ErasmusF Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 1 hour ago, The Answer said: 6 years into the show there is little to no time for stupid scenes. Lyanna's response in the book was huge support for the Grand Northern Conspiracy; it can and should be huge in the show as well. If not specifically for Jon's cause, her response could have been referring to Rickon in the possession of the Umbers (who I believe are infiltrating Ramsey held Winterfell). Why would she be loyal to a dead Robb? wtf? yep Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruhail Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 1 hour ago, The Answer said: 6 years into the show there is little to no time for stupid scenes. Lyanna's response in the book was huge support for the Grand Northern Conspiracy; it can and should be huge in the show as well. If not specifically for Jon's cause, her response could have been referring to Rickon in the possession of the Umbers (who I believe are infiltrating Ramsey held Winterfell). Why would she be loyal to a dead Robb? wtf? She was totally being loyal to Robb by staying under Bolton rule right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crowjack Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 20 hours ago, jbent87 said: Yes this makes a lot of sense, especially considering the proposed backlash Sansa will receive since shes spent time with/as a both the Lannisters and Boltons. Hence the, "I did what I needed to survive" scene in the preview Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Answer Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 1 hour ago, Ruhail said: She was totally being loyal to Robb by staying under Bolton rule right? Ramsey only mentions Karstark, Umber, and Manderly as potential Northern allies. I think he actually says to Roose that they are the only houses they will need to retain their hold on the North, being that they are 3 of the largest/most influential. Mormont/Glover haven't been included in Ramsey's plot, which is wildly irresponsible on his part. And it doesn't seem like they are going out of their way to pledge fealty to their new Warden of the North - why? Because Mormont/Glover/Reed could very well be plotting around Jon and/or Rickon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruhail Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 6 minutes ago, The Answer said: Ramsey only mentions Karstark, Umber, and Manderly as potential Northern allies. I think he actually says to Roose that they are the only houses they will need to retain their hold on the North, being that they are 3 of the largest/most influential. Mormont/Glover haven't been included in Ramsey's plot, which is wildly irresponsible on his part. And it doesn't seem like they are going out of their way to pledge fealty to their new Warden of the North - why? Because Mormont/Glover/Reed could very well be plotting around Jon and/or Rickon. Hate to break it to you but theres no intricate conspiracy on the show Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darksky Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 4 hours ago, Ruhail said: That was just a stupid scene to sass Stannis and make him look dumb. I find it funny she thought she was being soo loyal to Robb by turning down a guy and his army who was fighting against the Boltons but convenietly this season she cares because emo boy is involved. You know you just ranted about something that happened in the book right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruhail Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 28 minutes ago, Darksky said: You know you just ranted about something that happened in the book right? You do know that the North situation is more complicated in the book right, with lots of factors in play & people not holding Rickon the heir to WF for 2 years since they think Theon killed him and Bran right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Answer Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 31 minutes ago, Ruhail said: Hate to break it to you but theres no intricate conspiracy on the show Idk.. I think signs point to the contrary. The introduction of Howland Reed The lack of mention of Mormont & Glover by Ramsey The mentioning of Mormont & Glover by Jon The lack of pledges of fealty to Ramsey by the presumed Jon/Rickon loyalists (Manderly/Glover/Mormont/Reed) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreenBell Posted June 2, 2016 Share Posted June 2, 2016 12 hours ago, Artos Cold said: Link? found it on the user's reddit page https://www.reddit.com/user/truede#s Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gannicus Posted June 2, 2016 Share Posted June 2, 2016 8 hours ago, Ruhail said: Hate to break it to you but theres no intricate conspiracy on the show 8 hours ago, Ruhail said: You do know that the North situation is more complicated in the book right, with lots of factors in play & people not holding Rickon the heir to WF for 2 years since they think Theon killed him and Bran right? It also doesn't need to be intricate for a few Northern Houses wanting to get revenge for the Red Wedding and put a Stark in Winterfell. There could be a will, word of Rickon's survival could have reached a few ears as well. Even if the Umbers are fighting with the Boltons that seems like a more recent development. And doesn't Jon know Bran is alive? There are enough angles for the Northerns to hold onto. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duncan I Targaryen Posted June 2, 2016 Share Posted June 2, 2016 The Manderly's have to figure into this somehow......just not sure where though.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheHodorThatWasPromised Posted June 2, 2016 Share Posted June 2, 2016 9 hours ago, Duncan I Targaryen said: The Manderly's have to figure into this somehow......just not sure where though.... I really hope we get one of the most epic speeches from the books: “ Spoiler My son Wendel came to the the Twins a guest. He ate Lord Walder's bread and salt, and hung his sword upon the wall to feast with friends. And they murdered him. Murdered, I say, and may the Freys choke upon their fables. I drink with Jared, jape withSymond, promise Rhaegar the hand of my own beloved granddaughter ... but never think that means I have forgotten. The north remembers, Lord Davos. The north remembers, and the mummer's farce is almost done. My son is home.[7] We probably wont though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Friendzone Posted June 2, 2016 Share Posted June 2, 2016 19 hours ago, The Answer said: Idk.. I think signs point to the contrary. The introduction of Howland Reed The lack of mention of Mormont & Glover by Ramsey The mentioning of Mormont & Glover by Jon The lack of pledges of fealty to Ramsey by the presumed Jon/Rickon loyalists (Manderly/Glover/Mormont/Reed) Howland Reed won't be in the show. Unless they introduce Reed as one of the Houses that will fight against Ramsay. Jon's parentage can be revealed by Bran and he will likely trust him. Manderly was mentioned by Ramsay but they might switch sides. Glover will likely not going tosupport Jon, Sansa because they just manage to get Deepwood Motte from Ironborn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SevasTra82 Posted June 2, 2016 Share Posted June 2, 2016 3 hours ago, Lord Friendzone said: Howland Reed won't be in the show. Unless they introduce Reed as one of the Houses that will fight against Ramsay. Jon's parentage can be revealed by Bran and he will likely trust him. Manderly was mentioned by Ramsay but they might switch sides. Glover will likely not going tosupport Jon, Sansa because they just manage to get Deepwood Motte from Ironborn. I agree with Howland Reed. Unfortunately I don't see him playing a factor at all in the show, so unless he joins up in the Winterfell battle (as you said), I don't expect to see HR at all. Which makes me wonder...why don't Jon and Sansa send a raven to Reed for aid? Jon knows that Howland is/was one of his fathers biggest supporters, it would only make sense for him to try to get in touch with him. I hope the Show at least gives us *that* instead of just ignoring HR all together (outside of flashbacks). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LazyBazooka Posted June 2, 2016 Share Posted June 2, 2016 Robb having a will that makes Jon heir in the show wouldn't make sense - he still thought Bran and Rickon were alive and he was expecting a child from Talisa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJE Posted June 2, 2016 Share Posted June 2, 2016 49 minutes ago, LazyBazooka said: Robb having a will that makes Jon heir in the show wouldn't make sense - he still thought Bran and Rickon were alive and he was expecting a child from Talisa. No, Robb thought they were dead, he never knew they were still alive, but he wouldn't make Jon his heir with a child on the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LazyBazooka Posted June 2, 2016 Share Posted June 2, 2016 2 minutes ago, DJE said: No, Robb thought they were dead, he never knew they were still alive, but he wouldn't make Jon his heir with a child on the way. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2A6BCgP3zmA Blackfish says in this scene that Robb still believes that Bran and Rickon could still be alive, there was another scene between Robb and Catelyn which I can't find in which IIRC he says that they might've escaped. But yeah, in any case Robb wouldn't have named Jon his heir in the show since Talisa was pregnant. I'm guessing that the Northern lords are gonna pull a D&D and just be like "fuck it, who cares if you're a bastard, you're King in the North now". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJE Posted June 2, 2016 Share Posted June 2, 2016 1 hour ago, LazyBazooka said: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2A6BCgP3zmA Blackfish says in this scene that Robb still believes that Bran and Rickon could still be alive, there was another scene between Robb and Catelyn which I can't find in which IIRC he says that they might've escaped. But yeah, in any case Robb wouldn't have named Jon his heir in the show since Talisa was pregnant. I'm guessing that the Northern lords are gonna pull a D&D and just be like "fuck it, who cares if you're a bastard, you're King in the North now". He may have said it on the show, I was thinking of the books, where his will does exist, he thinks they are dead, and doesn't want Sansa to inherit Winterfell because of her marriage to Tyrion, and no one had seen Arya since Ned's death, Jon was his only option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SerJeremiahLouistark Posted June 3, 2016 Share Posted June 3, 2016 On May 31, 2016 at 11:24 AM, Drogo_1 said: According to the books and I believe a scene right before the red wedding, Rob & Catelyn argue about who his heir is. It is very obvious that he names Jon his heir and future king in the North (simultaneously legitimizing him from a snow to a stark) and if memory serves he sent people off to raise his banner near Howland Reid's land to pass the info on. (I may be confusing this letter with other orders but in any case he sent people he trusted with his heir proclamation to someone he trusted.) With Jon and Sansa now traveling from Northern house to Northern house I expect that letter to surface very soon. Either this episode or next. It will be the only way to truly galvanize the north back to their cause and with Sansa having trouble convincing the northern lords that she is neither a Lannister nor a Bolton but in fact a Stark this would be the perfect way to move their stories forward leading to the battle of the bastards. I have been known in the past to throw out some very overthought crackpot theories but I honestly think this generic sequence of events is what we will see. Anyone agree????? That would be awesome but unfortunately I don't believe it will happen. Did Robb and Cat ever even have the Jon discussion in the show? I can't remember. Another question is did Blackfish ever say negative things about Jon in the show like in the books? As a sidebar I think it's a shame Cat isn't still alive in the show, she is revived as SH in the books and is truly changed, I think it would have been really dramatic to see Cat's reaction to learning that her husband never cheated on her, and never had a son out of wedlock. The emotions that she would have felt. Joy for knowing that Ned never cheated, anger at Ned for lying to her, regret for the way she treated Jon. Could this be the thing in the books that changes SH? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheSerb Posted June 3, 2016 Share Posted June 3, 2016 The problem is, if that letter pops up now, it will be a huge ex machina because to my memory it hasn't been mentioned at all in TV continuity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.