Possible marriage

[Bear Claw]

11 minutes ago, willowbark said:

It is about a story, which is as yet, unfinished.  None of us know what will happen by the end.  We really don't know what is/is not foreshadowing until the events unfold.  I don't think anyone has the right to be telling anyone that they are wrong when discussing events that have yet to unfold in the show or the books.  We all have our biases, and we all have different interpretations.  We should be able to be respectful of the fact that other people see things differently, and be able to discuss what each of us sees, interprets, and predicts may come in the future.  And when the show and books are done, then we can go back and see what was foreshadowed, and what wasn't.  Personally, I find that the forum is much less fun when not everyone is able to discuss their views, thoughts, opinions and predictions with equal respect.  

I agree. There are clues and possible evidence, but no one knows for sure. I enjoy hearing everyone's thoughts on the different marriage possibilities among the main characters. My mind is pretty open. I know some on this forum definitely have one idea of what is going to happen. People have made excellent points to support Sansa/Sandor, Sansa/Jon, Dany/Jon, Arya/Jon, and Cersei/Euron. 

Personally, I haven't seen or read anything that absolutely rules any of the combinations out.

[Le Cygne]

2 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

Yeah, good point with Theon/Ramsay. In that case, what was going on was so patently obvious and clear, to us that can barely spell psychology or Stockholm Syndrome or whatever, that some high degree of qualification, to discern legitimate cases from non-legit ones, wasn't necessary to understand what was going on. About the only qualification necessary was "I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express Last Night."

Har...  That's really all one needs, just sit back and enjoy the tales he tells. I think he's actually a pretty simple author, his specialty is he likes playing with words. Lots of repetition, that he uses to say pay attention! Borrows from the classics, as a framework. But the stories are about people.. it's still the same old story, a fight for love and glory, a case of do or die... the fundamental things apply, as time goes by...

[sweetsunray]

46 minutes ago, willowbark said:

It is about a story, which is as yet, unfinished.  None of us know what will happen by the end.  We really don't know what is/is not foreshadowing until the events unfold.  I don't think anyone has the right to be telling anyone that they are wrong when discussing events that have yet to unfold in the show or the books.  We all have our biases, and we all have different interpretations.  We should be able to be respectful of the fact that other people see things differently, and be able to discuss what each of us sees, interprets, and predicts may come in the future.  And when the show and books are done, then we can go back and see what was foreshadowed, and what wasn't.  Personally, I find that the forum is much less fun when not everyone is able to discuss their views, thoughts, opinions and predictions with equal respect.  

Unfinished, but not without a story laid out yet.

As for what constitutes foreshadowing through symbolism - most agree on the passages that include foreshadowing in the books at least. A visual medium is different in that it has to use different tools, especially with d$d either having Ollys nodding (overdoing it) or wanting to surprise the audience with a 180. Still, after six seasons you can get the hang of that. It has a lot to do with cinematographic precedents, props and tools. What is not always agreed on is the specific translation into detailed events of the foreshadowing passages. The slaying of the giant for example regarding Sansa's - where and how, but not exactly who (LF).

Point in case - bowls of soup and ale are props. And yet the writers deliberately and consistently write these scenes for specifically two characters. We're never gonna see Jaime or Cersei slurp a bowl of soup. These choices are made deliberately. It's imagery language, as much as it is when say they use a mirror in a movie. And especially when they show mirroring props and imagery across a continent that certainly is done deliberately.

Nor does not having the scripts at hand yet erase the scenes we saw and the story that has been told over 2/3 already.

Debater respect has to do with not personalising debate. If a debater tries to ridicule other debaters for the fact that they are fervently debating their pov, then I will very respectfully put them back in their place. If a debater tries to ridicule a character's established feelings by labeling them with real life psychological labels of which they obviously know nothing about, all in order to get rid of the pesky evidence and dismiss those established feelings so their character of choice can get them as a "prize" then yes, I will take them to task for it.

[Winter's Cold]

56 minutes ago, Bear Claw said:

People have made excellent points to support Sansa/Sandor, Sansa/Jon, Dany/Jon, Arya/Jon, and Cersei/Euron. 

Sansa/Sandor - a strong recurring romantic relationship

Arya/Jon - primarily based on the outline and the strong relationship between them throughout the books

Sansa/Jon - based on Sansa taking outline Arya's role (I guess she'll fight with needle too right)

Dany/Jon - a political alliance

Cersei/Euron - a political alliance

I haven't seen any excellent points that support Sansa/Jon.

[Bear Claw]

19 minutes ago, Winter's Cold said:

Sansa/Sandor - a strong recurring romantic relationship

Arya/Jon - primarily based on the outline and the strong relationship between them throughout the books

Sansa/Jon - based on Sansa taking outline Arya's role (I guess she'll fight with needle too right)

Dany/Jon - a political alliance

Cersei/Euron - a political alliance

I haven't seen any excellent points that support Sansa/Jon.

I could see Sansa/Jon also as a political alliance.In addition to the North,  Sansa (Bran, Arya also) has strong familial connections to the Riverlands, and the Vale. Like I have said before, and if I am wrong please let me know, Sansa (Bran and Arya) has family alliances that no other characters have. Sansa has an Uncle that is (or will thanks to Arya) be in charge of the Riverlands. Sansa has a cousin in charge in the Vale. Who else in Westeros has these kind of political/family  connections? (Like I said Arya has this advantage also, but so does Sansa.) Dany wants to make these kind of alliances, but Sansa already has them. I think these family connections are in the story for a reason, and they will become very important in the future.  Lastly, Sansa is a Stark and Jon is not. That might be important. There must always be a Stark in Winterfell.  I agree with your Sansa/Sandor, Arya/Jon (lots of evidence in the book), Dany/Jon, and Cersei/Euron, 

[Winter's Cold]

25 minutes ago, Bear Claw said:

I could see Sansa/Jon also as a political alliance.In addition to the North,  Sansa (Bran, Arya also) has strong familial connections to the Riverlands, and the Vale. Like I have said before, and if I am wrong please let me know, Sansa (Bran and Arya) has family alliances that no other characters have. Sansa has an Uncle that is (or will thanks to Arya) be in charge of the Riverlands. Sansa has a cousin in charge in the Vale. Who else in Westeros has these kind of political/family  connections? 

This is an argument for Sweetrobin/Sansa rather than Sansa/Jon. 

[Bear Claw]

15 minutes ago, Winter's Cold said:

This is an argument for Sweetrobin/Sansa rather than Sansa/Jon. 

Sweetrobin has an Uncle in the Riverlands, cousins in the North, and he has the Vale. Jon doesn't have any connections. Jon needs connections.

[ThePukwudgie]

2 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

Unfinished, but not without a story laid out yet.

As for what constitutes foreshadowing through symbolism - most agree on the passages that include foreshadowing in the books at least. A visual medium is different in that it has to use different tools, especially with d$d either having Ollys nodding (overdoing it) or wanting to surprise the audience with a 180. Still, after six seasons you can get the hang of that. It has a lot to do with cinematographic precedents, props and tools. What is not always agreed on is the specific translation into detailed events of the foreshadowing passages. The slaying of the giant for example regarding Sansa's - where and how, but not exactly who (LF).

Point in case - bowls of soup and ale are props. And yet the writers deliberately and consistently write these scenes for specifically two characters. We're never gonna see Jaime or Cersei slurp a bowl of soup. These choices are made deliberately. It's imagery language, as much as it is when say they use a mirror in a movie. And especially when they show mirroring props and imagery across a continent that certainly is done deliberately.

Nor does not having the scripts at hand yet erase the scenes we saw and the story that has been told over 2/3 already.

Debater respect has to do with not personalising debate. If a debater tries to ridicule other debaters for the fact that they are fervently debating their pov, then I will very respectfully put them back in their place. If a debater tries to ridicule a character's established feelings by labeling them with real life psychological labels of which they obviously know nothing about, all in order to get rid of the pesky evidence and dismiss those established feelings so their character of choice can get them as a "prize" then yes, I will take them to task for it.

The soup and ale theory sounds really desperate. A lot of shipper theories come off as desperate. If you want to see good analysis of GoT, you should head over to NewRocktars' youtube channel. They spot everything.

 

[sweetsunray]

2 minutes ago, ThePukwudgie said:

The soup and ale theory sounds really desperate. If you want to see good analysis of GoT, you should head over to NewRocktars' youtube channel. They spot everything.

It's just one example, and a cinematic observation. And I think I can do without advice from you or judgement. I'd rather analyse the books myself.  

[ThePukwudgie]

22 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

It's just one example, and a cinematic observation. And I think I can do without advice from you or judgement. I'd rather analyse the books myself.  

You're sharing your observations on a public forum.

I think the 'Bronn always points to future ship' theory is also extremely weak.

To be honest, I think what shippers fail to realize is that GoT isn't about romance/love. It's about politics. It's about royal and religious conflict.

[Winds of Winter blow cold]

9 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

If you're gong to use big words like Stockholm Syndrome, please apply them correctly. First of all, Stockholm applies to a hostage situation and particular symptoms and behavior in that situation. One of those symptoms is an irrational amount of empathy for the hostage taker. This comes about because the hostage depends on their survival directly by the decisions made by the hostage taker (his/her moods) and trying to anticipate the hostage taker's emotionality in order to please him/her so they don't kill you. It is strengthened by the victim by equalling lack of abuse = kindness. Very important - Stockholm happens rarely. It's the exception of hostage situations.

Sansa is a hostage in KL -> of Joffrey. Joffrey is her captor, not the Hound. If Stockholm is used and applied to Sansa it belongs in her behavior towards Joffrey, not the Hound.  Sansa develops no empathy with Joffrey, nor does she identify wit him. Though she does try to please him in words. She is adapting her behavior towards him in order to survive, but she's not identifying with Joffrey. => No Stockholm.

Meanwhile, Sandor is not her captor, nor her tormentor, nor her abuser in any way or form.

Now the overall term in which Stockholm fits is called 'trauma bonding'. Trauma Bonding does not require a hostage situation, but an abusive (mental, physical or emotional) relationship. But it follows the same mental survival and anticipation mechanics as Stockholm. You'd have to see ongonig cycles of abuse with intermittent punishment and reward in between the abuse periods. Fear is an important ingedrient to these type of relationships (for example by being threatened with violence, or witness them being violent to others), but it's only one of the elements. There must be actual reward and punishment. 

All you have is that 'fear' is a component between Sandor and Sansa from her POV. But Sandor does not abuse it. He actually allows her to choose, without punishing her, or rewarding her. We see her contradict and argue with him while he's in KL. Only in his absolute absence does she increasingly think fondly of him. This type of thinking goes completely against 'trauma bonding'. He doesn't abuse her, he's not even present, and she develops romantic feelings more and more over time. 

So,no, not Stockholm, not trauma bonding either. Just a strong romantic bond forming. If we're gonna apply your defintion of Stockholm to anyone who ever felt fear of being vulnerable and insecure to someone they fall in love with, then basically everyone who ever bonded romantically has Stockholm, which makes the term completely meaningless.

You are projecting here, it seems. It's not about not liking a ship. It's about WHO Sansa likes. And that's Sandor, and there is heaps of evidence for it (in show and in books). It's everybody else who doesn't like Sandor and has some male favourite who denies evidence and sees proof even in the most absurd to hook up Sansa like some blow-up barbie doll to their male of choice who isn't Sandor, while negating her feelings by calling them Stockholm, Trauma or childhood crushes. There's no more paternalistic example of dismissal of the reality of a person's feelings by relegating it to some psychological syndrome. "See! She's just a child and she has Stockholm, so her feelings and desires aren't really real." Newsflash - feelings are always real to the person feeling them, even the feelings of someone who actually is trauma bonded (Sansa isn't). In trauma bond relationships there is only one falsehood: the abuser.

FrankenGregor is not in the North and he ain't in the RL. The BwB certainly aren't going South. They're going North. Sure, Arya is there. But BwB said "North", and Sandor is going along. They can all meet up and go North together.

So basically you're saying that if 4 terrorist capture someone, one of them terrorizes her, the other 2 torture her but the 4th one stops the the worst from happening, he's NOT one of her captors? Sorry not buying it! He does keep her alive but so does Tyrion, & Littlefinger.

On the show her relationship with Tyrion is more amiable, than the books but she shows concern about him when she finds out about the framing in both.

Littlefinger doesn't doesn't sell her to Ramsay in the books (we still have to see how things work out with Harry the heir), but even on the show we had those moments, even one in the God's wood afterward.

She certainly dreams about Loras in both. So by your definition, all 4 of these men are the great love of her life!

She hasn't thought about him in quiet a while in the books, & the stuff you seem to think is in the show...well frankly,is almost non existent!

Going by your reasoning we have to believe that because Sandor is the "good" captor it's all right to want him with Sansa, he is totally innocent of any of her trauma & her "you won't hurt me" means more than anything she has said to anyone else! I'm sorry your whole post comes off as someone who has formed his opinion & now is scrambling for as much material that can possibly find back up what he he wants it to say, mixing it up, & disregarding anything that would contradict it! (You like the ship there for you "un-villianize" The Hound.)

 

Yes they are about to head North,Arya is going to find them first, & who ever she doesn't kill will eventually follow her to KL to get "the Evil Queen".

Oh, & it's not just about who Sansa likes...it's also about who the North would excepts her consort once Jon make her Warden of The North (Regent in the North?) after Jon marries Dany...sure as hell wouldn't be Sandor!

Funny thing is, I don't really have a dog in this hunt, Jon/Dany are about the only thing I'm fairly sure is going to happen.

[sweetsunray]

6 minutes ago, ThePukwudgie said:

You're sharing your observations on a public forum.

I think the 'Bronn always points to future ship' theory is also extremely weak.

To be honest, I think what shippers fail to realize is that GoT isn't about romance/love. It's about politics. It's about royal and religious conflict.

Yes, I'm sharing observations and everybody is free to debate them. But your judgement is not of the argument, but directed towards the person debating. And here you do it again with all your "shippers" and assumptions of what they fail or not fail to realize. I may be debating in favor of a ship, but SanSan doesn't give me the fuzzies personally. It's a ship I back because it's a big part of Sansa and Sandor's story. The evidence convinced me.

This thread in particular talks about marriage and thus also romance/love, and not about royal and religious conflicts. If you do not wish to discuss romance/love and marriage, then what is your purpose in this thread at all, except making personal, judgmental side remarks at people. 

[sweetsunray]

4 minutes ago, Winds of Winter blow cold said:

So basically you're saying that if 4 terrorist capture someone, one of them terrorizes her, the other 2 torture her but the 4th one stops the the worst from happening, he's NOT one of her captors? Sorry not buying it! He does keep her alive but so does Tyrion, & Littlefinger.

On the show her relationship with Tyrion is more amiable, than the books but she shows concern about him when she finds out about the framing in both.

Littlefinger doesn't doesn't sell her to Ramsay in the books (we still have to see how things work out with Harry the heir), but even on the show we had those moments, even one in the God's wood afterward.

She certainly dreams about Loras in both. So by your definition, all 4 of these men are the great love of her life!

She hasn't thought about him in quiet a while in the books, & the stuff you seem to think is in the show...well frankly,is almost non existent!

Going by your reasoning we have to believe that because Sandor is the "good" captor it's all right to want him with Sansa, he is totally innocent of any of her trauma & her "you won't hurt me" means more than anything she has said to anyone else! I'm sorry your whole post comes off as someone who has formed his opinion & now is scrambling for as much material that can possibly find back up what he he wants it to say, mixing it up, & disregarding anything that would contradict it! (You like the ship there for you "un-villianize" The Hound.)

No, what I'm saying is that Sansa does not show any symptoms of Stockholm, not even to Joffrey. You are completely mislabeling Sansa. She has no Stockholm syndrome. She shows no symptoms of trauma bonding whatsoever. That is the material point.

 

Quote

 

Yes they are about to head North,Arya is going to find them first, & who ever she doesn't kill will eventually follow her to KL to get "the Evil Queen".

 

Arya said she intended to go home. Somebody else will take care of the Evil Queen.

Quote

Oh, & it's not just about who Sansa likes...it's also about who the North would excepts her consort once Jon make her Warden of The North (Regent in the North?) after Jon marries Dany...sure as hell wouldn't be Sandor!

Why would Sansa be Warden of the North or even want to. Bran is about to cross the Wall. He's the actual heir over Sansa.

Why wouldn't it be Sandor? After a war agains the Others, with many houses gone, the New Gift needing repopulating and Warrior Lords protecting them. Starks have married Flints from the Mountain Clans for example in the past. This whole "a Stark daughter must marry some important son of another region, of another warden" is soemthing that has only been done yet for 1 generation, and it was a huge fuck up => 2 Starks died over it.

 

[Le Cygne]

54 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

Why wouldn't it be Sandor? After a war agains the Others, with many houses gone, the New Gift needing repopulating and Warrior Lords protecting them. Starks have married Flints from the Mountain Clans for example in the past. This whole "a Stark daughter must marry some important son of another region, of another warden" is soemthing that has only been done yet for 1 generation, and it was a huge fuck up => 2 Starks died over it.

It's gonna be him... All that marriage symbolism... And they saved him for last.

[Le Cygne]

1 hour ago, sweetsunray said:

It's just one example, and a cinematic observation. And I think I can do without advice from you or judgement. I'd rather analyse the books myself.  

It's something they keep doing, and just did again. Mark me (as Bonnie Prince Charlie says!) I think they will have a scene like that together.

[a black swan]

7 hours ago, Bear Claw said:

I could see Sansa/Jon also as a political alliance.In addition to the North,  Sansa (Bran, Arya also) has strong familial connections to the Riverlands, and the Vale. Like I have said before, and if I am wrong please let me know, Sansa (Bran and Arya) has family alliances that no other characters have. Sansa has an Uncle that is (or will thanks to Arya) be in charge of the Riverlands. Sansa has a cousin in charge in the Vale. Who else in Westeros has these kind of political/family  connections? (Like I said Arya has this advantage also, but so does Sansa.) Dany wants to make these kind of alliances, but Sansa already has them. I think these family connections are in the story for a reason, and they will become very important in the future.  Lastly, Sansa is a Stark and Jon is not. That might be important. There must always be a Stark in Winterfell.  I agree with your Sansa/Sandor, Arya/Jon (lots of evidence in the book), Dany/Jon, and Cersei/Euron, 

But you do accept that all of that not only applies to Arya as well, but she has the added benefit of being a maiden, with zero baggage. The Lannister marriage was bad enough, but D&D scrap her Vale storyline and give her a secondary character's plotline (excluding the connection with Jon) for the means of being married to a Bolton - for what?

Sansa living peacefully with the Hound as a Lady of a castle would be the most positive outcome for her family and Sansa herself. 

[Wilnova]

8 hours ago, Bear Claw said:

I could see Sansa/Jon also as a political alliance.In addition to the North,  Sansa (Bran, Arya also) has strong familial connections to the Riverlands, and the Vale. Like I have said before, and if I am wrong please let me know, Sansa (Bran and Arya) has family alliances that no other characters have. Sansa has an Uncle that is (or will thanks to Arya) be in charge of the Riverlands. Sansa has a cousin in charge in the Vale. Who else in Westeros has these kind of political/family  connections? (Like I said Arya has this advantage also, but so does Sansa.) Dany wants to make these kind of alliances, but Sansa already has them. I think these family connections are in the story for a reason, and they will become very important in the future.  Lastly, Sansa is a Stark and Jon is not. That might be important. There must always be a Stark in Winterfell.  I agree with your Sansa/Sandor, Arya/Jon (lots of evidence in the book), Dany/Jon, and Cersei/Euron, 

Are you talking about the books? I can see Sansa being important as a political alliance on the show where Rickon is dead and there is no Robb's will. But in the books, it's a whole different ball game. Sansa is way - way down the inheritance chart, even below Arya. By Robb's will she is currently disinherited (Robb's will is known to and signed by Edmure, Maege Mormont, Galbart Glover etc.) The same will has also legitimized Jon and named him KITN. So we have Manderly supporting Rickon and some houses possibly supporting Jon. We also have the mountain clans marching with Stannis for Arya. Meanwhile Edmure is expecting a child. The Riverlands go to him and his descendants. The Vale goes to SR or to Harry the Heir. So in effect, Sansa's political worth in the books is zero. Marrying her may give someone the support of her siblings but that's about it.

Jon certainly does not need to marry Sansa in the books for any alliance. Just looking at the witnesses to Robb's will, we see that the Riverlands had no issue with Jon being named KITN. Or with Sansa being disinherited. Jon already has the North and the Riverlands. If Sansa marries SR or HH, then she could convince her husband to help Jon with a Vale army. Other wise she has no control over the Vale either. Her marrying Jon is not going to get Jon the Vale. Plus, Sansa is still married to Tyrion. On the other hand, Arya is still in line to inherit WF (If Bran and Rickon die). Jon marrying Arya makes more sense than marrying Sansa.

They have basically confirmed more or less the same thing on the show. The North overlooks Sansa and names Jon KITN despite the true heir Sansa sitting right there. Even the Vale seems to support him. The Blackfish is dead. Not sure about Edmure. But on the show, they seem to be indicating that Jon does not need to marry anyone for the North, Vale or Riverlands. Which means he needs to marry for the South and the Iron Islands. And who is bringing him those armies along with some fire breathing dragons? I think the show has pointed the arrows clearly towards Jon and Dany tying the knot.

[Future Null Infinity]

Does the story really need to marry the character Jon to one of his sisters or his aunt? for me, it's a very limited number of choices, in GRRM universe there are thousands of other women, it can be another storyline for that in the show, I like the idea of Val in the books

[JonSnow4President]

3 hours ago, Future Null Infinity said:

Does the story really need to marry the character Jon to one of his sisters or his aunt? for me, it's a very limited number of choices, in GRRM universe there are thousands of other women, it can be another storyline for that in the show, I like the idea of Val in the books

Personally, if we're talking books, I think Jon and Dany (and possibly Tyrion) all go through 3 "marriages," and if you squint enough, all 3 dragon riders are going to loosely fit the 3 marriages prophecy.  (I could be WAAAAY off base on that though, so I won't argue for it to forcefully).  So I think Val is Jon's #2, and like Tyrion's and Dany's #2, it will be short lived.  

In the show though, they don't have that prophecy (although apparently they kept the Hizdar marriage off screen), but they also don't have Val. So I really don't think she will be that important to Jon, otherwise I would think she would get some checklist effect going.

[Bear Claw]

9 hours ago, DutchArya said:

But you do accept that all of that not only applies to Arya as well, but she has the added benefit of being a maiden, with zero baggage. The Lannister marriage was bad enough, but D&D scrap her Vale storyline and give her a secondary character's plotline (excluding the connection with Jon) for the means of being married to a Bolton - for what?

Sansa living peacefully with the Hound as a Lady of a castle would be the most positive outcome for her family and Sansa herself. 

Yes, this totally applies to Arya as well. If anyone wants to make a marriage that has strong political alliances in Westeros, then they should look to marry Bran, Sansa, or Arya.