SeanF

I like to consider the roads not travelled; the battles that might have gone the other way; the assassination attempt that might have failed, or the royal marriage that was not fruitless. It’s fiction, but I still enjoy alternative history.

Aragorn was principled, but he really, really, wanted to be King of Gondor. And, he made it very plain that he viewed himself as the true king of Gondor, throughout LOTR. Aragorn would not have schemed and murdered to become king, but he expected his due, after achieving success as a war leader. Turning Jon into someone who shied away from leadership was another disservice the two D’s did to his character.

Up to a point, I do think Maegor was correct. The Faith Militant had to be broken, otherwise Westeros would have become a theocracy. As CS Lewis put it, a theocracy is the worst form of tyranny, because it is one that is sincerely exercised for the good of its victims. Other than that though, Maegor’s brutality went far beyond the bounds of necessity.

Blackwater was probably the best episode of them all.

But with war threatening, you need a king who can fight. I’m sure Ned was competent as ruler of the North, even if was out of his depth, in the capital.

Obliterate the Red Keep, on arrival. Confirm that every lord that bent the knee would keep lands and titles.

Livia/Tiberius is a good comparison.

Oh, I agree. It’s making a threat, without making it explicit, so enabling the other person to save face.

Not necessarily. There are people in this tale, who are vile, like Walder Frey, the Boltons, See Gregor, LF etc. The rest are verging shades of grey.

She’s always been the most interesting of the family, to me, and the one I’d like to know more about. More than Prince Daemon, she combines the characteristics of heroine and villain. She was a highly competent leader, fearless in battle, and a gifted diplomat, charming the Arryns into submission. And yet, she was quite prepared to burn Dorne to the ground as revenge for her sister’s death, and to obtain their submission. She may well have murdered her nephew, and was determined to place her appalling son on the throne. So, was she good or bad?

I’ve said before but I think Jon Con and the Sands will perpetrate some terrible deeds, after capital falls.

I’d say her fatal flaw is self doubt, bordering on self-loathing, causing her to second-guess all she does.

She wears mail in the books.

The idea of anyone flying into the range of arrows, without wearing armour, is beyond stupid. My guess is that an archer is likely to get a free shot at a dragon rider, before being engulfed in flame. But, an arrow is most unlikely to penetrate armour.

Oh, like so many, I think the book and show character are different people, even if they hit some of the same plot points. Daenerys in the books is highly self-critical, compassionate, humorous, and she shies away from being ruthless. The latter is actually a failing, in the context of Slavers Bay, as it benefits the slavers, at the expense of the freedmen. The slavers are good at identifying and exploiting weakness. GRRM correcting Mark Simonetti, and the contrast with the throne in the show, are both significant, IMHO. I agree, Jon is harder than Daenerys is (which is no bad thing.)

The timeline certainly makes a civil war between Dany and Aegon very difficult, now. And, Jon Connington seems the man to be triggered by the sound of bells.

In the scenario we're given, in that video, Jon is by far the best person to unify the country, with Cersei and Daenerys both dead. Not least, because with the various lords once again vying for power, the king has to be an experienced soldier.

Tyrion certainly seems that Aegon made a mistake by going west instead of east, by abandoning Dany and her dragons and start his conquest on his own. Yes, thanks to Cersei's mismanagement, Aegon seems to be in a relatively good position, but how can he defend himself against a sorcerer-type figure like Euron without a dragon? I am not saying that this will be true, but narratively it would make sense. If Dany burning Kings Landing is a thing, my favoured scenario would be that her forces are facing defeat, after bitter street fighting, (somewhat similar to the video you linked to), at the hands of soldiers who have barricaded themselves, and who are using the civilians as human shields. That’s when she makes the choice to unleash fire on soldiers and civilians alike. Now that is cruel, but it’s also what almost any military commander would do. Certainly what our own leaders would do, without possessing the technology for precision bombing.

It’s much better than what we got, but I mostly dislike Jon’s story arc. Jon is actually shirking his duty, to step up and rule a shattered nation. There’s nothing admirable about self-abnegation. Nor do I think Jon would throw in the towel, after Cersei set off the wildfire. If there's a trope I've come to detest it is that the greatest leaders are those who reject power. Truly competent and public-spirited people step up to the mark. As for King Tyrion? Simply, no.

My preferred crack ending would be: 1. Jon stabs Dany, only for the dagger to snag on the chain mail sewn into the lining of her dress (medieval people knew all about the importance of such body armour.) She says “Do you think I’d be so f***ing stupid as to walk around a city I’ve just sacked and burned without protection?” 2. Jon is dragged off to her bedchamber. He’s tied down on the bed. She proceeds to disrobe seductively, before riding him hard. He decides there are worse fates than being the boyfriend of a beautiful tyrant. She tells him, he can redeem himself, by executing Tyrion. 3. Jon burns Tyrion at the stake. The Dothraki and Unsullied are present, the latter drumming their spears on the ground with approval. The Dothraki leader says “Now you great Khal, worthy husband to Khaleesi.” 4. The episode ends with Jon and Dany marching North to execute Sansa, with Drogon screeching in triumph, overhead.

The Norns are almost identical to the Others. However, given that D & D made the White Walkers quite different to the Others, an adaptation might work. One of the things I like about the latest books is that we get to see the Norns' POV. Their society is completely dystopian, their Queen is a tyrant, their treatment of most of their human captives is horrible. But, they do have reasons for the way they act as they do, whereas so far, we've learned nothing about the Other's reasons, in the saga, and precious little, in the show.

Sybell Spicer is long overdue a burning at the stake. With Jeyne setting it alight. I think she’s one of the vilest characters in the tale.

I did my first degree, in law, in 1988. Did it help me? Honestly, not that much. I think I learned much more, that was useful, during the course of my career, than at uni. I’ve just finished a Masters’ in military history. That degree was far more useful, I think, in developing critical skills, learning how to research unpublished primary sources, and how to advance a detailed argument at length.

I’m surprised about Season 7, because it was just so silly.

1. The reason Theon is called a kinslayer, is because he fathered a child on the miller’s wife. 2. Val is related in some way, to the Others. Perhaps, she is working for them. 3. The Ghost of High Heart is the witch that Jenny brought to Summerhall. And last but not least. Dany is the daughter of Rhaegar and Rhaella.