StarkTullies

A theory that I used to subscribe to and no longer do, but I still like is: Septa Lemore is Ashara Dayne, and Young Griff is the son Ashara Dayne and Brandon Stark. I now fully believe that Young Griff is a Blackfyre, and while that doesn't mean that Lemore couldn't be Ashara... the most important thing we know about Ashara's appearance is her purple eyes, and Tyrion did not note that. Granted Tyrion was looking elsewhere other than her eyes... but I think even Tyrion wouldn't have failed to miss her eye color when Lemore was actually wearing clothes.

1. Faith of the Seven- Definitely my favorite religion in Westeros. I have the most philosophical alignment with it, and it seems to generally be a religion of love and peace. People criticize it as false in a world where the other religions appear to be "real", but magic in this world seems to be dark magic born out of murder and blood sacrifice... and the Faith doesn't do that. Davos had his vision of the Mother, which of course could have been a trauma-induced hallucination, but it could have been real. While the Starks are my favorite family and they don't worship the Seven (except sometimes Sansa), my favorite minor character in the story (Septon Meribald) seems to be entirely influenced in a positive way by his faith. Baelor Blacktyde is one of the best Ironborn, changed by his conversion, and living a peaceful life in a violent culture and being murdered because of it. People have said that the Faith is intolerant... and I'm not seeing that. Are people confusing the "High Sparrow" of the wretched abomination who raided brothels and murdered prostitutes with the real "High Sparrow" who instead ministered to them? I don't remember the septons screaming in protest when King Robert named a pagan northerner as his Hand. No, they don't want Stannis as their king... but Stannis idiotically burned septs: he is the intolerant one. The Faith's only "intolerance" I can think of is resisting genocidal invaders who rode fire demons and named themselves as godlike to justify their racial supremacy and polygamous incest, to which I say: good! The Targaryens should have been resisted. In the war between the Blacks and the Greens when the Targaryens brought endless suffering to the people over their greed for the throne, the Shepherd was the true hero of the war, and he spoke the truth: the Targaryens and their dragons brought their suffering upon them. My only criticism of the Faith in that they added the heretical "doctrine of exceptionalism" into their religion, but that is because King Jaehaerys forced them under the threat of annihilation. 2. Old Gods- The "old gods" aren't really gods, according to their own beliefs, just the ghosts of former mortals, living eternally through the trees. They didn't create anything, and their value system can't be any more consistent than the mortals they once were during life. Were the intestines dangled in the trees after the slavers rose against their masters a demand of the old gods... or just the angry retribution by people mistreated their entire lives? I think the latter is more likely. There is no "Book of the Old Gods" so no coherent belief system to judge them by, but since the best characters in the story follow this faith, the old gods can't be that bad. 3. R'hllor- I agree with some of Melisandre's theological explanations, but in general I am not a fan of this religion. Two of the three most prominent priests that we've seen (Melisandre and Moqorro) adhere to human sacrifice. They are overly obsessed with prophecy, and the great "hero" of their religion (Azor Ahai) seems to be a villain. 4. God of Death- I don't agree with the claim that the Faceless Men are tolerant of all religions. Anyone who claims that all other gods with completely different attributes are actually the same god is actually claiming that all other religions are wrong and their religion is right, but they are just more hypocritical about it. Of course death is the one constant in all religions because no religion can deny death. Ultimately this is an assassination cult, twisting religion to justify that they are all murderers. And they are hypocritical murderers too, claiming that mortals don't get to choose who lives or dies... and then they choose who lives or dies based on how much their client pays them. 5. Drowned God- The Ironborn culture isn't terrible because their religion tells them to be; the Ironborn religion is terrible because they created the Drowned God to justify their murdering and raping and raiding lifestyles. Aeron Damphair seems like he might have been a nice guy if not so "devout" in his religion, but Victarion seems like a more typical adherent to this faith: murdering people just because he enjoys doing it, and then saying it is for his god.

That's an interesting idea, but I see the Prologues as alternating between Others/wights and not-Others/Wights. I don't think Pate's prologue chapter in AFFC really has anything to do with fire unless you're really seeking to make everything in the story about either ice or fire. This is what I'm thinking and hoping. I hope Sybell Spicer Westerling is the POV character in the Prologue, and even though George Martin said he isn't committed to the POV character always dying in the Prologues, I would not be sad to see her go. She sacrificed her son for a power-grab, and I don't believe for a moment that she didn't have a good idea that Raynald was walking into a massacre. I generally don't like the claim of "If you didn't see them die, they aren't dead", but I hope Raynald is alive and has joined the Brotherhood, and Sybell sees her son that she betrayed watching as Lady Stoneheart hangs her. Sybell Spicer Westerling is definitely one of the most despicable minor characters in the story.

1. Melisandre/Jon- whoever has the first POV chapter at the Wall (probably Melisandre). Obviously Jon will come back, but the question is how and in what state... and I want to see the resolution to Bowen Marsh and his fellow traitors versus the Free Folk. And Melisandre's one published chapter was one of my favorites, so I'd like to see more. 2. Cersei- she's an unhinged lunatic, but her chapters are so interesting. I want to see Cersei's viewpoint "pretending to be nice" while being more vengeful and hateful than ever. And I want to see the state of Kings Landing post-Kevan's murder, her paranoid reaction of Tyrion supposedly killing him, the continued fallout between the Lannisters and the Tyrells/Faith, and the arrival of the undercover Sand Snakes. 3. Jaime/Brienne- whoever has the first POV between them. I want to see Lady Stoneheart again, and I want to see Brienne's likely "plan" to save Podrick while probably trying to maintain her honor and not completely deceiving Jaime either. 4. Bran- for the reasons already stated in previous postings. A lot has happened with him since we last saw him (as indicated by Theon's chapters), and I want to see what state he is in now. 5. Daenerys- her final written chapter in ADWD was pivotal in her character shift as she fully embraced "fire and blood", and now she is surrounded by a man she swore vengeance against with Drogon at her side. I want to see how different she behaves from this point forward. I would have included Theon, as his ADWD chapters were my favorite in the entire series, but he already has a preview chapter. With the exception of Theon, I am slightly less interested in the character POVs of the chapters that were already released than the ones that weren't... but I'm interested in all of them. What I'm not interested in seeing: any new POV characters (with the exception of Prologue/Epilogue). I enjoy every single POV perspective (whether I "like" the character or not), but there are too many of them, and if we ever want the series to be completed, we don't need more.

The Starks weren't doing anything with the Others, nor was anybody south of the Wall. Remember Tyrion's second chapter in AGOT, with the slow, difficult, endless journey from Winterfell to the Wall? That was during the summer, and that was after the kingsroad was built. It would have been much more difficult pre-Conquest before the road, or any other season than summer. And the Others weren't just hanging out immediately opposite of the Wall, they were far north. In the grand scheme of Westeros history, the Conquest wasn't that long ago, and the Night's Watch wouldn't have "forgotten" that they were performing sacrifices all this time. No one south of the Wall was passing the Wall to perform human sacrifices without the NW's knowledge and support. If sacrifices were happening, it was from people north of the Wall. Craster is doing it but he is an outlier, and he is not carrying on a long family tradition. The Others seemed to have only just recently reappeared. What happened to make the Others return? Who knows, but not something that happened 300 years earlier, or else they would have returned 300 years earlier. You talk about dragons, but they've been gone for over 100 years. The only new thing that we know recently happened north of the Wall is Bloodraven. I'm not a "the Three-Eyed Crow is the master puppeteer of all events in Westeros" type of reader, but Bloodraven's disappearance into the cave and the Others' reappearance fits better with timing than any other theory I've heard offered. Which is not to say I believe that theory, either.

I've never thought that the Others are an entity of pure evil, despite a crappy alternate telling which says otherwise. It was clear from the very first chapter that they were more than complex than mindless killing machines, and yes- Waymar attacked first. It seemed that the Others had just annihilated the Wilding village, so they are not misunderstood good guys either... but in this story the Others have done much less damage north of the Wall so far than the Lannister armies have done in the Riverlands. Tywin indiscriminately burned and massacred everything in his path, while the Others seem to be selective... or are just really bad at massacring because they sure are taking their time. They attacked the Fist, but Rangers were there on a war mission, while Mance Rayder's "kingdom" didn't seem to be on the verge of imminent annihilation. Hardhome is now under attack, but from the limited information we have, that seems to be by the wights. And I am not convinced that the wights are controlled by the Others. And who says the Others are unified in ideology. Maybe there are "peace activists" amongst the Others. I've thought about the Wall possibility before too (being built by the Others). Whatever ended the first Long Night seemed to be about diplomacy. They retreated willingly, and they seemed to mind their own business for thousands of years. They weren't interested in going south of the Wall, and they didn't even seem interested going south toward the Wall. Bottom line, George Martin is not telling a story about an "evil race" where the happy ending is to bring genocide upon them.

I specifically want to not see any new places in Essos or the rest of the world outside Westeros. I like the chapters in Essos, but the main story is in Westeros. Six books in for a seven-book planned series, I want to get all the relevant characters out of Essos and into Westeros as soon as possible if we ever want the books completed. Within Westeros, I don't care about the geographies specifically... just wherever it makes sense for the story to take place. I don't think there is time for any POV character to travel to these places, but we have two vision-inclined characters (Bran and Melisandre) invested in the happenings north of the Wall. It would be nice to see a glimpse of Hardhome and the Land of Always Winter through their visions. Likewise, since we haven't seen Davos since the first half of ADWD, I want him to appear in TWOW already near Winterfell, but I'd like a few pages of flashbacks of his time in Skagos. Depending on how important the Children play into the story and/or how the first Long Night really ended, I'd like to see the God's Eye. Casterly Rock. Cersei and/or Tyrion have some future damage to bring against Westeros, and some of that will take place there. Maybe Storm's End. We saw a glimpse of it in ACOK from the outside the walls, but not within. Depending on where Aeron's travels take him during the rest of his short remaining life, maybe the Arbor.

Yes, the dragons are being used as weapons, and that's my point. A "good guy with nukes" may cause "bad guys" to submit or surrender, but saying that a weapon of mass destruction "gives hope", makes "beautiful music", cause the land to "bloom again" is just silly, and those were the claims used in the original post. I agree the dragons in themselves are neutral... but I don't think they will be used neutrally. Dragons can be used for evil, or they can be neutral, but they have never been used for good. How do we know the freedmen spit at his name? Barristan Selmy is hardly an unbiased viewpoint character. He militantly denied that Daenerys publicly laughed at Quentyn, which she did do, so I take none of his worshipful perceptions of Dany as truth. This is the man who had blind loyalty to Mad King Aerys and would have continued his blind loyalty to King Joffrey had Joffrey not fired him. Drogon killed 214 people flying out of the fighting pit after eating Barsena in front of everyone, to the horror of all. Drogon didn't discriminate between elite or freedmen, and he burned or maimed 3x as many people as he killed. Now Rhaegal is setting fire to Meereen as well. Of course the people who hate Dany also hate her dragons, but I find it extremely likely that a huge portion of the freedmen don't hate the dragons as well. The father of Hazzea, at the very least, considers Harghaz a hero. Comparing wild wolves to wild dragons is a fair comparison. Comparing wild wolves to a weaponized dragon who will burn down entire castles or villages if their rider commands them to is not a fair comparison. If Nymeria is actively warged by Arya and Nymeria leads an army of wolves into battle, which I think is a likely possibility, that is a better comparison. So far that hasn't happened. Regardless, my response about the dragon's fires (not dragons themselves) leading to nothing but death and destruction is a response to the repeated claim that "ice is death but fire is life". No, both are death: try walking into a burning house while making a claim that "fire gives life". I don't hate dragons as living creatures. I liked Grey Ghost who minded his own business and ate fish, and so far I like Viserion who rather hang out with his "mother" than fly around eating small children like Dany's favorite child. But in this story dragons are weapons, and so far the wolves are not. Ghost has done many good deeds: the dragons do nothing but kill or induce submission from their ability to kill.

I disagree with almost everything in the original post. Starks aren't the villains, and Dany is not a bringer of hope. The only thing I agree with is that the first and last chapters of A Game of Thrones are introductions of two main elements of the story. The actual first chapter in the book (not Bran, but the Prologue) introduces the ice threat of the Others, and the last chapter introduces the fire threat of the dragons. Dragons aren't hope. Their deadly fires can't be used for anything but death and destruction. Ice and fire may be opposites, but opposites can both be deadly. Here are two quotes from "pro-fire" characters warning of its dangers. "Fire consumes. It consumes, and when it is done there is nothing left. Nothing." - Beric Dondarrion, worshipper of the "fire god" "I should not have left the Wall. Lord Snow could not have known, but I should have seen it. Fire consumes, but cold preserves." - Aemon Targaryen, from the "House of Fire"

If you're thinking of the time that someone killed 163 randomly selected people based on their social class as a misfired attempt at an eye for eye, knowing nothing about them or even attempting to judge their guilt, you're misremembering. That wasn't Jon or Arya. Arya was present at the Red Wedding and yet she did not add a single Frey to her "list" because she doesn't know specifically the individuals who were responsible. Arya above all other vengeance-driven characters doesn't target families. Hold onto that "poor Aegon and Arianne" thought for when/if the next books ever come out. I don't pretend to know how the story will end, but I am 100% confident that Aegon and Arianne were brought into the story to be Dany's adversaries. They're most likely going to be Dany's casualties for claiming "her" throne.

A perfect ending where all villains are defeated and all the good guys live happily ever after would not fit this story, but I also don't think the story will be nihilistic. Tyrion might be GRRM's "favorite character", but what is favorite? Most likeable, or most enjoyable to read (or in his case, write for)? He called Tyrion "the villain", so I don't think he actually "likes" Tyrion. I think most of the villains will be defeated. The Boltons and Freys will be gone, Euron will be gone, and the threat of the Others will end. (But I don't think GRRM is writing a story about an "evil race" either, and I don't think genocide will be the solution against them, just like it wasn't during the first forgotten Long Night). I think Tyrion will be the token bad guy who gets away with it, because nothing is perfect. But as terrible as Tyrion is, he isn't worse than Tywin... so the Lannister legacy at least won't be much worse at the end of the story than at the beginning. I think Jon's ending (if he's alive) will be somber but not devastating. I think he is ASOIAF's Frodo (not Aragorn), and his death/resurrection will be Frodo's stabbing from the wraith. Sam isn't the only "good guy" who I think is more likely than not to survive; there are Brienne and Sansa in the mix. Asha is decent enough... certainly the best Greyjoy presented in the story. I think "A Dream of Spring" isn't about spring arriving and everyone being happy, but the hope for spring and the hope for a positive future in the aftermath of an apocalyptic war... and that's sweet enough for me. Regarding Dany, you and I don't agree on the projection of her storyline and I don't want to derail the thread by going into elaboration, but Dany's death won't sadden me in the least if she goes the path that I expect her to go. I don't know how Bran will get to his end point, but one thing I'm 100% certain of is it won't be a last-minute surprise with the stupidest rationale imaginable. I can't predict if I will like Bran by the end of the story or not. I already stated my predictions of Sansa, so obviously I don't think she will be treacherous or manipulative. She certainly will never gloat about "no longer being a little bird" because (something that didn't happen in the books). So far she's become a progressively better person, so I don't see any reason to fear that she will backslide. GRRM said that the alternate telling may have a similar ending but completely different road to the destination. All the problems are the road, and I'm not worried since they did such a horrendously crappy job adapting two masterpiece novels that clearly they were not capable of adapting a mere outline. That would make sad, but my unrealistic optimism about getting an ending is finally fading, so you'll probably get your wish.

I agree that Drogo being a sacrifice doesn't make sense. Dany killed Drogo after Mirri put him in a vegetative state, and that looked like a mercy-killing to me, not a sacrifice. Dany's thoughts didn't literally say that Drogo was sacrificed to give the dragons life, but that's how blood magic works in this world, and Mirri just gave her a lesson on blood magic. I also think it is a stretch that Dany sacrificed Rhaego for the dragons, but she did sacrifice him... except she sacrificed him for Drogo. And of course Dany's thoughts didn't outright admit that she knowingly sacrificed her son, and her thoughts never will. Briefly struggling with her self-denial before refusing to look back is the most we'll ever get. Dany is not the type of person to ever admit guilt, but this is the most confirmation we'll ever get from a book told through biased point-of-views. And for the above quote (You warned me that only death could pay for life), Dany walked into the fire expecting the dragons to hatch, waiting for them to hatch. How would she expect three lives unless they were paid for by three deaths? In the beginning of the next book, Dany named those three deaths. Naming any random death as a "price" for an unrelated purchase would seem like cheating, so in her mind, Dany sacrificed them. Yet I still kind of agree with you. Drogo and Rhaego's deaths being used to give the dragons life seems like "cheating", but Dany said what she said. Also note that I don't necessarily think that Dany is right or that Dany did know what she was doing. I was responding to a poster who has previously claimed that Dany is Azor Ahai, and if she is, then she had to know what she was doing... and therefore she performed human sacrifices. I was mostly pointing out the double-standard of supporting Dany while also claiming that Starks are terrible because an unidentified woman who might be a Stark performed a human sacrifice 10,000 years ago. It was both an execution/punishment and a sacrifice. See Alester Florent. Stannis executed Alester for "treason" by means of Melisandre sacrificing him to R'hllor. It's not true that Dany's only religious concepts were of the Dothraki religion. Dany seemed to believe that the Dothraki religion is true for the Dothraki, but she also seems to be of the ideology that everybody's religion is true for them. She was definitely raised with the awareness of the Faith of the Seven whether or not she believed. And she knew some of Mirri's religion (only death can pay for life), which she applied when killing Mirri to hatch dragons.

Big 6 POVs: Tyrion Lannister, 100% survival: Tyrion will get everything he ever wanted in a material sense as Lord of Casterly Rock, but he will do so as a villain and by manipulating everyone in his path. The triumph of this villain (not all villains) will be part of the "bittersweet ending". Bran Stark, 100% survival: For reasons I won't discuss. Sansa Stark, 90% survival: Her entire story is about character growth and survival without being corrupted by the players around her. It would be a sad and cynical ending (more than I am expecting) if Sansa dies or is corrupted. Arya Stark, 80% survival: I would have ranked her survival a little lower, except for the whole "my wife will divorce me if I kill Arya off" thing. Jon Snow, 50% survival: If there is a "main hero" of this story (but I don't think this is that type of story), Jon is the closest we'll get, but I don't think the heroes will necessarily get a happy ending. Even if Jon survives, he will get a Frodo ending of being sad and broken (without getting to sail off to paradise at the end). Daenerys Targaryen, <10% survival: Whether she becomes a mass-murdering tyrant who is taken down, selflessly sacrifices herself to save humanity, or somewhere in between, I think it is extremely unlikely Daenerys will survive. Other Main POVs: Samwell Tarly, >90% survival: I think the "bitter" ending of Tyrion's triumph will be countered by the "sweet" ending of Sam's triumph. Plus, the Sam/Frodo and Sam/Jon parallels are pretty glaring (and I'm not someone who constantly looks for similarities to LOTR, either), and I think Sam will not only survive but actually get a happy ending. Asha Greyjoy, 75% survival: I think Theon or Asha will survive, but not both, and I think Asha is the more likely survivor. Brienne Tarth, 65% survival: If Brienne survives her encounter with Lady Stoneheart, I think she will survive to the end of the series, but that's a pretty big "if". Davos Seaworth, 60% survival: I think Davos will lose POV status before the end of TWOW, but he doesn't need to die for that to happen. Maybe he'll get to linger on in someone else's POV. Areo Hotah, 50% survival: I have no opinions or predictions for this guy, so I'll give him a neutral rating of 50%. Theon Greyjoy, 25% survival: The other part of my Greyjoy sibling prediction; he gets the other 25%. Arianne Martell, 20% survival: I think she'll be Aegon's queen for a short time, but I think Dany will kill the "usurper" and she'll die with her husband. Melisandre, 15% survival: She seems semi-immortal, but I'm guessing that's going to soon come to an end. Jaime Lannister, 12% survival: Cersei's dead for a certainty, and I think the self-prophecies of "we were born together, we'll die together" will come true, but some of these prophecies end up being wrong. Barristan Selmy, <10% survival: I'd be shocked Barristan returns to Westeros. Either he will die heroically in battle, Tyrion will murder him because he's in the way of his plots, or he will turn against Dany when he starts to see the "taint" and she executes him. Regardless, he's dead. Victarion and Aeron Greyjoy, <5% survival: Euron murdered his other brothers and he'll murder them too, if they don't die on their own first. Jon Connington, 0% survival: He's half-dead already, and when King Aegon loses power (which he will), he'll dramatically take a whole bunch of other people out with his own death. Cersei Lannister, 0% survival: She's the closest we have to an ultra-villain POV with no redeeming traits at all. She's dead.

100% agree. First, incest. Jon is a Targaryen, but he wasn't raised a Targaryen and he doesn't think like a Targaryen. It is not "in his blood" to be disgusting: Targaryen incest comes from their elitist notion that they are racially superior (Dragons did not mate with the beasts of the field, and Targaryens did not mingle their blood with that of lesser men). Jon doesn't think like that. Second, if mass-murdering psychopaths like Drogo and Daario are Dany's "type", Jon certainly isn't. Third, I love Jon and I don't love Dany. Even removing the incest issue, Jon deserves better than Dany. Fourth, who knows what state Jon will be in when he rises from the dead. Maybe he shouldn't have a romance with anybody (and that's not even taking into account his vows). Lastly, this: Three mounts must you ride . . . one to bed and one to dread and one to love I firmly believe this refers to the number of Dany's sex partners, and that is not because my mind is in the gutter. "Mounting" is a frequently used term for sex in Dany's chapters. More importantly, one mount is meant to be loved, one mount is meant to be dreaded, and another mount is meant to be bedded? How does Dany "bed" a mount if it is referring to anything else? So Dany already had her three mounts: Drogo (loves), Daario (beds), Hizdahr (dreads). She's done, so thankfully Jon won't be added to that list. Of course they can "fall in love" without having sex... but I really, really hope there is no Jon/Dany romance.

Is this to make a case that this woman is from the First Men and not Valyrian? Of course she is from the First Men. This was many, many thousands of years ago, when First Men were the only inhabitants of Westeros. But if you go back far enough in time, even Valyrians used "primitive" weapons. Civilizations often advance with time. Well, yes. After Dany's ancestors tamed fire-demon weapons of mass destruction to have the power to enslave others and build empires on the backs of their tortured slaves, the Targaryens became "important people". Going farther back in time prior to taming the dragons, Dany's Valyrian ancestors were just peasant shepherds, as were all Valyrians. We don't know if Winterfell was even built at this time. Winterfell was built around the tree. Regardless, I'm okay with assuming this woman was a Stark ancestor (but that is only an assumption). Maybe this woman had authority, maybe she didn't. We know nothing about this woman, or her prisoner. Was she performing a sacrifice of an innocent for the sake of sacrifice, or was she executing a murderous criminal in the eyes of her gods? We don't know. Below is the entirety of the passage, there is not much to conclude from these two brief paragraphs. The only thing that we can conclude is that Bran wanted to stop the execution. So much for evil, blood-thirsty Bran. Then, as he watched, a bearded man forced a captive down onto his knees before the heart tree. A white-haired woman stepped toward them through a drift of dark red leaves, a bronze sickle in her hand. "No," said Bran, "no, don't," but they could not hear him, no more than his father had. The woman grabbed the captive by the hair, hooked the sickle round his throat, and slashed. And through the mist of centuries the broken boy could only watch as the man's feet drummed against the earth… but as his life flowed out of him in a red tide, Brandon Stark could taste the blood. Another popular anti-Stark "theory". Can you share any supporting evidence for this... other than Craster is clearly a terrible person and you hate the Starks? There is more evidence that Craster is a Targaryen due to his disgusting affinity for incest (but no, I don't think he is Targaryen either). You can call her whatever you want, but that doesn't make it true. See the entire brief passage of this woman further above. The assumptions above cannot be proven or disproven. Also, maybe you should think twice before using ancestral human sacrifices as proof that their modern day descendants are evil, lest you will be trashing your own favorite character. Dany performed human sacrifices: see below. If Dany is Azor Azai, then she knew exactly what she was doing to bring the dragons to life. Or if her triple-sacrifice had nothing to do with the dragon births, then she didn't know what she is doing and she's not Azor Ahai. You can't have it both ways. Dany's thoughts: (The dragons) had been born from her faith and her need, given life by the deaths of her husband and unborn son and the maegi Mirri Maz Duur. Maybe. Maybe not. Old Nan is hundred years old, not ten thousand years old, and the ancient histories weren't kept for 9,900 years and then all forgotten within the past 100 years. But I'm fine with conceding that the Night's King was likely a Stark, and then... who cares? One evil Stark doesn't mean all other Starks are evil, and who says that the Night's King was evil? Surely you don't believe every ancient rumor about him when his official records were destroyed. We know that the Night's King didn't "give his seed" to an Others woman (someone whose body is so unbearably cold that you can barely breathe in their presence), because that would be physically impossible. If we can't believe that very important part of the Night's King legend, what else can we believe about the Night's King? Personally, I think Coldhands is the Night's King (but just my belief, and I'm not going claim it as fact). If we are expected to blindly believe all the 10,000-year-old hearsay about the Night's King, then then we should also blindly believe the fresh hearsay about Dany: If even half the stories coming back from Slaver's Bay are true, this child is a monster. They say that she is bloodthirsty, that those who speak against her are impaled on spikes to die lingering deaths. They say she is a sorceress who feeds her dragons on the flesh of newborn babes, an oathbreaker who mocks the gods, breaks truces, threatens envoys, and turns on those who have served her loyally. They say her lust cannot be sated, that she mates with men, women, eunuchs, even dogs and children, and woe betide the lover who fails to satisfy her. She gives her body to men to take their souls in thrall. We aren't supposed to believe everything we hear, obviously. This is the only part of your post that I agree with, but this statement disagrees with the entire rest of your post.

Unfortunately, yes. At any given time, there's usually several threads on the top page made by a random rotation of about a dozen different posters which have no purpose except to trash the Starks and sometimes to also worship Dany and/or Targaryens. On the first page of the "Tully Madness" thread alone, there's more than half a dozen of this "crowd" high-fiving the original poster, and there's countless other threads just like it (made by the same posters high-fiving each other in the "Tully Madness" thread). Is? Not even "will be"? In what way has present-tense Bran demonstrated being the lord of darkness? Considering that Jon Snow is one of the biggest heroes in the story at the moment, being more harmful than him isn't much of a criterion. Saving thousands of Free Folk from becoming wights (which protects the rest of Westeros as well) should certainly be deemed heroic. Surely you could have found another character "even more harmful to Westeros" than Jon Snow... but thanks for providing supporting evidence to my response to Castellan by going after a Stark instead.

This is a popular "prediction" amongst the Stark-hating Dany-worshipping crowd, but this foretelling of the monster Bran will become "when he finds out" that Jaime pushed him out the window is proof that Bran is not a monster at all. Bran already knows Jaime pushed him, despite many Stark-haters seemingly forgetting this (or perhaps never having read the books at all). Bran remembered very early on in A Clash of Kings... and he's given Jaime approximately zero thought since then. So Bran clearly is not driven by vengeance.

A simpler question would be which region will be Dany's allies, and the answer will probably be: nobody but maybe the Iron Islands. Of course none of the Ironborn are really allying with Dany, but with her dragons. And perhaps the Westerlands will be so sick of their Lannister overlords that they will do what the Tullys did during Aegon's Conquest and betray the Lannisters for a new ruler they hope will be slightly less tyrannical. Dany's "easy ally" (Dorne) will have sided with Aegon. When the message gets back to Doran from Gerris Drinkwater that Quentyn died because Dany publicly laughed at his proposal (only half-true, but it's the story that Gerris will tell), Dany will forever be Doran's enemy. Even without that blood feud, Arianne can marry Aegon, while Quentyn can no longer marry Dany. The entire purpose of Quentyn's storyline was to flip Dorne into strong allies of Aegon against Dany. The Reach probably wouldn't have a strong preference for Dany vs Aegon, just whoever arrives first to topple the Lannisters, and that will be Aegon. Would they turn cloaks for Dany if the situation benefits them? Possibly. The Tyrells are as opportunistic as the Lannisters and the Freys, just a lot less evil about it. But a region disliking Dany does not mean they will give her difficulty. The Riverlands and the North are so drained and isolated that they probably don't care who is playing musical thrones in Kings Landing as long as she leaves them alone. It won't be specific regions that give Dany difficulty, but King Aegon and Queen Arianne. Even if Aegon and Arianne unite half of Westeros under them, I don't know how long they could withstand a united Dothraki khalasar and if Dany maintains control over three dragons. I doubt Dany's three dragons will remain hers, however, so Dany's biggest adversaries will be those who claim a dragon or two to fight against her. But those are Dany's "enemies". She won't be able to stop her Dothraki from raping and murdering and enslaving everyone they encounter, so unless Dany becomes the ultra-villain of this story and simply doesn't care about the chaos she unleashed on Westeros, Dany's biggest problem will be her own khalasar. I don't think Dany's story is about her difficulty in conquering Westeros (I think it will be quite easy), it will be how she does it and what type of person she becomes because of it.

If Rhaegar ran off with Lyanna for the primary purpose of creating his prophecy baby, he was 100% convinced he was prophesied to be the father of the Conquerors reborn. He was so blindly convinced that he would have a girl, boy, girl that he wouldn't have considered the possibility of having a second son or naming his third child anything other than Visenya. So if Lyanna was set on their agreed name and then she unexpectedly gave birth to a boy, she would have named him Viserys. Not Aegon or Aemon or anything else of the sort. But, Lyanna didn't name him any Targaryen name. Under no circumstances did this absurd scenario happen, because no character in the books is THIS stupid: "Promise me, Ned. No one can know that my son is a Targaryen. Nobody. Promise me, Ned, promise me. No one can know. HIS NAME IS VISERYS TARGARYEN!!!!!" We can debate whether Jon's real last name should be Snow, Stark, Targaryen, or Sand... but his first name is Jon.

What other theories? I can think of only one logical explanation and three other far-fetched theories: a) Jon is Rhaegar and Lyanna's son b) Rhaegar inexplicably lied to the kingsguards claiming that Lyanna's child was his son but he actually wasn't c) Rhaegar and Lyanna's child that the kingsgguards were protecting was someone other than Jon Snow d) The three kingsguards were part of a conspiracy to pose a false Targaryen heir, but their conspiracy died with them During a civil war against the Targaryens when the original heir and king were already dead, there is 0% likelihood that all three remaining Targaryen kingsguards were protecting anybody other than whom they believed to be the Targaryen heir. Explanation A is the only one that isn't a convoluted storytelling mess.

When before have the Others ever raised a person on the other side of the Wall? When before has an Other-raised wight been anything other than a mindless, speechless zombie that one must "be ready for"? Nah, Ghost is a good boy. It is the fire-demon weapons of mass destruction who are eating small children and setting fire to Meereen that should be gotten rid of. Just FYI, not once are the Others ever referred to as "White Walkers" (capitalized) in the entire book series, and only a few times are they called "white walkers" (lower case). "White Walkers" is show terminology. It's almost like all these Daenerys-worshipping anti-Stark theories and predictions are not based on the actual books.

I agree with all of this: I was responding to another post referring to historical figures of Westeros, but confined to the main ASOIAF story, there aren't many stellar examples of great female leaders so far. (Of course there are plenty of posters in this forum who claim that Dany is the absolute best of the best, but to that I strongly disagree.) Some of this bias is due to George Martin's stance that he will never write the POV of a king, but apparently he doesn't have that caveat for queens. So we see Dany's inner thoughts but not Stannis's, who are somewhat morally equivalent. And Cersei's thoughts but not Euron's, who are both reprehensible. I don't agree about Catelyn. She wasn't at her best immediately after Bran's fall but she hadn't slept for days. As soon as she did sleep, she was perfectly rational. Catelyn is a much-hated character for reasons I never understood (I disliked her treatment of Jon, but that's not the main reason for anti-Catelyn resentment). I find her one of the most thoughtful and insightful characters in the series: her train of thoughts before arresting Tryion- as poor as that decision might seem retrospectively- was very well-thought out and completely rational. Of course Catelyn went berserk at the Red Wedding after her son was murdered right in front of her. I'll allow her five seconds of insanity; the test is how she would have coped 5 days later, but she never got more than 5 seconds before she was murdered. Lady Stoneheart is not Catelyn Stark. The "Tully Madness" thread is absolute crap. I also agree that the story has been a little excessive with the mad mothers, but with Lysa, I largely blame her mental illness on the lifetime of a manipulative psychopath gaslighting her. I don't think Dany is mad or will go mad (hallucinogenic conversations with blades of grass aside), and I don't think any of her perceived "madness" has anything to do with her lost child; Dany willingly sacrificed Rhaego to save her husband and showed little remorse about Rhaego's death. Cersei was "consistently heinous" long before motherhood. Cersei's "great love for her children" is show-fabricated, and I don't think any of her evil actions are rooted in concern for her children's well-being. But... Theon and Asha's mother is still in a constant state of despair and mourning 10 years after the Greyjoy Rebellion, and there were multiple counts of Targaryen queens "going mad" after their children passed that did not impact the fathers in the same way. And maybe Catelyn would have become permanently mad after Robb's death: we don't know since she's dead (and Lady Stoneheart doesn't count). I don't give Jaime too much credit for his words of wisdom about motherhood. He doesn't understand the concept of a mother loving her children (he didn't love any of his own), so he sees all of that as a form of madness. And Cersei is his measuring stick for motherhood/womanhood, which gives him an extremely tainted view. I agree so far... but the story isn't over yet. Brienne is considered by almost everybody (myself included) as the "truest of knights" despite not being an actual knight. She's one of the most dutiful and moral characters in the story, so she is certainly a role model if not an actual ruler... yet. Though it is not often stressed, Brienne is the heir of Tarth. That said, I find it a little unlikely that ruling Tarth is in Brienne's future. I may be completely wrong, but I expect that Sansa will become the great ruler of ASOIAF. She is the most improved POV character by far, going from a bratty spoiled child to become very compassionate and wise. Even after telling herself that she must hate all Lannisters, she still felt compassion for Lancel during the Battle of Blackwater. Formerly snobby about her "bastard half-brother", she is now living as a bastard and becoming much more empathetic. Her thoughts are intentionally obscured by George Martin: at this point we don't know if she believes Lysa's claims about Petyr's crimes or not so that we will be "surprised" when she does whatever she does... but I think it is very unlikely that she is going to become Petyr's mini-me as Petyr hopes. I think her great power will be to become a great player of the game of thrones while being the one player who isn't evil by playing it. But obviously this is just my speculation, and we'll never know unless the next books finally come out.

I sort of agree that there aren't a surplus of great female rulers in the story... but are there many good male rulers either? No. Maybe the lesson- in Westeros at least- is that rulers are bad in general. Most of the queens of Westeros were consorts to the king with no real power, but of the relatively few who had some sort of real power, I definitely think that Queen Alysanne was the best Targaryen ruler of Westeros, by far. No matter what I think of Dany as a character or what I expect her future in Westeros will be, I can still say that she is a better khaleesi than any of the khals we've seen, and we can assume that she is a better ruler than most if not all previous rulers of Meereen (though we know little about Meereen's history). Greyjoys aren't noted for their excellent ruling abilities, but if Asha ever ends up ruling the Iron Islands (which I think is a dim possibility), she will likely be the best ruler the Iron Islands ever had. Cersei is an evil, incompetent blubbering fool (back to the topic of this thread!), but so is her son Joffrey and I expect he would have only gotten worse if he reached adulthood. Her father Tywin may be more competent but he is diabolically evil, and Tyrion is on the path to be nearly as bad. Seems to be a Lannister thing rather than a woman thing. Arianne is not a role model, but if she sits on the Iron Throne for a brief moment (and I think she will), I think she will be more powerful and a better ruler than her presumed husband Aegon, and she will be above average in regard to competence and benevolence compared to her peers (which I admit, isn't a high bar). Since you brought up Lysa as ruling regents or heads of great houses, obviously she is unhinged and a bad ruler. Her sister Catelyn only had the role regent of Winterfell for a brief moment before she left, but she would have been a good one. I think there were several ruling women during the Dance of the Dragons (NOT including Rhaenyra) who were far better than their male counterparts. I'm not going to discuss the show here, but I don't think the show is an accurate blueprint of Dany or Sansa's futures. But in regard to "treacherous schemer", I think that is what the showrunners actually intended to portray as being a "great ruler", and I think George Martin disagrees what it means to be a great ruler (as do I). And again, there aren't many role model male rulers to point to. I'm a big fan of Robb Stark who I think was as best as you expect for a wartime ruler in this world and I think he would have been a great peacetime ruler, and Aegon V and Dareon II seemed like good kings, but there were more bad Targaryen kings than good ones. And there are far more male rulers to choose from, so I don't think the moral of the story is that men make better rulers than women.

From what I've observed, 100% of Frey sympathizers are TargaryenFanatics, and 100% of Frey sympathizers also blame the Rebels for betraying the Targaryens during Robert's Rebellion. But if the entire Stark family "deserves" to be exterminated because Robb broke a vow to marry a woman he never met, wouldn't the entire Targaryen family also "deserve" to be exterminated for Rhaegar breaking his vow to his actual wife? Rhaegar's "deplorable conduct" was far worse than Robb's. This is the least of my disagreements I have with the original post, but it is a repeated contradictory stance I see amongst all the Targaryen+Frey enthusiasts.

While I agree that the North will suffer the most from the "Long Night" because of their proximity to the Wall, it is most likely "the North" that will save the southern realms from similar suffering by ending the threat before it gets to them.