would take, though. Another prophecy?

The Starks are used to looking after themselves. It would never occur to them to ask someone else for something. In other words, they never came to think like vassals and never became dependent on the Iron Throne. Ned was basically already talking about taking the New Gift back by resettling it, but I don't think he was planning on involving the king in that - he was plotting with his inside man Benjen instead. In fact, it did not take the Starks very long after overthrowing the Targaryens to talk about resettling the Gift. If the Starks were going to ask Robert for anything it should have been food in winter. When Robert goes to Winterfell, he specifically asks Ned about winter, and Ned's reply is: 'The winters are hard. But the Starks will endure. We always have.' That was the perfect opportunity to ask for food, and it simply didn't occur to him. The attitude is: we've managed perfectly fine on our own for centuries, why would we need anyone else's help?

I agree with this. GRRM does have a few characters who don't appear to have any redeeming qualities, such as Gregor Clegane, but mostly his characters all have their own reasons for doing what they do. The Freys are frustrated for two reasons: 1. They're too powerful to be vassals of the Tullys and have been chafing under their rule for three centuries. If I recall correctly, according to Fire and Blood, the Freys can field more men than the Tullys. This is Aegon the Conqueror's fault for randomly picking the Tullys to be overlords of the riverlands without considering whether they're actually powerful enough. 2. The Freys are a relatively young house and are always looked down on by the older houses. These two things must be really frustrating. When Robb broke the marriage pact, he rubbed salt in both of those wounds. Firstly, he confirmed his preference for the Tullys and dashed the Freys' hopes of maybe being able to influence the next king to name them Lords Paramount of the riverlands. Secondly, it was yet another example of one of the older houes snubbing them. And Robb does think the Westerlings are better blood than the Freys - he admits as much to Catelyn - so this isn't just Walder being paranoid. Of course, none of that justifies Walder's actions, but it does give him motivation other than just being evil.

On Jocelyn Stark: I don't think there's any law barring women from inheriting Winterfell. When Robb and Catelyn discuss Robb's heir there's no mention of any such law. In fact, Robb has to specifically disinherit Sansa. The Starks are something of a contradiction. One the one hand, they're obsessed with upholding the law. On the other, they're quick to bend the law to suit their purposes when it's politically convenient. I think Stark males throughout history have simply contrived to make sure a woman never inherits, backed by their bannermen, the vast majority of whom at any given time will be men. Since Lord Edwyle only had one son, his sister Jocelyn would be next in the line of inheritance after Rickard. So the aim might have been to cut her and her heirs out of the line of inheritance altogether, making sure that Artos' descendents would be preferred because Jocelyn's heirs would not only come from a lesser house but would also be valemen and know nothing of the North or Winterfell, which is precisely the reason Robb gives for not naming them his heirs. Or, even if Rickard died without issue and Jocelyn did become Lady of Winterfell, the fact that her husband is from a less powerful house means he's less likely to be able to rule through her. I think this is the main reason why a woman has never inherited Winterfell: a fear from Stark males that a woman's husband would try to rule through her, thus usurping House Stark (this is precisely why Robb disinherits Sansa). In this case, arranging a marriage outside the North is also a smart move because it would prevent one of the northern houses from seizing power or getting favourable treatment, and the Northern lords would be much less likely to follow orders from a valemen over his Northern Stark wife.

Lady Dustin does not need to love the Starks to know where her best interests lie. If Manderly has told her that the princes live, she has to take that seriously. Supporting Bolton in the absence of any Starks is one thing, openly opposing genuine, living Starks is quite another. It doesn't matter how she feels about the Starks personally or how young they are, what matters is what all the other northern lords do. Do you really think she would bet on the majority of northmen choosing the Boltons over the Starks?

There would be no point telling Stannis he didn't kill Bran and Rickon. Why would Stannis believe him without proof? The northmen would want Theon dead anyway just for taking Winterfell. Plus, Bran and Rickon are safer for the moment if most people believe them dead. And Theon probably believes that he deserves to die. He did murder two boys, after all. Nice catch about Theon wanting Asha to embrace him. I didn't notice that. The sad thing is, I think Asha does care about Theon. She just doesn't show it very well. I also think it's very sad he didn't go to see his mother. How much of a difference might that have made? And Robb did love Theon, at least until Theon stole his castle and "murdered his brothers". That's the sad thing about it - Theon destroyed the one good relationship he had.

Tywin is definitely the worst Lannister because it all started with him. He is responsible for Cersei, who is responsible for Joffrey. And Kevin, Jaime and Tyrion would probably have become decent people if they'd had a better role model. None of them are evil, though. That's simplistic. Tywin's actions all stem from insecurity. Tytos was weak and complacent, and that put House Lannister in jeopardy. Everything Tywin did after that was in a misguided attempt to make House Lannister look strong. His actions have all the hallmarks of a bully: try to make yourself look strong by being unnecessarily cruel to the weak. This is ramped up further with Cersei because, as a woman, her position is even more insecure. Joffrey is the most insecure of all: not only is he a child, he's also king of a kingdom designed to be ruled by someone who has dragons. There's a reason he resembles the Mad King, who was equally dragonless and therefore equally weak and vulnerable.

Not likely. Ethan died outside the Tower of Joy trying to rescue Lyanna. He was clearly loyal to the Starks, probably to Brandon especially. I imagine the actions of Brandon and his companions were enough confirmation for the Mad King of their plotting. As others have said, Ethan was most likely spared because, as a squire, he was not considered to be involved in the plot and was therefore not deemed a threat.

I agree completely with the OP. For someone who decided he was going to conquer the entire continent in one go, Aegon put remarkably little thought into it. So many of his most important decisions were made on a whim. He didn't think at all about the structure and power balance of the kingdom, probably because he simply didn't understand such concepts. The Targaryens had zero experience playing the game of thrones, after all. Making the Tullys Lords Paramount of the Riverlands was a completely arbitary decision. As the OP pointed out, they were not the most powerful house in the Riverlands in terms of land, army size, wealth or prestige. These things matter. They were never going to be able to assert their power over the whole of the Riverlands, making them a weak link in the fedual system and meaning that the Riverlands was always going to cause problems for the Crown. Think of the role the Blackwood-Bracken feud played in the Blackfyre Rebellions. Take away the dragons, and the Targaryens only had the Crownlands, making them incredibly weak. The Riverlands are at the heart of the realm; making them part of the Crownlands would have made it easier for the Targs to assert their power over the Iron Islands and the North as they would have been closer. Those saying the Riverlands are indefensible are missing the point. The more land you rule, the more powerful you are because the harder it is for your enemies to seize and hold all of your land. Having said all of that, I don't think the Targs would have been able to assert their power over the Riverlands post-dragons anyway. Am I right in thinking that the only land the Targs ruled directly on the mainland was King's Landing itself or did they rule land around it? If it was only KL, then they were weaker even than the lords of the Crownlands. In other words, Aegon the Conqueror made a real mess of a kingdom, which is the ultimate root cause of the War of Five Kings.

Yes, Balon is a terrible father. His eldest two sons died in his pointless rebellion. Before they died they used to terrorise their younger brother. I guess Balon was an OK dad to Asha, but we don't know how he treated her before she became the only child left to him. I understand why he acted the way he did to Theon, but that doesn't excuse his actions. I think the fact that Ned took Theon hostage rather than the king made Balon suspicious of Ned's motives, as well as making it clear how much influence Ned had over the king. I think he saw it as an attempt by the Starks to gain long-term control over the Iron Islands by making Theon "theirs" (i.e. their loyal subordinate), and I also think that that's exactly what it was. Too many readers are blinded by Stark bias. Robb's and Theon's actions in ACoK just confirm this theory in Balon's mind. Robb letting Theon go must look suspicious to Balon. Why let him go unless you trust him to be loyal and to do your bidding (which is exactly what Robb expects)? Theon shows up and hands over Robb's letter, as bid, even tries to argue a bit in Robb's favour, calls him brother...oops. FYI, Robb's offer to "give" Balon a crown if Balon does what he wants is not an offer to recognise Ironborn independence. It's the complete opposite of that. As Balon rightly says, what is given can be taken away. It's the equivalent of Renly saying "He can even carry on calling himself king, but fealty, that I must have." So it's understandable that Balon reacts the way he does when he sees his worst fears confirmed. He sees Theon as an agent of the Starks and thus a threat to Ironborn sovereignty (which is why he attacks the Starks, who also happen to be winning the war at this point). As others have said, Theon was also a reminder of his failures. Since these failures essentially cost him three sons, he would rather blame anyone else. Still, this doesn't excuse his actions. He makes his relationship with Theon worse, and he also makes Theon and Asha rivals. I understand why he wanted to make Theon prove himself first before giving him any major responsibilities, but he could have done that without being a jerk. The boy just wanted some love.

I agree. I love Edmure and think he is a genuinely good person. It's in a lord's best interest to care for his smallfolk, but somehow none of the other Tullys seem to realise this. Of course, this works against him in AGoT, when he tries to defend all of his land at the same time and ends up defending none of it, but I put this down to poor training. He means well and he does learn from his mistakes. He can be childish at times, but I think this is in large part due to the fact that his sister and his uncle keep treating him like a child. They are all overly harsh on him, but I love that that just makes him try harder. And he grows up pretty quickly after the RW. I think Edmure tries to treat Robb like a member of the family as well, but Robb misinterprets this as disrespect. Edmure's desire to step out of the shadow of his 15-year-old nephew is not unreasonable. Edmure did need to prove himself to his lords, and he did exactly that. I think he exceeded his orders, but I don't blame him for that. I think the Targs were often happy to let their lords do whatever they wanted, whereas the Starks rule with an iron fist (i.e. micro-manage), which Edmure had no way of knowing. Overall, I think he's the best Lord Paramount the Riverlands has ever had and, as a result, the Tullys have never been more popular. This is crucial for the Starks too because it will enable them to focus more on the North.

Sansa does not need to suddenly transform into some sort of "master player" in order to win the Vale. A lot of the groundwork has already been done for her. She merely needs to demonstrate that she's her father's daughter. As a member of House Stark, Sansa has been taught to play the Game of Thrones since birth, even if she doesn't realise it. She will know instinctively what to do. The lessons she has learnt in King's Landing will, if anything, reinforce the lessons she learnt in Winterfell. All she needs to do is learn to put those skills into practice, similar to the transformation Robb underwent on his path to kingship. In large part thanks to Ned's popularity, the Vale is already half for the Starks, and many lords urged Lysa to join Robb, chief among them Bronze Yohn Royce. He's the key here. The Arryns are weak and Petyr Baelish's power isn't real. That gives Royce the chance to seize power in the Vale. He and Sansa can help each other. Littefinger's power derives from the Iron Throne. Sansa represents a rival throne and, as far as the Vale lords are concerned, she is the only surviving Stark and therefore the rightful Queen in the North. If the Vale lords renounce fealty to the Iron Throne and swear fealty to the Starks instead, Sansa can name a different regent of the Vale ... say, Bronze Yohn Royce? The Vale may not have been willing to join the Starks by defying Lysa Arryn, but defying Littlefinger is a different matter. However, the support of the Vale lords will mean nothing if the Northern lords refuse to recognise Sansa as queen, and I think they will refuse, at least at first, because Robb was pretty clear that Sansa should not inherit. The same is true of the River lords. So Sansa may well win the Vale over to the Starks' cause but will end up not being the actual ruler. However, this may change later if King Jon doesn't work out. Again, though, Sansa doesn't need to show hitherto unsuspected skills in order to win the support of the Northern lords. She has a great advantage in being Ned's eldest living child. All she needs to do is prove that she's a Stark.

None of the Freys who go North will return south. Stannis will win the Battle of Ice, but it will gain him nothing. He will quickly realise that he has no control over the northmen, who will go overboard in their vengeance. They will brutally murder Roose and Ramsay. They will also murder Fat Walda and her unborn child because the Starks will not be there to protect them. Thus House Bolton will be extinguished. The northmen will thank Stannis for his kind assistance and wish him well but will crown Jon KitN. There will be no "Dance of the Wolves", even if both Rickon and Sansa return North. The Starks would not countenance that. Instead, the northern lords will get together to discuss the legal issues like adults. They will conclude that, since nobody knows for sure whether Bran still lives, Rickon cannot be king. Jon, however, can because he is older than Bran and was specifically named heir in Robb's will. The free folk and the northmen will form an uneasy alliance. They still will hate each other but they will realise that there are worse enemies out there, namely the Others and, even worse, southerners. Eventually, the free folk will integrate into the North. Stannis will be furious at being rejected again and will burn Shireen in desperation. The sacrifice will achieve nothing and Stannis will die some sort of ignominious death. Davos goes home to his wife and remaining sons. Please. With both Theon and Asha under the control of the northmen (once they steal them from Stannis), and with Euron likely leading the Ironborn to disaster, the Starks will be well placed to finally subjugate the Iron Islands. Whether that will actually happen I'm not sure, but I think it likely.

I think Sansa will reveal herself in the Vale and get the support of the Vale lords in her own right. Sansa is a Stark, so she's the one with the real power here, not Petyr Baelish. The Starks spent the last few decades making friends in the Vale and half of them wanted to support Robb. They will feel guilty now about not helping him. Sansa, as a damsel in distress, will probably tip the scales in the Starks' favour. The Vale lords won't be able to resist her charm. LF's bribes will get him nowhere against the power of House Stark. And the Lannisters' regime is clearly crumbling. So I could see the Vale lords going to the Riverlands (and then the North), but more likely for Sansa/House Stark, not LF. Why would they do anything for LF? What's he ever done for them? And the Starks have even more power in the Riverlands than they have in the Vale, especially if the BwB help to restore the Tullys. LF has zero power of his own in the Riverlands. He depends on the Lannisters for his power and they'll be busy fighting the Golden Company. Of course, LF may support Sansa. He might try to use her and be the power behind the throne. If so, he'll fail. Sansa will also need to go to the Riverlands because, as princess and potential queen, it's her duty to feed the Riverlands, and the Vale happens to have a lot of food. Sansa will absolutely understand this obligation and will see the Riverlands as House Stark's responsibility. LF, as Lord Paramount of the Riverlands, would try selling food to his own people at inflated prices. Sansa will give it away for free, after first somehow persuading the Vale lords to hand it over. Maybe they'll crown her queen and so will have to do what she says? I'm not sure about the details. So I could see Brienne and Jaime coming to Sansa in the Riverlands. Maybe they could be her Queensguard?

The sensible thing would be for Cersei to flee across the Narrow Sea or to Casterly Rock with her kids, but the Lannisters seem to have difficulty admitting defeat and giving up power, so somehow I find that hard to imagine. She would probably try to find another way to have him killed. The interesting question for me is, if Robert survives, would Ned be able to persuade him to spare the children? If not, I think that would be the end of their friendship and so the end of Stark fealty to the Iron Throne, so I think we would get a scenario like the War of Five Kings anyway.

I'm currently relistening to A Clash of Kings and this line stood out to me: when Sansa bids Joffrey farewell before the Battle of the Blackwater, she says, "They say my brother Robb always goes where the fighting is thickest". It's interesting that that detail snuck through the Lannister propaganda. Who is saying this? In a martial society like Westeros, people would only say something like that in admiration. Even Jaime and Stannis remark on Robb's bravery. Ned continues to have a reputation for being honourable and honest, even in the south. Despite all the names Janos Slynt and Alliser Thorne call Jon, he still gets elected Lord Commander of the Night's Watch. So, despite the many attempts to discredit the Starks, there are certain positive details that cannot be denied. As the other Houses continue to erode Westeros' laws and customs and the situation deteriorates, the Starks will look better and better by comparison as Westeros feels the gaping whole left by their absence.

I like Aegon. He seems like a decent, innocent kid who genuinely believes he is Rhaegar's son. Unfortunately, I do think he's doomed, and it's tragic. He's been taught from birth that it's his duty to reclaim his "grandfather's" throne. The poor kid never even had the chance to come up with his own dreams. But he was taught how to be king by people who have never been king and have no idea how to be king. Of course he's going to fail. Varys thinks he knows what it takes to be king by observing Aerys Targaryen. How is speaking several languages going to help him in Westeros, where only the Common Tongue is spoken? How is learning about the Faith of the Seven going to help him rule the North and the Iron Islands? How is living like a peasant going to help him deal with lords he knows nothing about?