The hairy bear

I agree. With only six episodes left and with the plot shifting from political intrigue to the war against the Others, I don't see them wasting time introducing new characters at court. And it also makes sense that the book series introduce a replacement for Pycelle, since there are two whole books to do so, and we have a POV in the Citadel can can keep us informed of the proceedings.

He acknowledges all that. When he learns about the kinslaying, the first thing he says is: "I will not shut my doors for ever against you, my kindred, that were ensnared in an evil that you did not aid. With Fingolfin and his people also I will keep friendship, for they have bitterly atoned for such ill as they did. And in our hatred of the Power that wrought all this woe our griefs shall be lost." He forgave the House of Finarfin (that didn't participate in the kinslaying) and the house of Fingolfin (that participated in it, but incorrectly assumed that the Teleri had attacked first). And he even inserts a reminder that the main enemy is Morgoth. Thingol was one of the fairest kings of Middle Earth. In his place, most would have gone to war against the sons of Fëanor, but he continuously put the common good before his pride or personal interest. Not something that could be said of anyone from the House of Fëanor.

I think I'd also be an asshole to the unrepentant murderers of my kin.

In all likelihood, Tytos was dead when Kevan married Dorna Swift. Their firstborn, Lancel, was born in 282 and Tytos died at 267. (In fact, it's a little weird that Kevan didn't have his first child until he was 37. Specially since we know that he was Donna's guardian since he was 15... Perhaps Donna was his second wife, after a childless marriage) But, in any case, a daughter of House Swyft seems to me a perfectly valid option for a Lannister second son to marry. Certainly not a first tier match, but not the shameful union of Genna to Emmon. There are landed knights, such as the Templetons in the Vale, that are more powerful than most lords of Westeros. The Swyft are clearly among the most powerful Lannister bannermen.

Still, and even if they can't use it, it would be nice if they received the two swords that came out of Ice: Oathkeeper for Rickon, and Widow's Wail for Arya.

The impression I have is that by the time Aegon landed in Westeros, Moat Cailin was already abandoned. In AGOT, Catelyn notes that "the wooden keep was gone entirely, rotted away a thousand years past". The Conquest was just 300 years ago. I'd say that probably there wasn't a garrison, but the Starks had some small group of scouts stationed there to control the borders. If they watched the Southern border actively, they'd be able to spot any significant army approaching, and they'd have time to send ravens to White Harbor or Barrowton to send men to fortify the position.

She was able to seduce a man who had sworn and oath of celibacy to lay with her, risking his honor and perhaps even his life. And Arys surely didn't fell for her status or birth rights, since he knew very well that he had no chance to marry her ever. I think we should assume that Arianne is very attractive.

I doubt Lysa would have ever attacked Runestone. She's basically a coward. Keeping Robert safe (or, in this case, overprotected) is her main priority. He didn't declare for Robb (or any other king) because she wanted to maintain neutrality, keep the fight out of the Vale, and make sure all the knights of the Vale stayed inside her borders to defend little Robert if needed. So if the lords declarant had sent a force to help Robb, I guess she'd be very angry, and she would send ravens to all contenders swearing that those men where renegade lords acting on their own accord against her wishes. But I doubt that she'd dare to send troops against her most powerful bannerman, because that would bring war to the Vale and endanger Robert. Exactly what she wanted to avoid. Only after the war of the five kings had concluded, and only if Robb had ended on the losing side, she may have dared to punish the Royces and their allies.

Fair enough, although we know that Hands also sit on the Iron Throne when they hold court. For all we know, Baelon also sat there on occasion.

I think the main offenders are the Stark family. In the previous generation, Brandon was fostered at Barrowton and Eddard to the Eyrie. But none of the Starks kids were. Perhaps that could be explained due to Jon Snow's presence. Eddard didn't dare to propose Catelyn that any of her kids had to go away, when Jon was allowed to stay. I'm not really seeing other big problems among the other great houses: After losing Theon, it's obvious that Greyjoy wouldn't send Asha away. Edmure could have easily been fostered after Cat and Lysa left. When the series start, he would be old enough to have returned home. Cersei went to the royal court, and Jaime was fostered by Sumner Crakehall. Loras Tyrell was sent to Storm's End to Renly's "care". Surely the older brothers had been fostered somewhere else too. Robert Arryn was six when the books start. Normally. it's probably a little too young to be sent away for fostering (Eddard went to the Eyrie at eight). It's worth reminding, though, that Jon Arryn planned to send him to Stannis. It was for this reason that Lysa decided to go ahead and murder him with tears of Lys. Quentyn had been sent away, and Doran explains what Mellario thought of that. And I don't see Stannis sending Shireen away as a ward. He seems to be ashamed of her, and wouldn't want to her face to be seen publicly.

In my post I included several quotes written in the Middle Ages that I see as clearly nationalist. There are many other clear examples in the past: a good example is how the independent Greek city states clearly saw themselves as a part of a common people, and when the Persians attacked their brothers in Ionia (Anatolia), they rose to their defense. In the contemporary accounts, this sense of pan-Hellenic feeling is clearly stated. In the Bible we find another instance of a another group of people who clearly share views that I don't see how could be deemed "non-nationalistic". Again, I can accept that the mindsets and aspirations of the average man two millenarian ago are quite different than ours. But can't see how can we ignore the nationalistic component in their writings and legacies. And if you dislike the term "nationalism" and prefer any other one, I'm fine with it. Semantics is not my forte. The point is just that people with a common cultural heritage tend to prefer to have as a ruler one of their own. I'm sure that you'll agree that we can't take the fact that at any given time there was no claimant to the Scottish throne as a proof that no one in Scotland would have preferred to have a Scottish king. It's the same with the North. I wholly agree with all that. The Northmen surely are not Ironborn, but there are hints that the Northmen also view themselves as a cultural unity, and different from the rest. Eddard and other Northeners continuously repeat that they are "the blood of the First Men", and do thinks differently than in the South. If vengeance had been the primary motive, they could have joint Stannis or Renly. And Greatjon's speech didn't include a single call to vengeance. I won't say that it didn't play a part, but I struggle to see it as the main reason. I'm not sure there was a significant imbalance. Catleyn counts five Riverlords (Blackwood, Bracken, Mallister, Darry and Vance, and four Northern lords (Umber, Karstark, Mormont and Glover). In any case, the idea of declaring independence is clearly a Northern thing: First the Greatjon, then Rickard, then Maege. It's not a coincidence, I'm convinced, that they are three of the Northernmost lords, where they'd be more isolated and with minimal Andal influence. Only after them, the riverlords bandwagon in.

I disagree. Unless you restrict the definition of "nationalism" to the "romantic nationalism" that developed by the 19th century. There are scholars that defend, for instance, that England was already a nation by the 8th century, when Bede wrote his history of the English people. In it, Bede uses the word nation ("historia nostrae nationis") and uses "English" to refer to all the different germanic tribes that lived in Britain (Angles, Saxons, and Jutes, but excluding Britons, Scots and Picts). Some years later, an Anglo-Saxon poem praised king Ethelred for defending "their land, the place and the people". In that poem, the Earl of Essex is quoted saying "Shall our people, our nation, bear you to go hence with our gold?" After the Norman conquest, a chronicler talks about the battle of Hastings saying: "That fatal day for England, the sad destruction of our dear country [dulcis patrie]". He also lamented: "England has become the habitation of outsiders and the dominion of foreigners. Today, no Englishman is earl, bishop, or abbot, and newcomers gnaw away at the riches and very innards of England; nor is there any hope for an end of this misery". I see Greatjon's proclamation of Jon as a clear example that there's a feeling of a Northern homeland. "Why should they rule over me and mine, from some flowery seat in Highgarden or Dorne? What do they know of the Wall or the wolfswood or the barrows of the First Men? Even their gods are wrong." The Wall is close to Last Hearth. The Wolfwood is notably far away, but the barrows of the First Men are in the other side of the continent. The North is the only kingdom where the Old Gods are the majority religion and the First Men are the major ethnicity. They have other unifying factors that set them apart from the rest (geography, effect of the Winters,...) I'm not saying that all lords Stark or Lannister after the conquest were fervent secessionists. I'm not even saying that the majority opinion on the North (or any other kingdom) was pro-independence. I'm only saying that, without doubt, there was some people in those kingdoms (not necessarily the Great Lords) that wished to regain independence. Whether they were a lot or a few, we don't know. Of course they were not enough to make an identifiable impact on the course of history. But the Greatjon would not have made a proclamation like he did, and Maege Mormont would not have shouted "The King of Winter" (the ancient title of the Kings of the North), if the idea of independence had been alien to them before. I'm not saying I disagree with all you say. In fact, I agree with most of it. In Middle Ages, people's loyalty was mostly directer to their own lord. And, as Jorah says, commoners care more for good harvests and healthy children than about who wins the game of thrones. But that doesn't mean that communities didn't have a larger cultural identities they identified with. And some, preferred to be ruled by someone of that identity.

A very old thread from the previous incarnation of this forum, posted not long after the publication of ACOK, reached the conclusion that the "groups of three" could be grouped, and referred to the three big climaxes in Dany's live would have. All three would include a fire, a marriage and a treason. ...three fires must you light...one (1) for life and one (2) for death and one (3) to love... ...three mounts must you ride...one (1) to bed and one (2) to dread and one (3) to love... ...three treasons will you know...once (1) for blood and once (2) for gold and once (3) for love... The (1) group referred to Dany's time with the Dothrakis. The fire for live was Drogo's pyre, that brought the dragons to live. The mount to bed represented Drogo, that was Dany's first sexual encounter. And the treason for blood was Mirri Maz Duur use of blood magic. The group (2) was suggested to include Dany's marriage to some Greyjoy. Bear in mind that this theory was made before the publication of Feast and Dance. It was based on the "A corpse stood at the prow of a ship, eyes bright on his dead face, gray lips smiling sadly" quote. Both the ship, and the "grey lips smiling" suggested Greyjoy. And Dany would need ships to attempt an invasion of Westeros. That marriage would have ended badly, with the Greyjoy being abusive to Dany (one to dread), and betraying her for money (one for gold). Dany's dragon's would end burning the Greyjoy fleet in revenge (one fire for Death). The "love" group (3) would be related to his marriage to Jon Snow. She would marry him for love. The fire for love would be burning the wight invasion with her dragons. And the betrayal for love would be Tyrion's (it was assumed that Tyrion would fall in love with Dany, and when he saw that she loved Jon instead, he would betray them badly). I still think it's valid (perhaps with some minor tweaks), and if anything, the developments in the past books seem to confirm it.

@Ylath's Snout You don't improvise a wedding with one of the most prominent lords of the North. It should take long rounds of negotiations, specially for someone such as Roose who is cautious and thoughtful. It's not as if Roose Bolton intended to put himself at risk at any point of the war. He knew that he would also command from the rear, that he would not engage in any kind of heroics, and that he would flee or surrender at the first sign of numerical inferiority. He was not going to sacrifices anything for Robb. Also, Roose may have also thought that after the war itself was a good opportunity for a better match. Either because he could broke one with a Southorn family (as it happened), or because some other less prudent lord got killed in battle (Lady Hornwood could have been an interesting bride for Roose, if Ramsay had not murdered her before)

Domeric Bolton died at 297 AC. Robb summons his banners to march South at 298 AC. Of course Roose had the intention to remarry, and that's the first thing he did when he had the opportunity with Fat Walda.