Is Sansa going to be placed in deeper (no pun intended!) sexual situations in the latter books?

[Queen Sansa Stark]

I would also like to add that the last Sansa chapter of ASOS Lysa specifically tells the ingredients to create Moon Tea. When I first read it I thought it was pretty weird, but honestly if you think about it is quite obvious. Sansa is going to drink the Moon Tea at some point in her narrative :o

[butterbumps!]

In theory I like the idea of Sansa deciding to opt out of the orthodox Westerosi game by having her own child (like the Mormont women, wasn't it?) instead of giving power over her claim to some undesired husband - but only if she has taken some measure of power for herself first. IMO, she wouldn't want to have a child while she's powerless to be a potential hostage to fortune - someone she can't protect.

Oh, I agree with you entirely on that point. My views on this are predicated on the idea that she has access to tools such that she can make these moves in her own right-- that is, she has a path to gaining power in front of her that doesn't inherently involve marriage or anything of that sort.

ETA:

Does LF plan to muder SR? I remember LF despairing that he will die, which is kind of callous given that SR is his bastard.

Yes. very much so. It's why he keeps insisting on the sweetsleep. LF's stated plan is for SR to die, Harry takes the Vale, Sansa marries Harry, Harry's army takes the North. If this is truly his plan, the next steps are to have Harry die, and likely take Sansa to wed, which would give him the North, Vale and Riverlands.

This is why he is presenting marriage as so necessary to Sansa, despite the fact that she doesn't need to marry Harry at all in order to get an army or support for the North. LF wants the Vale and North; unlike Sansa, who has a claim to Winterfell and doesn't care about one to the Vale, LF has no such thing and a desire to hold the Vale. In his case, marriage is the tool he needs. He needs Sansa to get a claim to the Vale via marriage to Harry, and then LF can get a claim to the North via marriage to Sansa.

[Le Cygne]

I would also like to add that the last Sansa chapter of ASOS Lysa specifically tells the ingredients to create Moon Tea. When I first read it I thought it was pretty weird, but honestly if you think about it is quite obvious. Sansa is going to drink the Moon Tea at some point in her narrative :o

Nice! I didn't think of that. Seriously, it's like a how to show or something, the way she says it.

[juanml82]

Can we take a moment to look at the breakdown we are having before this just keeps going?

I'm appealing to the fact that this series is about political and social crisis, that the concept of power is being repeatedly challenged and deconstructed across the series, that there's been interruptions to the status quo and more are promising to come to fruition, and that most things don't "operate as they're 'supposed' to" throughout the series.

You, on the other hand, keep arguing with points about how "it's supposed to" work. Which is irrelevant to my argument.

Any change will find conservative forces. IE, powerful people invested in who things are supposed to work. They might be either Bowen Marsh stabbing Jon, Robb Stark refusing to declare for Renly, Stannis conveniently avoiding supporting Daennerys claim, nobles shunning merchants, or younger brothers with men under their command whose inheritance would be lost if Dornish inheritance laws were to apply.

And while war is breaking what passes for a social contract in Westeros, the feudal system remains strong. A lot of characters in Westeros would want to see Walder Frey, if not all the Freys, executed. But if their wishes came to pass, there will be a new Lord at the Crossing. Travelled and knowledgeable Westerosi know about other government systems. Who's not supporting the way it's supposed to work in Westeros? Jorah Mormont?

I will adress a few of these points, but won't continue to engage with you if you keep appealing to "the way things are supposed to work."

1. The Vale helping Sansa attain Winterfell, which in turn will help to strengthen the North (who will love her if she's their Queen Bread) serves to strengthen the Vale, as they would now have a strong partner against all these other potential common enemies. Being as how the Vale didn't impose a marriage pact on Robb as part of their desire to aid his efforts, then Sansa will not have to as some inherent necessity. Please stop arguing this point.

The North is not strong anymore. Come on, that much is clear. And while Robb lived, he was a victorious Lord/King. What makes you think Sansa's bargaining position is the same as Robb? She has nowhere to go, her head is worth a lordship as long as Cersei rules. The Riverlands are done for. The North is almost the same. Before the RW (and specially before the fall of Winterfell) the Starks were strong. Now the Starks are weak.

2. If all Manderly is looking for is a puppet, then fuck him, seriously, and take his mint and fleet. I don't happen to believe that this is his goal. That is, if he's truly pro-Stark as many seem to believe, then he'd be content to welcome Sansa to Winterfell and serve as an advisor.

Frankly, he seems to be expecting to die. Look at the way he talks about this while at Winterfell in DwD. He's not expecting to make it out. I don't think he's looking to be a puppet master.

And so starts the Wolf War. House Manderly is the most powerful House in the North by ADWD. So what if Wyman Manderly expects to die (even if it's true)? It's about legacy. His son can rule the North for Rickon. House Manderly would be known for centuries as the saviours of House Stark. For a generation or two, Wylla Manderly will assure that the Starks will favour House Manderly. That's what the feudal system is about.

3. Jon would back Sansa because A. she's actually suited to the role in both ability, age, and ability to provide for her subjects, which are things he considers important in a ruler according to his POVs B. has a massive chip on his shoulder about unfair inheritance laws.

Jon doesn't know about A, and she's not the right age either. She is a bit too young. As for B, you consider Northern inheritance laws unfair. Jon doesn't.

4. Alys Karstark's arc has not been carefully detailed out to us such that we have 4 books of her POV reflecting on the curse of her sexuality (in truth, it's more explicitly motherhood) in relation to being horsetraded and the desire to remove herself from the game. What's more interesting-- Sansa realizes she has all the tools she needs to take Winterfell and makes a claim in her own right, or Sansa follows the way "things are supposed to work" and marries herself off in order to gain tools she doesn't even need? And we're talking about a story where female inheritance is an issue pervading multiple plots, here.

Do you have any textual evidence in which Sansa thought she should be Robb's heir before her brothers?

5. It's laughable to me that you won't accept the reformist/ revolutionary threads the series is developing unless it's an all or nothing scenario. I guess Nymeria wasn't a revolutionary because she didn't overturn the feudal system. I cannot take this seriously.

Because she was not a revolutionary. And it's true you didn't refer to her as a revolutionary but as a reformer. It all comes down to your idea that Sansa is part of the movement that's changing the system. And that's not happening.

The Masonry changed the system. The Illustration changed the system. The communists changed the system. A girl who doesn't want to get married does not change the system.

6. Dany has not yet reached Westeros. This doesn't negate the fact that she's a revolutionary.

In Slaver's Bay, which has a different system.

OK, I think that here is a clash of the opinions based on narrow-mindedness of how women can seize power in Westeros...

The traditional way, the way we have seen being enforced by now is that woman can seize power only through her father, husband or son. We have plenty examples of that. Cersei is a prime example of someone having power through the male figures in her life. First her power came from being Tywin's daughter, later Robert's consort and lastly as Joffrey's and Tommen's mother. That is all how women's supposed to have power in the patriarchy world such as Westeros. And that is our starting point...

But, as the plot resolves, so does the eminent change comes. Through wide spectrum of female characters, most notably Dany, Arianne and Asha, we see not just desire, hope or ideal of woman seizing the power on her own, but undeniable possibility of that happening. This is not some feminist manifesto, but GRRM did indeed put his foot forward into reshaping the world of Westeros. Many posters here argued that Iron Throne and Seven Kingdoms are obsolete as institutions, that they have proven flawed and inefficient and that simply time has come for a change. Some saw it in dismantling the throne and some saw it in changes of fundamental principles Westeros was built on, and one of those is definitely the perception of woman having power.

Men seize power in Westeros through their father, husband or (step)son as well. They are either the oldest son, so they inherit when their father dies. They marry into a ruling lady, which are fewer but exist (see Baelish) or through their stepsons (Baelish again). And that's it. Power, at least legal power, in Westeros is inherited. You may add conquest. Men can seize power by conquest while both nature and nurture conspire against Westerosi women from doing the same, at least as often as men.

Women do inherit power on their own. Or, more precisely, after they inherit it. Maege Mormont inherited after her brother (who was ahead in the line of succession) went into exile. Lady Dustin inherited it from his death husband (who, in turn, had inherited it from his father). Rohanne Webber inherited it, although there was a bizarre will partially made because it was unsure as to whether she'd be able to have heirs or not. Lady Waynwood inherited it. Nominally, Cersei is the Lady of Casterly Rock, and she's not exerting that because she prefers KL and because, after all the mess she caused, none will want her in a position of power, not because she's a woman but because she isn't fit.

Arianne would have inherited without an issue if she wasn't secretly betrothed to Viserys. And, as far as Doran is concerned, she will inherit after him. There nothing against the system in this. They have less chances to inherit outside Dorne, true. But Arianne or Lady Waynwood inheriting are not extraordinary things. If anything, Asha's difficulties are more the exception in Westeros than the rule. As for Danny, she's not even in Westeros. Her failure to keep Drogo's Khalassar come from Dokrathi culture, not Westerosi culture.

As for posters arguing that the IT or the 7K are obsolete, what matters is how many characters have expressed that view. Inside Westeros, I think it boils down to "none"

There is no doubt that with every new chapter Dany is getting closer to Westeros. When she arrives, she will be the "agent of change", that piece that will change the game completely. Not just by bringing dragons or attempting to restore the fallen dynasty, but because she is shaking the entire systems to the core. And as we can easily predict, just as in Slaver's bay, Dany will shake Westerosi system by fighting for what she thinks is hers. With such game changer in Westeros, it would be naive to think that Sansa's story will retrograde to being "tennis marriage ball being tossed from one side to another". Not because it literary makes no sense, but simply because Dany will bring someone with her who will make all plans for Sansa's marriage obsolete - Tyrion. Even though, neither Tyrion nor Sansa want to be in that marriage, the marriage itself serves as umbrella against all possible arranged marriages. And between Vale lords who don't trust LF, Sansa being in line of inheritance of more than half the kingdom, being blood relative of Robert Arryn, I think it is safe to say that Sansa might seize power through different sources - alliances, plots, games, and not marriage. Finally, what we will see in the future for Sansa will certainly not be the mere repetitive continuation of her going from one arranged marriage to another. Guys, time has come for flipping the table Westerosi played their Game of thrones at... And that will affect everyone, Sansa included.

Daennerys changed a different system, and sucked at it. We don't know if she's planning to change the Westerosi system except for the Targaryen laws which put women at the very bottom of the inheritance lists for the Iron Throne. And that law doesn't apply to the other lordships.

[Winnief]

I would also like to add that the last Sansa chapter of ASOS Lysa specifically tells the ingredients to create Moon Tea. When I first read it I thought it was pretty weird, but honestly if you think about it is quite obvious. Sansa is going to drink the Moon Tea at some point in her narrativ

Interesting theory.

I also like the Mormont women theory, but I think that's going to apply to Asha rather than Sansa.

I do think its more than likely that Sansa will marry again before the series is finished-and that the second one will be consummated with an actual bedding ceremony even.

[Queen Sansa Stark]

Interesting theory.

I also like the Mormont women theory, but I think that's going to apply to Asha rather than Sansa.

I do think its more than likely that Sansa will marry again before the series is finished-and that the second one will be consummated with an actual bedding ceremony even.

Personally I don't think it will happen. Not only because she is creepily similar to Elizabeth I, but because she is fed up with arranged marriages and doesn't want to wed again, not now, perhaps ever. I for one believe that it has been set up that Sansa will rebel against this disturbing system at some point. Her having sex with Sandor will in a way stop people to claim winterfell through her name as Butterbumps theorized. Maybe this will be the reason why she will drink the Moon Tea.

[ARYa_Nym]

Thanks, Its hard to get every detail rigt from memory, I am happy my friend is enjoying the books, But I sure miss having them to hand.

I know lots of naturally curvy and very slim women too. T'is all good. Women come in many shapes and they are all lovely. :)

See I think that whilst Arya is indeed yet to flower, she is looking more and more like a young woman. The sheer amount of male attention she gets tells me that, she might not have much going on up top but she obviously is gaining hight and her body is changing shape, her waist will be narrowing and her legs lengthening her breasts will be small no doubt much is made of that, but I really doubt she's flat like a 7 yr old flat she'd be more like at that stage where they are buds.( You remember when they ache and feel sore) Meera is considerably older than Arya and is indeed a woman grown, though a slender one. Thats possibly how Arya may end up, Or she might get curvier, some lasses grow in height, get their period but stay small breasted until late teens then have a growth spurt in that area. Your breasts don't actually stop growing until about 26. And then of course they grow with each pregnancy. Quite a bit in fact. Some times they go back down after but often not.

Arya's lack of visible from the top balcony titties, doesn't make her pre pubescent. The fact she's 11 almost 12 and is gaining height rapidly and gets a lot of make attention no matter which face she has on (ok not as the Ugly girl, poor girl.) from many men tells me she is in puberty. Its just logical... I actually don't think we're that far off seeing eye to eye you know.

I think so too. I just think she looks very young to the point where someone else will point out that she is a child not a maiden.

Because she was not a revolutionary. And it's true you didn't refer to her as a revolutionary but as a reformer. It all comes down to your idea that Sansa is part of the movement that's changing the system. And that's not happening.

The Masonry changed the system. The Illustration changed the system. The communists changed the system. A girl who doesn't want to get married does not change the system.

Queen Nymeria also went from queen regnant (ruling in her own right) to consort to the Prince of Dorne. This is another reason why she parallels to Dany. Dany tried to do this in Mereen for peace but I'm sure it will be unsuccessful. She tried to completely change their system while Nymeria integrated into the system.

I've always saw that this is where parallels b/w Arya and the wolf to Queen Nymeria would stop. Arya is not marrying Trystane and Nymeria kills any wolf who tries to mount her. With wolves the mating pair are the alphas. Of course if Nymeria goes back to her original pack she would have to surrender some of her power as well. I'm not certain she'll do that.

Queen Nymeria did make some reforms but Dorne isn't egalitarion and is still sexist (GRRM said so in an SSM). Evidence is shown when Doran marries that Santagar woman to an old man as punishment while Arianne's male plotters got sent to the Free Cities, etc.

I think for example Asha being queen can help her but it doesn't help the majority of the women in her society. They still are salt wives etc.

It reminds me of Kanye West complaining about fashion. I think he wants to sit at the elite table. He wants to be accepted but he is not changing the problem for those underneath the elite.

[Mladen]

As for posters arguing that the IT or the 7K are obsolete, what matters is how many characters have expressed that view. Inside Westeros, I think it boils down to "none"

Tell that to Robb and all those Northmen and Riverlords who followed him.

I would also like to add that the last Sansa chapter of ASOS Lysa specifically tells the ingredients to create Moon Tea. When I first read it I thought it was pretty weird, but honestly if you think about it is quite obvious. Sansa is going to drink the Moon Tea at some point in her narrative :o

Perhaps, I always thought of that as directing at us what was done to Lysa when she got pregnant with LF... i wouldn't be so courageous of telling that she will definitely going to use moon tea at some point, though.

[butterbumps!]

Any change will find conservative forces. IE, powerful people invested in who things are supposed to work. They might be either Bowen Marsh stabbing Jon, Robb Stark refusing to declare for Renly, Stannis conveniently avoiding supporting Daennerys claim, nobles shunning merchants, or younger brothers with men under their command whose inheritance would be lost if Dornish inheritance laws were to apply.

And while war is breaking what passes for a social contract in Westeros, the feudal system remains strong. A lot of characters in Westeros would want to see Walder Frey, if not all the Freys, executed. But if their wishes came to pass, there will be a new Lord at the Crossing. Travelled and knowledgeable Westerosi know about other government systems. Who's not supporting the way it's supposed to work in Westeros? Jorah Mormont?

Are you really that blind to the social critique that is the song of ice and fire (i.e. preservation vs change)? Have you really missed the ongoing study of deconstructions of power?

The North is not strong anymore. Come on, that much is clear. And while Robb lived, he was a victorious Lord/King. What makes you think Sansa's bargaining position is the same as Robb? She has nowhere to go, her head is worth a lordship as long as Cersei rules. The Riverlands are done for. The North is almost the same. Before the RW (and specially before the fall of Winterfell) the Starks were strong. Now the Starks are weak.

And so starts the Wolf War. House Manderly is the most powerful House in the North by ADWD. So what if Wyman Manderly expects to die (even if it's true)? It's about legacy. His son can rule the North for Rickon. House Manderly would be known for centuries as the saviours of House Stark. For a generation or two, Wylla Manderly will assure that the Starks will favour House Manderly. That's what the feudal system is about.

You are completely inventing the idea that Manderly is only invested in fighting to put a grandson of his at Winterfell. Seriously, if Manderly is only invested in this in order to exert some puppet-master power dynamic then, once again, fuck him.

The North is weak because it is completely un-unified. Unify the North behind an uncontested figurehead, and look, answered prayer.

Sansa can bring the North something Robb didn't: FOOD. A fresh army.

Jon doesn't know about A, and she's not the right age either. She is a bit too young. As for B, you consider Northern inheritance laws unfair. Jon doesn't.

Jon wouldn't know that Sansa is feeding the North or having an army alliance once he contacts the Vale about the food crisis? And he wouldn't know after being in contact with her that she's actually fit to rule?

In terms of Jon finding inheritance laws unfair, did you happen to miss the 6 score times he bemoans his fate as a bastard? Or perhaps this discussion from Arya I, aGoT:

“The woman is important too!” Arya protested.

Jon chuckled. “Perhaps you should do the same thing, little sister. Wed Tully to Stark in your arms.”

...........

Jon shrugged. “Girls get the arms but not the swords. Bastards get the swords but not the arms. I did not make the rules, little sister.”

...........

“The show is done,” he said. He bent to scratch Ghost behind the ears. The white wolf rose and rubbed against him. “You had best run back to your room, little sister. Septa Mordane will surely be lurking. The longer you hide, the sterner the penance. You’ll be sewing all through winter. When the spring thaw comes, they will find your body with a needle still locked tight between your frozen fingers.”

Arya didn’t think it was funny. “I hate needlework!” she said with passion. “It’s not fair!”

“Nothing is fair,” Jon said.

Do you have any textual evidence in which Sansa thought she should be Robb's heir before her brothers?

um, the prospect hasn't come up yet, but since the RW she's been thinking in terms of herself as the Stark heir and the responsibility of representing the Starks as being hers.

Because she was not a revolutionary. And it's true you didn't refer to her as a revolutionary but as a reformer. It all comes down to your idea that Sansa is part of the movement that's changing the system. And that's not happening.

The Masonry changed the system. The Illustration changed the system. The communists changed the system. A girl who doesn't want to get married does not change the system.

Oh, right. Because, like I quoted upthread, Lyanna's refusal to get married precipitated a rebellion that overturned the the dynasty. As in, when people stop jumping that's when the world changes.

And why can't Sansa do this? Because you've stuck your foot in the ground and decided so, despite how these books, once again, are about social change.

If Sansa takes a stand to claim Winterfell in her own right and continue the line through her, then yes, she would be part of the change that's been ongoing, challenging the status quo.

In Slaver's Bay, which has a different system.

What does that matter? The point is she is a revolutionary and Martin is very interested in social change given that this is a major ongoing theme in these books.

Men seize power in Westeros through their father, husband or (step)son as well. They are either the oldest son, so they inherit when their father dies. They marry into a ruling lady, which are fewer but exist (see Baelish) or through their stepsons (Baelish again). And that's it. Power, at least legal power, in Westeros is inherited. You may add conquest. Men can seize power by conquest while both nature and nurture conspire against Westerosi women from doing the same, at least as often as men.

Women do inherit power on their own. Or, more precisely, after they inherit it. Maege Mormont inherited after her brother (who was ahead in the line of succession) went into exile. Lady Dustin inherited it from his death husband (who, in turn, had inherited it from his father). Rohanne Webber inherited it, although there was a bizarre will partially made because it was unsure as to whether she'd be able to have heirs or not. Lady Waynwood inherited it. Nominally, Cersei is the Lady of Casterly Rock, and she's not exerting that because she prefers KL and because, after all the mess she caused, none will want her in a position of power, not because she's a woman but because she isn't fit.

Arianne would have inherited without an issue if she wasn't secretly betrothed to Viserys. And, as far as Doran is concerned, she will inherit after him. There nothing against the system in this. They have less chances to inherit outside Dorne, true. But Arianne or Lady Waynwood inheriting are not extraordinary things. If anything, Asha's difficulties are more the exception in Westeros than the rule. As for Danny, she's not even in Westeros. Her failure to keep Drogo's Khalassar come from Dokrathi culture, not Westerosi culture.

As for posters arguing that the IT or the 7K are obsolete, what matters is how many characters have expressed that view. Inside Westeros, I think it boils down to "none"

Daennerys changed a different system, and sucked at it. We don't know if she's planning to change the Westerosi system except for the Targaryen laws which put women at the very bottom of the inheritance lists for the Iron Throne. And that law doesn't apply to the other lordships.

Oh good. A woman cannot hold power unless they get it from a man because that's the way things work. The very argument that's been used to deny women of equal rights throughout history. ETA: I should specifiy that this comment is in response to your entire body of posts on this matter, not just this part of your arguments.

For the record, conquest and inheritance are not the only models of power we see.

And overturning a system isn't the same as rebuilding it afterward. Dany knows how to overturn systems. as it happens, the smallfolk are rather fed up with the lack of accountability of the ruling class over the series and seem pretty primed for revolt. Interestingly enough, spearheading movements is exactly the sort of thing Dany excels in, if not the aftermath.

[Le Cygne]

Personally I don't think it will happen. Not only because she is creepily similar to Elizabeth I, but because she is fed up with arranged marriages and doesn't want to wed again, not now, perhaps ever. I for one believe that it has been set up that Sansa will rebel against this disturbing system at some point. Her having sex with Sandor will in a way stop people to claim winterfell through her name as Butterbumps theorized. Maybe this will be the reason why she will drink the Moon Tea.

I love it. But he doesn't have to die, though, after he contributes his tall strong northern looking genetics to her fulfillment in every way through agency project?

[Techelles]

Larry Flynt seems to think so.

[Le Cygne]

I know who he is but I don't know the story...

[Lord Bronn Stokeworth]

Just from an artistic standpoint, this author is a romantic, would he make this central relationship an abduction and rape? There are the things Ned said about the two of them, or didn't say, that shows no indication of that. And the knight of the laughing tree ending up with all of that beautiful spirit brutally crushed? And the tower of joy for the place it happens? From an author who loves playful phallic symbols? What kind of a story is that? Plus all the other hints. I think she fell for Rhaegar and he fell for her. She didn't love Robert, that was the problem. She didn't want to marry him, and she didn't.

Oh. I believe it's likely she ran away with him, I just don't like treating it as a certainty.

And so starts the Wolf War. House Manderly is the most powerful House in the North by ADWD. So what if Wyman Manderly expects to die (even if it's true)? It's about legacy. His son can rule the North for Rickon. House Manderly would be known for centuries as the saviours of House Stark. For a generation or two, Wylla Manderly will assure that the Starks will favour House Manderly. That's what the feudal system is about.

People who try to make puppets out of their ruler are rarely remembered as "saviours" of the House the subverted.

I mean seriously. Are people going to remember the family that went to war with other members of the ruling House to prop up their puppet as "saviors" of the ruling House? No. The House Manderly would be remembered as fondly as House Bolton or Frey.

[Techelles]

I know who he is but I don't know the story...

If you're not averse to a few emotional scars (and hearty laughs!), click below.

http://io9.com/first-crazy-look-at-hustlers-this-aint-game-of-throne-1548983995

To be fair, though, the TV how is half way there already.

Yes, I like to elevate a discussion when I can...sorry!

[mambru]

The North is not strong anymore. Come on, that much is clear. And while Robb lived, he was a victorious Lord/King. What makes you think Sansa's bargaining position is the same as Robb? She has nowhere to go, her head is worth a lordship as long as Cersei rules. The Riverlands are done for. The North is almost the same. Before the RW (and specially before the fall of Winterfell) the Starks were strong. Now the Starks are weak.

And so starts the Wolf War. House Manderly is the most powerful House in the North by ADWD. So what if Wyman Manderly expects to die (even if it's true)? It's about legacy. His son can rule the North for Rickon. House Manderly would be known for centuries as the saviours of House Stark. For a generation or two, Wylla Manderly will assure that the Starks will favour House Manderly. That's what the feudal system is about.

You're forgetting something. A giant power vacuum is opening up in Westeros. The Lannisters have (mostly) won their war - but at the cost of a huge amount of cash and soldiers. Crops have gone unplanted, harvests destroyed, people all over the country are going to starve. Pretty much ALL of Westeros is extremely vulnerable right now - except the Vale, who managed to harvest as usual and has all its armies untouched by war. Not all Vale lords would necessarily support Sansa out of the pure goodness of their hearts - but I bet a lot of them would support her out of greed and ambition...it's just the right time for a power grab. It wouldn't be strategic to march the Vale armies north en masse in the middle of winter - but it would be perfectly feasible and profitable to begin the war for Sansa, Queen in the North, by marching on her enemies the Freys, who are pretty much right on the Vale's doorstep, wiping them out and divvying up the territory among themselves. Frey territory was also not much despoiled during the war, and there will be harvests to confiscate and send North in aid - something the Vale would have to do anyway to keep from being flooded with starving Northern refugees, IMO. While the Vale would want to keep the bulk of its forces near the Vale to meet the Lannisters' counterstroke, they could support the North with some troops and (mainly) food aid, which by the time winter sets in will be literally more valuable than gold. IMO, their strategy might be to grab the unguarded Westerlands and destroy the Lannisters first and then march on the North after winter's over.

[Le Cygne]

If you're not averse to a few emotional scars (and hearty laughs!), click below.

http://io9.com/first-crazy-look-at-hustlers-this-aint-game-of-throne-1548983995

To be fair, though, the TV how is half way there already.

Yes, I like to elevate a discussion when I can...sorry!

No, that was good! :) Probably an improvement on the show!

[juanml82]

I think for example Asha being queen can help her but it doesn't help the majority of the women in her society. They still are salt wives etc.

It reminds me of Kanye West complaining about fashion. I think he wants to sit at the elite table. He wants to be accepted but he is not changing the problem for those underneath the elite.

My thoughts exactly. I'm going to condense my thoughts about revolution and societal change in this:

A revolution is not a coup d'etat. It's not one aristocrat replacing another. It's not changing figures while everything remain the same. They are not led by the ruling elite nor those inmediately below them. They are made by the upper-middle class, with support of the lower class. The French Revolution was a revolution. The independence wars of the USA and Spanish America were revolutions. The Russian Revolution was a revolution. Where there was once a monarchy, you have a republic, or a dictatorship in the aftermath. Where you once had divine right and absolutism, you then have liberalism, or communism. The system of government changes. The laws change. The rights people have change.

Robert's Rebellion was not a revolution. Robert's rebellion was a civil war, and it ended with the same system, but with someone else on top. None in power in Westeros is questioning the system, because people in power do not want the system they benefit from changed. Stablish Dornish succession upsets the ruling class. But it doesn't change the system. Instead of Dickon Tarly inheriting, you get his older sister inheriting. But peasants get the same rights. Merchants keep paying taxes to sustain the Tarlys. Independence of powers remains outside the realm of possibility. Asha getting elected Queen instead of Euron doesn't make a revolution. If there is a change, it's in the Kingsmoot, which changes monarchy into some sort of extremely limited democracy for the feudal lords.

And Westeros is extremely far from true social change. Peasants revolts don't make a revolution. They make for bloody civil wars in which the peasants loose, as it happened dozens, if not hundreds, of times in European history. A girl who doesn't want to get married doesn't make a revolution. A revolution needs an ideological basis, be it the Illustration or the Communist Manifesto, it needs a huge base of support who feel that ideological basis in their guts, and it needs the union of all the social classes below those in power. If ASOIAF was the story of a revolution, then the novels would be focusing in the merchant class, who would be pushing for it to get political power and a reduction in taxes. In the smallfolk as seen by the smallfolk, as they are the ones putting the lion share of the blood. An aristocrat like Brienne travelling and watching what happened to those beneath her is not the story of a revolution. It should also focus in the Westerosi equivalents of Rousseau, fomenting the ideas that imagine the world that will be (failed to) built after the Revolution.

That's not ASOIAF. ASOIAF is the social critique of an aristocracy fucking up.

As for Daennerys, she's a Westerosi by birth and Braavosi by growth. Her revolution, badly going as it is, it's against a system that goes against what the Westerosi and Braavosi elite believe. She has an ideological, as well as personal, backing in why slavery is wrong. She doesn't have such a basis in regards as to why the Westerosi feudal system is wrong. She has given no indication that she plans to change it. She has no allies in Westeros to assist her with a hypothetical social change, and look how that worked in Mereen for that.

Nah, Daennerys arrived at Mereen with three dragons and a 10,000 strong army. She decreed none would jump again. Look how that worked. There is social critique. The French Revolution isn't coming any time soon.

Tell that to Robb and all those Northmen and Riverlords who followed him.

Well, I was thinking about AFFC/ADWD, when Northern independence is crushed. You can refer above about the issue with the institutions.

You are completely inventing the idea that Manderly is only invested in fighting to put a grandson of his at Winterfell. Seriously, if Manderly is only invested in this in order to exert some puppet-master power dynamic then, once again, fuck him.

Well, after five books of ASOIAF, I'm no longer trusting the kind hearth of Westerosi nobles. Except Jaime, but because he's Jaime. Conveniently, he has grandaughters who are single and can marry Rickon (or Bran), but no heirs who can marry Sansa.

The North is weak because it is completely un-unified. Unify the North behind an uncontested figurehead, and look, answered prayer.

Unify the North and you still have an economy in shambles, depleted armies, a destroyed capital and war coming to their doorstep from the North.

Sansa can bring the North something Robb didn't: FOOD. A fresh army.

Yes. A fresh, southron, army. Which will be great, if she brings it as ally to her brother, instead of enemy

Jon wouldn't know that Sansa is feeding the North or having an army alliance once he contacts the Vale about the food crisis? And he wouldn't know after being in contact with her that she's actually fit to rule?

In terms of Jon finding inheritance laws unfair, did you happen to miss the 6 score times he bemoans his fate as a bastard? Or perhaps this discussion from Arya I, aGoT:

“The woman is important too!” Arya protested.

Jon chuckled. “Perhaps you should do the same thing, little sister. Wed Tully to Stark in your arms.”

...........

Jon shrugged. “Girls get the arms but not the swords. Bastards get the swords but not the arms. I did not make the rules, little sister.”

...........

“The show is done,” he said. He bent to scratch Ghost behind the ears. The white wolf rose and rubbed against him. “You had best run back to your room, little sister. Septa Mordane will surely be lurking. The longer you hide, the sterner the penance. You’ll be sewing all through winter. When the spring thaw comes, they will find your body with a needle still locked tight between your frozen fingers.”

Arya didn’t think it was funny. “I hate needlework!” she said with passion. “It’s not fair!”

“Nothing is fair,” Jon said.

Jon wouldn't know if she's able because, as far as he knows, someone else might be pulling the strings. He wouldn't be in personal contact with her. They'd be exchanging letters from across half a continent. And Jon never even considered that elder sisters could inherit before younger brothers. If Rickon shows up, Jon will take him as Lord of Winterfell, possible King in the North. And so would anyone, because that's what they used to do. Sansa claiming the North even after hearing her brother lives is upsetting the table.

um, the prospect hasn't come up yet, but since the RW she's been thinking in terms of herself as the Stark heir and the responsibility of representing the Starks as being hers.

She never thought herself as actually ruling Winterfell or the North. She has shown no interest in actual ruling.

Oh good. A woman cannot hold power unless they get it from a man because that's the way things work. The very argument that's been used to deny women of equal rights throughout history. ETA: I should specifiy that this comment is in response to your entire body of posts on this matter, not just this part of your arguments.

For the record, conquest and inheritance are not the only models of power we see.

Men in Westeros can not hold power unless they inherit from their parents, just like women. True, women get to be at the last of the line, unless they are Dornish, but beyond that, the same principle applies. Gendry is a man. He doesn't hold any power. What are the other models of power? The celibate orders like the Faith, the Citadel and that penal colony Jon Snow leads? Big deal.

Now, if you want to change that, and make it so power can be held even if it's not obtained through a parent, then you need some sort of democracy, even if it's limited.

Oh. I believe it's likely she ran away with him, I just don't like treating it as a certainty.

People who try to make puppets out of their ruler are rarely remembered as "saviours" of the House the subverted.

I mean seriously. Are people going to remember the family that went to war with other members of the ruling House to prop up their puppet as "saviors" of the ruling House? No. The House Manderly would be remembered as fondly as House Bolton or Frey.

History is written by the winners. House Manderly rescued Lord Rickard Stark and guided him in his formative and troublesome early years. It so happened that he fell in love with one of her nursemaids, one Wylla Manderly, or so the bards sing, so they've married and enjoyed a loving, happy marriage which resulted in a lot of children.

As for Lord Rickard's poor elder sister, Lord Manderly rallied the North to try to rescue her from the wretched Valemen who tried to use her against her will to take the North, just like they have been trying for centuries before the Targaryen came. Alas, one of Lord Wyllis Manderly greatest regrets is that he could never rescue her from the evil Vale men, no matter how many time the North repulsed them.

You're forgetting something. A giant power vacuum is opening up in Westeros. The Lannisters have (mostly) won their war - but at the cost of a huge amount of cash and soldiers. Crops have gone unplanted, harvests destroyed, people all over the country are going to starve. Pretty much ALL of Westeros is extremely vulnerable right now - except the Vale, who managed to harvest as usual and has all its armies untouched by war. Not all Vale lords would necessarily support Sansa out of the pure goodness of their hearts - but I bet a lot of them would support her out of greed and ambition...it's just the right time for a power grab. It wouldn't be strategic to march the Vale armies north en masse in the middle of winter - but it would be perfectly feasible and profitable to begin the war for Sansa, Queen in the North, by marching on her enemies the Freys, who are pretty much right on the Vale's doorstep, wiping them out and divvying up the territory among themselves. Frey territory was also not much despoiled during the war, and there will be harvests to confiscate and send North in aid - something the Vale would have to do anyway to keep from being flooded with starving Northern refugees, IMO. While the Vale would want to keep the bulk of its forces near the Vale to meet the Lannisters' counterstroke, they could support the North with some troops and (mainly) food aid, which by the time winter sets in will be literally more valuable than gold. IMO, their strategy might be to grab the unguarded Westerlands and destroy the Lannisters first and then march on the North after winter's over.

That is a more cynic and likely plan. It may even be Baelish: give the Freys a command that will make them rebel (march in force to the Wall to reinforce it, deliver Lord Walder to be judged for his role in the RW, whatever), and crush them without any complain from the Iron Throne.

Bonus points if it ends with Sansa cutting Lord Walder Frey's throat in front of a heartree and getting her hands and dressed dirty and messy with the blood and guts.

[ARYa_Nym]

<snip>

I agree. Instead of Lyanna having to marry Robert it was Cersei. It just changed who was to be his wife.

Lyanna also married Rhaegar. She failed eventually but let's say they had succeeded she would have had to integrate herself as second wife and eventual queen to Rhaegar's king.

ETA: Plus, since she's the second wife Elia is another person she shares power with instead of just her husband.

I've also noticed that in the aftermath most seem to be talking about the men's feelings but whether or not Lyanna gave consent or not seems to be regarded as irrelevant. It's only Rhaegar needed her. Or he loved her. Robert felt she was stolen from him,etc.

[Lyanna Stark]

. So what if Wyman Manderly expects to die (even if it's true)? It's about legacy. His son can rule the North for Rickon. House Manderly would be known for centuries as the saviours of House Stark. For a generation or two, Wylla Manderly will assure that the Starks will favour House Manderly. That's what the feudal system is about.

For the Manderlys, it was just as much about the fact than the Starks took them in and gave them a place in the world once, when nobody else did. And the North remembers, including the Manderlys.

Not everyone is jockeying for a better position, especially in the North. Most Umbers, Karstarsk, Mormonts and Manderlys seems quite happy with their Stark overlords and want to keep in that way since it creates order and stability, which are both necessary for prosperity. War and aggressive politics may lead to some being larger winners, but it creates instability and often, as we have seen, famine and poverty. For some, it doesn't matter (see LF, Tywin Lannister) but for others it *does* matter.

Applying the same blueprint for understanding Wyman Manderly as we do for Littlefinger and Tywin Lannister will be doomed to failure.

[Lord Bronn Stokeworth]

History is written by the winners. House Manderly rescued Lord Rickard Stark and guided him in his formative and troublesome early years. It so happened that he fell in love with one of her nursemaids, one Wylla Manderly, or so the bards sing, so they've married and enjoyed a loving, happy marriage which resulted in a lot of children.

As for Lord Rickard's poor elder sister, Lord Manderly rallied the North to try to rescue her from the wretched Valemen who tried to use her against her will to take the North, just like they have been trying for centuries before the Targaryen came. Alas, one of Lord Wyllis Manderly greatest regrets is that he could never rescue her from the evil Vale men, no matter how many time the North repulsed them.

That would require several things.

1. House Manderly would need to control the maesters who actually write the history and/or cut off the North from the rest of Westeros in order to preserve this history. It's the maesters that actually write the history. And the Princess and the Queen (written as a document written by a maester) shows they are just fine making the winning side look like assholes. So, House Manderly would need to stop the maesters which is pretty unlikely without going totally isolationist. This of course would cut their greatest power, trade.

2. They would need to completely pacify the North under their rule. The Northerners aren't stupid. They are going to notice that Manderly is taking regency and acting in a completely corrupt manner. The North would be thrown into civil war if Sansa (correctly in this scenerio) went to war to free her brother from Manderly. So, it would be the North vs the Vale. It would be the North vs the North and the Vale.

I'm not saying that Manderly couldn't win in your theory. But there's no way that he would be remembered fondly. As soon as his family lost control of the Starks, they would become as hated and reviled as the Boltons.