Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Col Cinders

I think the scroll...

Recommended Posts

36 minutes ago, lojzelote said:

You know why did she kill Dareon? Because Dareon was a dick whom she didn't know. OTOH Jon is her most favorite person in the world, the one of whom she still thinks sadly and fondly ("Needle was Jon Snow's smile", " Even Jon would never know Blind Beth, I bet . That made her sad.") even after all that befell her.

Then there is this early quote:

A meaningless episode from childhood? Arguably. But it shows that Arya is willing to go against rules and authority to protect Jon from trouble.

Arya also believes that mother would not want her back because she is a killer and all around not a proper lady. Somehow, I don't believe she would judge Jon very harshly for not behaving a proper Stark... especially - as you say - she is aware he is not a Stark.

The bond they formed in Winterfell was based on their common outsider status. She was the ugly girl that failed to meet expectations, Jon was the bastard that shouldn't have existed at all. If Arya believes herself a killer that the rest of her family would reject, she will still hope to find acceptance in Jon. Similarly, she will overlook his grave mistakes, for which their family and society may damn him.

Edit:

By comparing Jon's and Dareon's place in Arya's thoughts you are comparing the incomparable. Jon is not some deserter, Jon is her dearest brother and confidant that loved her unconditionally and offered her solace in the world that found her lacking.

That is all nice and all but meaningless as to the question what Arya would do if she came to see Jon Snow as some kind of would-be Daemon Blackfyre, trying to take everything from her and her siblings. Then she would deal with him the way Bloodraven dealt with Daemon and his sons, never mind some nice childhood memories.

It is never going to come to this in the books, of course, but the show Arya has no reason to prefer a Jon she has never seen over her flesh-and-blood living brother and sister. That's ridiculous. She is a caricature there.

36 minutes ago, lojzelote said:

Btw, Sansa in the show is Lady of Winterfell. The titles of King in the North and Lord of Winterfell have become separate.

Nope, she is Lady of Winterfell and in charge of the North only in Jon's absence. If the King in the North is not also the Lord of Winterfell then the title is meaningless. Winterfell is Jon's seat and castle now, and Sansa, Arya, and Bran are only guests there now, subject to the authority of their 'king'. If he wants to throw them out of his castle they are out. He wants to pamper them and give them an allowance they get it. And if he wants to marry them off to get them out of sight they will be married off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Arataniello said:

Any plot point in Winterfell right now can be solved with the five words.

Talk.  The.  Fuck.  To.  Bran.

Well, couldn't it also go:

Could. Bran. Please. Say. Anything. Of. Relevance. To. The. Plot.

I mean, do you think what would have happened to Bran if I were Littlefinger in the show? He would be dead already. Because that chaos line gave everything away. The guy knows what I did, knows everything about me. And thus he has to go. So the wheel chair would have fallen down some steps, somebody would have cut his throat, or he would have been poisoned. It shouldn't be that hard to kill a defenseless cripple unless Bran has some other powerful mojo going.

The whole thing just doesn't make any sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

That is all nice and all but meaningless as to the question what Arya would do if she came to see Jon Snow as some kind of would-be Daemon Blackfyre, trying to take everything from her and her siblings. Then she would deal with him the way Bloodraven dealt with Daemon and his sons, never mind some nice childhood memories.

It is never going to come to this in the books, of course, but the show Arya has no reason to prefer a Jon she has never seen over her flesh-and-blood living brother and sister. That's ridiculous. She is a caricature there.

Nope, she is Lady of Winterfell and in charge of the North only in Jon's absence. If the King in the North is not also the Lord of Winterfell then the title is meaningless. Winterfell is Jon's seat and castle now, and Sansa, Arya, and Bran are only guests there now, subject to the authority of their 'king'. If he wants to throw them out of his castle they are out. He wants to pamper them and give them an allowance they get it. And if he wants to marry them off to get them out of sight they will be married off.

No, she would not. The first thing she would do in such a scenario would be going to him to listen to his reasons and to see the situation from his point of view... and you can be sure she would be subconsciously eager to give his actions a positive slant that would put him into a better light.

What you're arguing for is basically a scenario, in which Catelyn would argue for Robb executing Bran, her favorite son, in a hypothetical future where an able-bodied Bran rebelled against his older brother, the Lord of Winterfell. Even if she thought that Bran was 100 % in the wrong, she still would not have wished to see him dead or seriously harmed. Same for Arya and Jon.

As for Bloodraven, the comparison would make a better sense if you were speaking of Bloodraven turning against Daeron - the brother he truly loved - on the basis of finding out or suspecting that Daeron was indeed Aemon and Naerys' lovechild and therefore an usurper standing in the way of the rightful king Daemon Blackfyre. But, for whatever reason, I tend to believe that Bloodraven was not much of a sucker for law (hint: the murder of Aenys Blackfyre), and if he had caught wind of any such thing, he would have happily ignored it.

Nope, Sansa is a regent of the North until Jon returns from the South. OTOH she has been Lady of Winterfell since the end of last season independent of Jon's presence or absence. Winterfell 'belongs' to him in the same sense that all the castles in the North belong to him as a feudal monarch. Winterfell belongs to Sansa in the sense that the Bear Island belongs to Lyanna Mormont, etc. It doesn't really make sense that a king wouldn't have a seat, but it is what it is.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, lojzelote said:

No, she would not. The first thing she would do in such a scenario would be going to him to listen to his reasons and to see the situation from his point of view... and you can be sure she would be subconsciously eager to give his actions a positive slant that would put him into a better light.

What you're arguing for is basically a scenario, in which Catelyn would argue for Robb executing Bran, her favorite son, in a hypothetical future where an able-bodied Bran rebelled against his older brother, the Lord of Winterfell. Even if she thought that Bran was 100 % in the wrong, she still would not have wished to see him dead or seriously harmed. Same for Arya and Jon.

That is not really what I'm talking about. I'm talking about blind loyalty and affectation after two siblings who were once close in childhood meet each other years later with essentially a lifetime of dreadful events that left their scars on all of them.

That is what happened in the show.

But even in the book we have no reason to believe or state that Jon and Arya will be close again after the meet again. And we certainly have no reason to believe that Arya would ever side with an absentee Jon who basically usurped the place Sansa, Bran, and herself.

The scenario you cite there could happen if a lot of things took place in those years. I mean, just look at the Dance. Aegon II and Rhaenyra eventually did everything to destroy each other but it wasn't always so. In fact, I could see Catelyn right now hanging both Jon and Sansa for real and imagined crimes against House Stark. People can change, and Cat has changed quite a bit.

24 minutes ago, lojzelote said:

As for Bloodraven, the comparison would make a better sense if you were speaking of Bloodraven turning against Daeron - the brother he truly loved - on the basis of finding out or suspecting that Daeron was indeed Aemon and Naerys' lovechild and therefore an usurper standing in the way of the rightful king Daemon Blackfyre. But, for whatever reason, I tend to believe that Bloodraven was not much of a sucker for law (hint: the murder of Aenys Blackfyre), and if he had caught wind of any such thing, he would have happily ignored it.

I agree that this might be a better comparison but the point I'm trying to make is that fond childhood memories don't establish a lasting sibling bond for life. Viserys I came dangerously close to executing his brother Daemon, Aegon and Visenya were siblings and spouses yet drifted further and further apart in their later years, etc. And just look at Jaime and Cersei right now. They once shared everything, were essentially some sort of double persona and now they might end up killing each other.

Arya and Jon are not magically immune against that. It would depend on their actions and the circumstance where they end up. And Arya is right now more than capable to kill anyone whom she considers an enemy, obstacle, or just a nuisance.

24 minutes ago, lojzelote said:

Nope, Sansa is a regent of the North until Jon returns from the South. OTOH she has been Lady of Winterfell since the end of last season independent of Jon's presence or absence. Winterfell 'belongs' to him in the same sense that all the castles in the North belong to him as a feudal monarch. Winterfell belongs to Sansa in the sense that the Bear Island belongs to Lyanna Mormont, etc. It doesn't really make sense that a king wouldn't have a seat, but it is what it is.

On what do you base that idea? I don't recall the show establishing any such details. If Winterfell doesn't belong to Jon he has no castle and no residence. He is essentially a homeless king. That doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

People stying her 'Lady Stark' has nothing to do with the question of whether she rules the castle. And quite frankly - if Sansa actually were Lady of Winterfell in her own right with control over the castles lands, incomes, levies, and assets she would be much less pissed about the fact that she isn't Queen in the North. Because that would mean that Sansa Stark was the true power in the North anyway. 

Instead Sansa can only make decision in Jon's absence.

The fact that she Lady of Winterfell then fits well with Bran being the Lord of Winterfell in Robb's absence. He never was that. He was just the Stark representative in Winterfell in his lordly/kingly brother's absence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

That is not really what I'm talking about. I'm talking about blind loyalty and affectation after two siblings who were once close in childhood meet each other years later with essentially a lifetime of dreadful events that left their scars on all of them.

That is what happened in the show.

But even in the book we have no reason to believe or state that Jon and Arya will be close again after the meet again. And we certainly have no reason to believe that Arya would ever side with an absentee Jon who basically usurped the place Sansa, Bran, and herself.

The scenario you cite there could happen if a lot of things took place in those years. I mean, just look at the Dance. Aegon II and Rhaenyra eventually did everything to destroy each other but it wasn't always so. In fact, I could see Catelyn right now hanging both Jon and Sansa for real and imagined crimes against House Stark. People can change, and Cat has changed quite a bit.

I agree that this might be a better comparison but the point I'm trying to make is that fond childhood memories don't establish a lasting sibling bond for life. Viserys I came dangerously close to executing his brother Daemon, Aegon and Visenya were siblings and spouses yet drifted further and further apart in their later years, etc. And just look at Jaime and Cersei right now. They once shared everything, were essentially some sort of double persona and now they might end up killing each other.

Arya and Jon are not magically immune against that. It would depend on their actions and the circumstance where they end up. And Arya is right now more than capable to kill anyone whom she considers an enemy, obstacle, or just a nuisance.

On what do you base that idea? I don't recall the show establishing any such details. If Winterfell doesn't belong to Jon he has no castle and no residence. He is essentially a homeless king. That doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

People stying her 'Lady Stark' has nothing to do with the question of whether she rules the castle. And quite frankly - if Sansa actually were Lady of Winterfell in her own right with control over the castles lands, incomes, levies, and assets she would be much less pissed about the fact that she isn't Queen in the North. Because that would mean that Sansa Stark was the true power in the North anyway. 

Instead Sansa can only make decision in Jon's absence.

The fact that she Lady of Winterfell then fits well with Bran being the Lord of Winterfell in Robb's absence. He never was that. He was just the Stark representative in Winterfell in his lordly/kingly brother's absence.

You mean no reason aside of them thinking of each other with apparent fondness in every volume of the saga and the narrative importance of their relationship. There is a reason why it was Jon's love for Arya that got him killed and why his last words belonged to a memory of her. There is a reason why Arya's connection to being herself is a sword that Jon gave her when they parted ways. That idea that she doesn't care for him anymore is blatantly false and goes straight against the text of ADwD. Everything speaks in favour of their relationship remaining strong. Seriously, how do you even imagine the author portraying a lasting bond if not like this?

Anyway, you can name a thousand sibling relationships where the siblings didn't get along, but that's no proof of anything. For that matter, none of the relationships you have mentioned - except for Jaime and Cersei - have ever been noted as particularly close. In fact we know that Stannis and Renly had nothing in common, Aegon never much cared for Visenya, etc. How about making a comparison to Aegon III and Viserys II instead?

Sansa is the ruling lady of Winterfell, because we have been told so by HBO at the end of last season.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, lojzelote said:

You mean no reason aside of them thinking of each other with apparent fondness in every volume of the saga and the narrative importance of their relationship. There is a reason why it was Jon's love for Arya that got him killed and why his last words belonged to a memory of her. There is a reason why Arya's connection to being herself is a sword that Jon gave her when they parted ways. That idea that she doesn't care for him anymore is blatantly false and goes straight against the text of ADwD. Everything speaks in favour of their relationship remaining strong. Seriously, how do you even imagine the author portraying a lasting bond if not like this?

You know how things can go. Have you ever been separated from a lover, sibling, or close friend for months and perhaps even years - or heard about people in such situations - and then realized that you basically no longer had anything in common, could no longer connect, after you finally met again?

Those kind of things do happen.

Jon and Arya will always have the memories of their childhood. But the idea that they will still like the persons they became is a stretch.

But that isn't the point - the point is that the show has Arya side with a Jon who isn't there against the sister who is there. The sister who has a better claim to Winterfell and the North than Jon could ever hope to be.

Arya basically acts like a Jon fan girl there, and that simply doesn't make any sense.

I don't think Jon and Arya will ever hate each other but I very much doubt that Arya is going to support Jon against Sansa. Why on earth should she do that? Why on earth should she ever think Jon should be king before Bran, Sansa, or herself?

If the Northmen would presume to decide which Stark should be king instead of going by the standard rule of primogeniture she would consider that treason.

6 hours ago, lojzelote said:

Anyway, you can name a thousand sibling relationships where the siblings didn't get along, but that's no proof of anything. For that matter, none of the relationships you have mentioned - except for Jaime and Cersei - have ever been noted as particularly close. In fact we know that Stannis and Renly had nothing in common, Aegon never much cared for Visenya, etc. How about making a comparison to Aegon III and Viserys II instead?

Still, many of those siblings were closer in their childhood youth than they were later in life. Visenya and Aegon were once hawking together with the Redwynes, and Visenya saved Aegon from assassins once, and did everything she could to protect him when she founded the Kingsguard. I daresay they may have been closer than Jon and Arya once, considering that they were married and had a child together. But they grew apart.

6 hours ago, lojzelote said:

Sansa is the ruling lady of Winterfell, because we have been told so by HBO at the end of last season.

Do you recall how they said that? Is this something that takes place on screen or some other talk?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

You know how things can go. Have you ever been separated from a lover, sibling, or close friend for months and perhaps even years - or heard about people in such situations - and then realized that you basically no longer had anything in common, could no longer connect, after you finally met again?

Those kind of things do happen.

Jon and Arya will always have the memories of their childhood. But the idea that they will still like the persons they became is a stretch.

But that isn't the point - the point is that the show has Arya side with a Jon who isn't there against the sister who is there. The sister who has a better claim to Winterfell and the North than Jon could ever hope to be.

Arya basically acts like a Jon fan girl there, and that simply doesn't make any sense.

I don't think Jon and Arya will ever hate each other but I very much doubt that Arya is going to support Jon against Sansa. Why on earth should she do that? Why on earth should she ever think Jon should be king before Bran, Sansa, or herself?

If the Northmen would presume to decide which Stark should be king instead of going by the standard rule of primogeniture she would consider that treason.

Still, many of those siblings were closer in their childhood youth than they were later in life. Visenya and Aegon were once hawking together with the Redwynes, and Visenya saved Aegon from assassins once, and did everything she could to protect him when she founded the Kingsguard. I daresay they may have been closer than Jon and Arya once, considering that they were married and had a child together. But they grew apart.

Do you recall how they said that? Is this something that takes place on screen or some other talk?

LOL, the way things are shaping up they should wind up at a similar mental place. Arya's a cold-blooded assassin with scary magic and Jon is going to be some sort of a wolfman wight. I doubt that either of them is going to clutch their pearls at the sight of the other. I don't see why they shouldn't get along splendidly.

Frankly, her reaction to that hypothetical situation is dependent on the exact kind of scenario. It would all depend on the exact way Jon to power, on the exact reasons why his siblings were skipped, on his success at dealing with the threat to the North etc.

What's got marriage to do with anything? Jon Arryn and Lysa Tully were married and had a child together. Does it mean they were closer than Jon and Arya, too? It has been made clear that Aegon married Visenya only because the custom dictated to marry the oldest sister.

Quote

According to the history of Archmaester Gyldayn, it was suggested at court that Aegon left Queen Visenya in charge of building the Red Keep so that he would not have to endure her presence on Dragonstone. In their later years, their relationship - never a warm one to begin with - had grown even more distant.

There's absolutely nothing that suggests they had ever been close prior to that. Later on they had a working relationship and they had to preserve appearances during social events, but there's little that has the air of true affection between them.

Look, there is a lot of problems with the show's portrayal of characters, but Arya being shown as partial to Jon is not one of them. Arya loves Sansa, but she loves Jon more. If the Northern dunderheads chose Jon over Sansa in the first place without having much reason to do so, then Arya preferring her favorite brother to a sister whom she's never been particularly close to is a no-brainer.

I read it after S6 ended in HBO's Game of Thrones Viewers' Guide. I remember it being discussed in the fandom as well. After the finale, Sansa was clearly titled as Lady of Winterfell and Jon as King in the North.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, lojzelote said:

LOL, the way things are shaping up they should wind up at a similar mental place. Arya's a cold-blooded assassin with scary magic and Jon is going to be some sort of a wolfman wight. I doubt that either of them is going to clutch their pearls at the sight of the other. I don't see why they shouldn't get along splendidly.

Sure, that could work. And I'm not saying it wouldn't. But the idea that the whole Arya-Jon bond created years ago and never deepened (as per the show time line) would never be enough for Arya to side with an absent Jon over Sansa. In fact, there isn't even a reason as to why Arya should interpret the actions of her sister as ambitious or power-grabbing considering that the Sansa Arya once knew never showed any desire to actually want to rule or dominate anyone. The idea of being queen got into her head after the Joff betrothal, but her overall desire was always to please her elders and be a good girl.

Why should Arya suddenly think that Sansa has become some evil scheming bitch? And even if she was - why would Arya (in the context of the show) prefer ambitious/usurping Jon over her sister or Bran? It just doesn't make any sense.

34 minutes ago, lojzelote said:

Frankly, her reaction to that hypothetical situation is dependent on the exact kind of scenario. It would all depend on the exact way Jon to power, on the exact reasons why his siblings were skipped, on his success at dealing with the threat to the North etc.

Sure, but when you look beneath all that the naked fact remains that the trueborn Starks were ousted and tricked out of their inheritance. And that it is not something that a noble person in this world can easily accept without destroying his or her own self-image as well as his or her standing with his or her peers. And a person like Arya even less, who very much sees herself as Arya Stark of Winterfell. That is who she is. She is a Stark. And Winterfell and the North belongs to the Starks.

Arya and the other Stark siblings might be able to accept things as they are - as is Sansa doing, for the time being - but I very much doubt any of them would like that very much. Especially if there they have different opinions about the policy and strategy, etc.

The way Arya is portrayed is basically that she sees Jon as 'the rightful King in the North'. And that's just crap.

34 minutes ago, lojzelote said:

What's got marriage to do with anything? Jon Arryn and Lysa Tully were married and had a child together. Does it mean they were closer than Jon and Arya, too? It has been made clear that Aegon married Visenya only because the custom dictated to marry the oldest sister.

There's absolutely nothing that suggests they had ever been close prior to that. Later on they had a working relationship and they had to preserve appearances during social events, but there's little that has the air of true affection between them.

Well, then it is somewhat odd that Visenya saved Aegon's life, etc. She could have let him die back then. Or she could have allowed him to keep his crappy bodyguards and only formed herself a deeply loyal Queensguard.

Visenya was never a likable person, but she was still Aegon's sister and wife. And while Aegon distanced himself from her there is no hint that she felt the same way about him. For all we know she could have been deeply in love with him.

34 minutes ago, lojzelote said:

Look, there is a lot of problems with the show's portrayal of characters, but Arya being shown as partial to Jon is not one of them. Arya loves Sansa, but she loves Jon more. If the Northern dunderheads chose Jon over Sansa in the first place without having much reason to do so, then Arya preferring her favorite brother to a sister whom she's never been particularly close to is a no-brainer.

Under the setting of the show it could sort of make sense. But it would have to be properly build up and depicted. Like, by Arya liking the idea that Jon becomes a king, or Arya actually thinking and talking about Jon a lot during the long years they were not together. But I don't recall any of that happening.

And the idea that Arya is more loyal or loves an absent brother she basically no longer knows more than the sister that is there doesn't make a lot of sense. They would have to build it up that Arya was disappointed by the woman Sansa has become, etc. But even if they did that - if Sansa was to say that this bastard has no right to sit in her father's chair she would still be right. And while Arya might love Jon she would still have to concede that by the rules and customs of the society they live in Sansa or Bran should rule the North, not Jon.

The people who betrayed House Stark there were the Northmen and Jon himself when they made him king.

34 minutes ago, lojzelote said:

I read it after S6 ended in HBO's Game of Thrones Viewers' Guide. I remember it being discussed in the fandom as well. After the finale, Sansa was clearly titled as Lady of Winterfell and Jon as King in the North.

Well, quite honestly I don't care about supplementary material to the TV show. There is little reason to assume that this is properly thought through. And I very much doubt that Sansa being called 'the Lady of Winterfell' lays the legal relationship between her and the King in the North in detail. The idea that Winterfell is her own castle, etc. is something that would be derived from the fact that she is styled 'the Lady of Winterfell' no? But that can just as well be an empty title, no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Sure, that could work. And I'm not saying it wouldn't. But the idea that the whole Arya-Jon bond created years ago and never deepened (as per the show time line) would never be enough for Arya to side with an absent Jon over Sansa. In fact, there isn't even a reason as to why Arya should interpret the actions of her sister as ambitious or power-grabbing considering that the Sansa Arya once knew never showed any desire to actually want to rule or dominate anyone. The idea of being queen got into her head after the Joff betrothal, but her overall desire was always to please her elders and be a good girl.

Why should Arya suddenly think that Sansa has become some evil scheming bitch? And even if she was - why would Arya (in the context of the show) prefer ambitious/usurping Jon over her sister or Bran? It just doesn't make any sense.

Sure, but when you look beneath all that the naked fact remains that the trueborn Starks were ousted and tricked out of their inheritance. And that it is not something that a noble person in this world can easily accept without destroying his or her own self-image as well as his or her standing with his or her peers. And a person like Arya even less, who very much sees herself as Arya Stark of Winterfell. That is who she is. She is a Stark. And Winterfell and the North belongs to the Starks.

Arya and the other Stark siblings might be able to accept things as they are - as is Sansa doing, for the time being - but I very much doubt any of them would like that very much. Especially if there they have different opinions about the policy and strategy, etc.

The way Arya is portrayed is basically that she sees Jon as 'the rightful King in the North'. And that's just crap.

Well, then it is somewhat odd that Visenya saved Aegon's life, etc. She could have let him die back then. Or she could have allowed him to keep his crappy bodyguards and only formed herself a deeply loyal Queensguard.

Visenya was never a likable person, but she was still Aegon's sister and wife. And while Aegon distanced himself from her there is no hint that she felt the same way about him. For all we know she could have been deeply in love with him.

Under the setting of the show it could sort of make sense. But it would have to be properly build up and depicted. Like, by Arya liking the idea that Jon becomes a king, or Arya actually thinking and talking about Jon a lot during the long years they were not together. But I don't recall any of that happening.

And the idea that Arya is more loyal or loves an absent brother she basically no longer knows more than the sister that is there doesn't make a lot of sense. They would have to build it up that Arya was disappointed by the woman Sansa has become, etc. But even if they did that - if Sansa was to say that this bastard has no right to sit in her father's chair she would still be right. And while Arya might love Jon she would still have to concede that by the rules and customs of the society they live in Sansa or Bran should rule the North, not Jon.

The people who betrayed House Stark there were the Northmen and Jon himself when they made him king.

Well, quite honestly I don't care about supplementary material to the TV show. There is little reason to assume that this is properly thought through. And I very much doubt that Sansa being called 'the Lady of Winterfell' lays the legal relationship between her and the King in the North in detail. The idea that Winterfell is her own castle, etc. is something that would be derived from the fact that she is styled 'the Lady of Winterfell' no? But that can just as well be an empty title, no?

Well, Jon and Arya may not have seen each other for a long time, but Sansa and Arya have not seen each other almost equally long, and their relationship until their parting wasn't a warm one. They were fighting constantly. Right now they are at the point of resolving their issues (even GRRM said that Arya and Sansa have issues to work out). Hence Arya's snide remark that Sansa has always liked nice things. And while the show has never put much emphasis on the Jon-Arya relationship (partially probably due to the difference of the television medium), it seems that they still keep it, going by Sansa's remark about Jon's immense joy upon seeing Arya. 

The show has been playing with the notion of Sansa's ambivalent nature for some time now, and Arya serves as a mouthpiece of that. Besides, according to the leaked scripts there is actually supposed to be sibling rivalry going on between Jon and Sansa and Sansa is supposed to be somewhat resentful, so Arya actually picked up on an existing sentiment, although she has probably taken it too far in her conclusion, hopefully.

Hard to say about Visenya. It may be she cared for Aegon than he cared for her, but not neccessarily. Either way, Visenya was a clever and capable woman, and she would see that Aegon's survival is important for the fledgling dynasty. If only because he rode the biggest dragon. Besides, the Westerosi take better to the idea of male rulers. Visenya and/or Rhaenys alone wouldn't have gained acceptance as comparatively easily.

As for the canonicity of supplementary material, HBO also released a flowchart to explain who Jon’s father was. They kinda count on the idea that people watch Inside the Episode and visit their webpages to get a firmer grip on what's going on. And for what it's worth, Jon has never been titled Lord of Winterfell by anybody anywhere, so empty title or not, nominally Sansa rules Winterfell in her own right. This arrangement was probably D&D's idea of making it 'fair' - ie, Sansa and Jon each receive a title.

Either way it doesn't really matter because it's seems that for this or that reason Jon will not remain King in the North long enough to need a seat of his own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, lojzelote said:

Well, Jon and Arya may not have seen each other for a long time, but Sansa and Arya have not seen each other almost equally long, and their relationship until their parting wasn't a warm one. They were fighting constantly. Right now they are at the point of resolving their issues (even GRRM said that Arya and Sansa have issues to work out). Hence Arya's snide remark that Sansa has always liked nice things. And while the show has never put much emphasis on the Jon-Arya relationship (partially probably due to the difference of the television medium), it seems that they still keep it, going by Sansa's remark about Jon's immense joy upon seeing Arya. 

Yeah, in principle such conflicts could make sense. And one of the first questions to the buddies who gave me ASoIaF to read all those years ago (back when I still bought the idea that this story was covering multiple years and that the children would grow up, etc.) was whether the Arya-Sansa issues in AGoT would have more severe/deadly repercussions further down the road, with them ending up on different sides, etc.

There certainly is potential there. But this would have to be properly build up.

The way things are in the books the loss of their family affected both Stark girls equally strong, and they should both rejoice if they ever meet each other. Whether they get along and have similar views further down the road is a different matter entirely. And there certain gaps could open up.

But that is not what the show is doing. The show has the ridiculous setting of a King in the North who isn't a Stark while a Stark - Sansa - is right there. And that simply wouldn't make any sense with the book characters - and it also doesn't with the show, now that Bran and Arya also side with the absent guy who shouldn't be king. I mean, even if the North were to loath 'Lady Bolton' - what is their excuse for not considering Bran or Arya their rightful liege lords? In the books the cripple could face problems because of that but not Arya.

Come to think of that - I really hated that shitty scene with Arya being questioned by those stupid Stark guards. That made her a child all over again. Why didn't she kill them? That would have been much more realistic...

47 minutes ago, lojzelote said:

The show has been playing with the notion of Sansa's ambivalent nature for some time now, and Arya serves as a mouthpiece of that. Besides, according to the leaked scripts there is actually supposed to be sibling rivalry going on between Jon and Sansa and Sansa is supposed to be somewhat resentful, so Arya actually picked up on an existing sentiment, although she has probably taken it too far in her conclusion, hopefully.

Well, if we have to read leaked scripts to get a full view of the plot things are very bad indeed ;-).

The Sansa-Jon thing seems to be rather obvious - and it certainly is justified. Sansa deserves the North. She is the one who suffered. She is the one who essentially arranged the resistance against Ramsay and ensured the Stark victory in battle (after refusing to include the Vale into the fray for no reason for half a season).

47 minutes ago, lojzelote said:

Hard to say about Visenya. It may be she cared for Aegon than he cared for her, but not neccessarily. Either way, Visenya was a clever and capable woman, and she would see that Aegon's survival is important for the fledgling dynasty. If only because he rode the biggest dragon. Besides, the Westerosi take better to the idea of male rulers. Visenya and/or Rhaenys alone wouldn't have gained acceptance as comparatively easily.

If there were was a woman who ever co-ruled Westeros or were rulings queens in their own right it was Visenya/Rhaenys. They could have done without Aegon. Half the Realm or more would have fought for their hands, and they could have continued the dynasty just easily with some Velaryon husband.

47 minutes ago, lojzelote said:

As for the canonicity of supplementary material, HBO also released a flowchart to explain who Jon’s father was. They kinda count on the idea that people watch Inside the Episode and visit their webpages to get a firmer grip on what's going on. And for what it's worth, Jon has never been titled Lord of Winterfell by anybody anywhere, so empty title or not, nominally Sansa rules Winterfell in her own right. This arrangement was probably D&D's idea of making it 'fair' - ie, Sansa and Jon each receive a title.

Well, I don't watch that stuff, either. Those kind of things are subject to change if I remember the old family trees right.

In any case, the whole thing raises the question where the hell Jon sleeps in Winterfell if Sansa has the lord's bedchamber. In his old cell? That wouldn't be very kingly...

47 minutes ago, lojzelote said:

Either way it doesn't really matter because it's seems that for this or that reason Jon will not remain King in the North long enough to need a seat of his own.

Sure, that's why the whole thing is basically a non-issue. But it would be rather interesting how a King in the North could rule if there was a Lord of Winterfell that was not him. That would be if the King on the Iron Throne were separate from the Lord of the Red Keep or the Lord of King's Landing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Yeah, in principle such conflicts could make sense. And one of the first questions to the buddies who gave me ASoIaF to read all those years ago (back when I still bought the idea that this story was covering multiple years and that the children would grow up, etc.) was whether the Arya-Sansa issues in AGoT would have more severe/deadly repercussions further down the road, with them ending up on different sides, etc.

There certainly is potential there. But this would have to be properly build up.

The way things are in the books the loss of their family affected both Stark girls equally strong, and they should both rejoice if they ever meet each other. Whether they get along and have similar views further down the road is a different matter entirely. And there certain gaps could open up.

But that is not what the show is doing. The show has the ridiculous setting of a King in the North who isn't a Stark while a Stark - Sansa - is right there. And that simply wouldn't make any sense with the book characters - and it also doesn't with the show, now that Bran and Arya also side with the absent guy who shouldn't be king. I mean, even if the North were to loath 'Lady Bolton' - what is their excuse for not considering Bran or Arya their rightful liege lords? In the books the cripple could face problems because of that but not Arya.

Come to think of that - I really hated that shitty scene with Arya being questioned by those stupid Stark guards. That made her a child all over again. Why didn't she kill them? That would have been much more realistic...

Well, if we have to read leaked scripts to get a full view of the plot things are very bad indeed ;-).

The Sansa-Jon thing seems to be rather obvious - and it certainly is justified. Sansa deserves the North. She is the one who suffered. She is the one who essentially arranged the resistance against Ramsay and ensured the Stark victory in battle (after refusing to include the Vale into the fray for no reason for half a season).

If there were was a woman who ever co-ruled Westeros or were rulings queens in their own right it was Visenya/Rhaenys. They could have done without Aegon. Half the Realm or more would have fought for their hands, and they could have continued the dynasty just easily with some Velaryon husband.

Well, I don't watch that stuff, either. Those kind of things are subject to change if I remember the old family trees right.

In any case, the whole thing raises the question where the hell Jon sleeps in Winterfell if Sansa has the lord's bedchamber. In his old cell? That wouldn't be very kingly...

Sure, that's why the whole thing is basically a non-issue. But it would be rather interesting how a King in the North could rule if there was a Lord of Winterfell that was not him. That would be if the King on the Iron Throne were separate from the Lord of the Red Keep or the Lord of King's Landing.

I'm not sure how they could have built it up. Arya and Sansa only reunited last episode.

Well, Arya is a girl. We know from GRRM that there has never been a ruling Lady of Winterfell or Queen in the North. Even in that old wildling legend about Bael the Bard, the lordship passed from Brandon the Daughterless straight to his bastard grandson, leaving out the Stark daughter in the middle.

To be honest, I don't think that Book Arya would have been too happy about the idea of beeing left out of the succession at the basis that she is a woman - after all, she actually believes that women are important too, but then, I'm not sure how much she would care to push the issue. Especially if she arrived in the North after the fact. I've never gotten the impression that she's ambitious or has some kind of political or social program she'd like to apply. Either way, I don't think it's ever going to become an issue.

Don't you think it is a bit extreme to kill guards who don't recognize you and do their job of not letting you in on your say so? They could have been more pleasant, but Arya has seen far worse dickheads. And they were still Stark soldiers.

LOL, I agree with you that Sansa deserves the North... and the North deserves her, but for very different reasons than you believe. Objectively, Sansa in the show is a shady manipulator that at the same time happens to be very stupid, but the showrunners want us to buy into the idea that she's some kind of briliant political player and stuff. Now, Jon has not been portarayed as the sharpest tool in the box either, but at least he is honest. The way I see it, he should follow his dream of finding somewhere warm to live. He and Dany can stay together in the South - the North doesn't want the Targaryens and other foreigners anyway - and meanwhile Sandra Bolton can lead her small band of xenophobic, overproud pricks against the WW. Should be almost as amusing to watch as a Monty Python sketch.

Frankly, I believe that both Rhaenys and Visenya were more important for the survival of the Targaryen dynasty their brother, but Aegon acted as a very important symbol. Think of the monikers that the Westerosi lavish upon him - Aegon the Conqueror and Aegon the Dragon. Even during the Baratheon reign they speak of the Iron Throne as the throne of Aegon the Conqueror. Visenya and Rhaenys do not receive the same treatment. That said, it's not impossible that they would not have conquered and ruled Westeros on their own - Nymeria managed to prevail in Dorne, after all - but it would have been harder. And why make things harder, no? Besides, as I said, it's better to have three dragons than two.

On HBO:

I doubt they would reveal that Jon's father is Rhaegar Targaryen to change it the next season lol.

I assume that there much guest chambers for noble guests? I mean, when Robert's court had arrived in S1, it's unlikely that he and his family were sleeping in the stables.

I guess that Jon would ultimately ended up with the Dreadfort. I mean, that kind of thing would happen in the books with the Boltons if they proved victorious. Roose Bolton can be Warden of the North (and according to Lady Dustin maybe even a king) without becoming Lord of Winterfell.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, lojzelote said:

I'm not sure how they could have built it up. Arya and Sansa only reunited last episode.

That is part of the problem. Such a plot would need time. They could have done that better if they had Arya to return to Winterfell much earlier. Say, in episode 1 or 2 instead of giving her a lot of ridiculous filler material. But even then it would have taken more time for a proper buildup.

Another way to do it could have been to have Arya reach the conclusion that Sansa is evil or a traitor before she even returned to Winterfell. That could have been done by her hearing rumors and garbled reports about her, etc.

40 minutes ago, lojzelote said:

Well, Arya is a girl. We know from GRRM that there has never been a ruling Lady of Winterfell or Queen in the North. Even in that old wildling legend about Bael the Bard, the lordship passed from Brandon the Daughterless straight to his bastard grandson, leaving out the Stark daughter in the middle.

We don't know whether the mother of the boy was still alive when the boy finally became Lord of Winterfell, do we? She could have been - or not.

40 minutes ago, lojzelote said:

To be honest, I don't think that Book Arya would have been too happy about the idea of beeing left out of the succession at the basis that she is a woman - after all, she actually believes that women are important too, but then, I'm not sure how much she would care to push the issue. Especially if she arrived in the North after the fact. I've never gotten the impression that she's ambitious or has some kind of political or social program she'd like to apply. Either way, I don't think it's ever going to become an issue.

Well, if she ends up returning home to Winterfell I'm not sure what she intends to do there if she doesn't share in or take power there. What would be the point of that? She is not going to sit with the women again, doing needlework, right?

And her assassin skills surely put her in the ideal position to seize power by killing everyone who stands between her and the North. I mean, it is a rather interesting question what she intends to do with her life after she has killed all the people on her list. The fact that she doesn't think about ruling the North doesn't mean she won't decide that she is going to do just that when the time comes to make that decision.

I'd prefer it if she was doing something more productive/important but I'm not going to tell her what to do. I want to continue to live ;-).

40 minutes ago, lojzelote said:

Don't you think it is a bit extreme to kill guards who don't recognize you and do their job of not letting you in on your say so? They could have been more pleasant, but Arya has seen far worse dickheads. And they were still Stark soldiers.

Sure, but they treated her like shit. And I don't think Arya will take such shit anymore. Not from anyone at the gates of Winterfell. At another place, sure, but not from anyone at her home.

40 minutes ago, lojzelote said:

LOL, I agree with you that Sansa deserves the North... and the North deserves her, but for very different reasons than you believe. Objectively, Sansa in the show is a shady manipulator that at the same time happens to be very stupid, but the showrunners want us to buy into the idea that she's some kind of briliant political player and stuff. Now, Jon has not been portarayed as the sharpest tool in the box either, but at least he is honest. The way I see it, he should follow his dream of finding somewhere warm to live. He and Dany can stay together in the South - the North doesn't want the Targaryens and other foreigners anyway - and meanwhile Sandra Bolton can lead her small band of xenophobic, overproud pricks against the WW. Should be almost as amusing to watch as a Monty Python sketch.

Well, yeah, that's how they seem to be setting it up. Although I'm not sure what Sansa is going to contribute to the fight against the Others. Perhaps her skills as a clerk? But quite honestly - I still don't understand why anyone in the North wanted him to be king or why he accepted that whole thing. He must have known that Sansa wanted it, right? And if he didn't want it why on earth didn't he make her queen? It wouldn't have been that difficult, right?

The whole thing just sucks.

40 minutes ago, lojzelote said:

Frankly, I believe that both Rhaenys and Visenya were more important for the survival of the Targaryen dynasty their brother, but Aegon acted as a very important symbol. Think of the monikers that the Westerosi lavish upon him - Aegon the Conqueror and Aegon the Dragon. Even during the Baratheon reign they speak of the Iron Throne as the throne of Aegon the Conqueror. Visenya and Rhaenys do not receive the same treatment. That said, it's not impossible that they would not have conquered and ruled Westeros on their own - Nymeria managed to prevail in Dorne, after all - but it would have been harder. And why make things harder, no? Besides, as I said, it's better to have three dragons than two. 

Sure, but let's assume Aegon had been killed by some Dornish assassins or gone done in 10 AC instead of Rhaenys and Meraxes. Rhaenys and Visenya would have continued the project. It may have been difficult to figure who was in charge, but they would have taken themselves some Velaryon husbands and given them some dragons, and worked from there. History wrote Aegon so large because he was male and ruled for 37 years. But if one or both his sister-wives had ruled in their own right history would have written them as large or at least nearly as large, too. Back during the days of the Conqueror Visenya was most likely indeed more powerful and more important than Aegon himself. But that is not how historians wanted to portray her although the details we have certainly hint at her power.

And they wouldn't have given shit about tradition and Westerosi sensibilities in that case. Rhaenys and Visenya were conquerors, too. There may have faced more opposition than Aegon did but they would have managed just fine.

40 minutes ago, lojzelote said:

I assume that there much guest chambers for noble guests? I mean, when Robert's court had arrived in S1, it's unlikely that he and his family were sleeping in the stables.

Sure, they should have the space, but does it make sense that the King in the North is just a guest in Winterfell?

40 minutes ago, lojzelote said:

I guess that Jon would ultimately ended up with the Dreadfort. I mean, that kind of thing would happen in the books with the Boltons if they proved victorious. Roose Bolton can be Warden of the North (and according to Lady Dustin maybe even a king) without becoming Lord of Winterfell.

I guess this plan would have involved Roose also taking Winterfell for himself. That is a longterm plan involving Ramsay suffering some sort of accident after he has impregnated 'Arya' or even produced a living son. Then Roose has a Bolton-Stark heir to take over Winterfell while the Dreadfort can go to his children by Walda - or both go in the end to them, depending what he wants to do in ten or twenty years.

If Jon is truly without a castle then why on earth didn't he take those Umber and Karstark castles for himself at the beginning of this season? Or why didn't he reward himself with the Dreadfort already? The Boltons are gone in the show.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Lord Varys

Quote

That is part of the problem. Such a plot would need time. They could have done that better if they had Arya to return to Winterfell much earlier. Say, in episode 1 or 2 instead of giving her a lot of ridiculous filler material. But even then it would have taken more time for a proper buildup.

Another way to do it could have been to have Arya reach the conclusion that Sansa is evil or a traitor before she even returned to Winterfell. That could have been done by her hearing rumors and garbled reports about her, etc.

I suppose they trust the audience to remember that Sansa and Arya's relationship from S1.

 

But anyway, since we know that the matter between Sansa and Arya will be most likely settled by the end of the season, why bother with much of a set up

Quote

We don't know whether the mother of the boy was still alive when the boy finally became Lord of Winterfell, do we? She could have been - or not.

According to Ygritte, she lived:

Quote

“The song ends when they find the babe, but there is a darker end to the story. Thirty years later, when Bael was King-beyond-the-Wall and led the free folk south, it was young Lord Stark who met him at the Frozen Ford... and killed him, for Bael would not harm his own son when they met sword to sword.”
 “So the son slew the father instead,” said Jon.
 “Aye,” she said, “but the gods hate kinslayers, even when they kill unknowing. When Lord Stark returned from the battle and his mother saw Bael’s head upon his spear, she threw herself from a tower in her grief. Her son did not long outlive her. One o’ his lords peeled the skin off him and wore him for a cloak.”

It's likely a highly stylized story even if there is a snippet truth somewhere. But the last sentence sounds oddly accurate... I mean, we hear from other sources as well that the ancient Boltons killed and skinned Starks and that some of those skins may be still lying around at the Dreadfort.

But back to the point, if the North has never had a female ruler, than it is quite likely that this was the way succession was solved. It happened in my country's history as well. A princess passed the royal blood of the previous dynasty, but it was her husband and later her sons that ruled.

Quote

Well, if she ends up returning home to Winterfell I'm not sure what she intends to do there if she doesn't share in or take power there. What would be the point of that? She is not going to sit with the women again, doing needlework, right?

And her assassin skills surely put her in the ideal position to seize power by killing everyone who stands between her and the North. I mean, it is a rather interesting question what she intends to do with her life after she has killed all the people on her list. The fact that she doesn't think about ruling the North doesn't mean she won't decide that she is going to do just that when the time comes to make that decision.

I'd prefer it if she was doing something more productive/important but I'm not going to tell her what to do. I want to continue to live ;-).

Actually, I think her job may be taking out your namesake, Lord Varys. ;-)

She did overhear Illyrio and Varys scheming back in AGoT. She could piece together the whole picture at some point. There would be a certain symmetry to Sansa killing Littlefinger and Arya killing Varys. The two masterminds taken out by the two Stark girls. Besides, if anyone can fool Varys' little birds, it's likely a Faceless Man.

She may also take out some other guys who serve as a distraction from the War for Dawn. It's unlikely that her ninja powers would be any good against the Others or wights, but she could spare Jon and Dany and co a lot of work by helping them with getting rid of their political opponents that refuse to cooperate.

Quote

Well, yeah, that's how they seem to be setting it up. Although I'm not sure what Sansa is going to contribute to the fight against the Others. Perhaps her skills as a clerk? But quite honestly - I still don't understand why anyone in the North wanted him to be king or why he accepted that whole thing. He must have known that Sansa wanted it, right? And if he didn't want it why on earth didn't he make her queen? It wouldn't have been that difficult, right?

Well, I assume she will take care of food redistribution and she will try to keep people's spirits up as she did during the Blackwater. (Not sure how she will manage the former since she apparently sucks at math, but GRRM seems to be setting her up as such a figure.)

Well, it happened kinda quickly. Lyanna Mormont led the hype, and the next moment they were waving with their swords in the air. I guess Jon was still in shock from the battle and all. But, it would have made for a funny, awkward scene if in the next second he started embarassedly, "Wait..."

Quote

Sure, but let's assume Aegon had been killed by some Dornish assassins or gone done in 10 AC instead of Rhaenys and Meraxes. Rhaenys and Visenya would have continued the project. It may have been difficult to figure who was in charge, but they would have taken themselves some Velaryon husbands and given them some dragons, and worked from there. History wrote Aegon so large because he was male and ruled for 37 years. But if one or both his sister-wives had ruled in their own right history would have written them as large or at least nearly as large, too. Back during the days of the Conqueror Visenya was most likely indeed more powerful and more important than Aegon himself. But that is not how historians wanted to portray her although the details we have certainly hint at her power.

And they wouldn't have given shit about tradition and Westerosi sensibilities in that case. Rhaenys and Visenya were conquerors, too. There may have faced more opposition than Aegon did but they would have managed just fine.

Given GRRM's history of portraying sisters and female friendships, I tend to believe that they would have ended up tearing each other's hair soon enough. Maybe a childless Rhaenys would have been content to follow Visenya, but I'm not so sure of that in case she had already given birth to Aenys, and Visenya would have most likely resented the idea of her younger sister having the last word, especially since Rhaenys basically stole her position as Aegon's wife and mother of his heir. Particularly if Aegon really wasn't Aenys' progenitor. Why should she let herself be commanded by Rhaenys just because she gave birth to a child.

Quote

I guess this plan would have involved Roose also taking Winterfell for himself. That is a longterm plan involving Ramsay suffering some sort of accident after he has impregnated 'Arya' or even produced a living son. Then Roose has a Bolton-Stark heir to take over Winterfell while the Dreadfort can go to his children by Walda - or both go in the end to them, depending what he wants to do in ten or twenty years.

If Jon is truly without a castle then why on earth didn't he take those Umber and Karstark castles for himself at the beginning of this season? Or why didn't he reward himself with the Dreadfort already? The Boltons are gone in the show.

I'm not sure. I mean, people are used to Winterfell as the 'capital' of the North, so from this point it has value... but it may be that the wardenship and rest would have from now on remain with the line of the Boltons of the Dreadfort. Going by your scenario, there would likely start a civil war between the Boltons of the Dreadfort and the Boltons of Winterfell the next generation at the latest.

I doubt Jon cares much. If he wasn't trying to make allies in the South, I fully expect he would be seeing to the defences of the Wall personally. He wouldn't sitting in some castle hall listening to petitions. He'd let Sansa deal with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, lojzelote said:

@Lord Varys

 

  Reveal hidden contents

But anyway, since we know that the matter between Sansa and Arya will be most likely settled by the end of the season, why bother with much of a set up

According to Ygritte, she lived:

It's likely a highly stylized story even if there is a snippet truth somewhere. But the last sentence sounds oddly accurate... I mean, we hear from other sources as well that the ancient Boltons killed and skinned Starks and that some of those skins may be still lying around at the Dreadfort.

Right. Thanks for going back to the books on that one. The whole skinning thing also is a strong sign that we are truly talking about a King of Winter or King in the North here, not some mere Lord of Winterfell. I doubt that the Conqueror or the Old King would have allowed any Boltons to skin their Wardens in the North. Not to mention tolerating a rebellion in the North.

27 minutes ago, lojzelote said:

But back to the point, if the North has never had a female ruler, than it is quite likely that this was the way succession was solved. It happened in my country's history as well. A princess passed the royal blood of the previous dynasty, but it was her husband and later her sons that ruled.

Well, but we have it well established that Sansa Stark is the heir to Winterfell in the wake of the deaths of Bran and Rickon. That's how the Lannisters, the Tyrells, and Littlefinger treat here. Surely they are not all mistaken in that, right? And even Alys Karstark seems to believe she can rule Karhold, not to mention Lady Dustin ruling Barrowton without any blood claim (that we know of).

A Ruling Lady of Winterfell may be somewhat more controversial but not necessarily impossible.

27 minutes ago, lojzelote said:

Actually, I think her job may be taking out your namesake, Lord Varys. ;-)

She did overhear Illyrio and Varys scheming back in AGoT. She could piece together the whole picture at some point. There would be a certain symmetry to Sansa killing Littlefinger and Arya killing Varys. The two masterminds taken out by the two Stark girls. Besides, if anyone can fool Varys' little birds, it's likely a Faceless Man.

Since I think Arya is set up to join Daenerys on her way to Westeros, cutting her ties with the Faceless Men when they sent her (and perhaps Jaqen as well) to take out her and the dragons in the wake of Stannis' deal with the Iron Bank I find that scenario not completely unlikely.

I want Arya to play a role in the big game, and seeing that Dany is a good person with high ideals and a positive political program (anti-slavery) could also help her rediscover her own humanity and help find a new purpose on life. It could also help see the problematic truth behind the Faceless Men if the anti-slavery Braavos ended up targeting a woman who was also anti-slavery just because they had made a deal with Stannis (and have a fear of dragons). And then she can serve as Dany's Mistress of Whisperers/Assassins and take out Aegon and his allies during the Second Dance.

If Arya doesn't hook up with Dany I see no reason why she should ever care to kill or target Varys. She doesn't know who the wizard she overheard was, nor has she any reason to consider him her enemy right now because he had nothing to do with the downfall of Lord Eddard.

27 minutes ago, lojzelote said:

She may also take out some other guys who serve as a distraction from the War for Dawn. It's unlikely that her ninja powers would be any good against the Others or wights, but she could spare Jon and Dany and co a lot of work by helping them with getting rid of their political opponents that refuse to cooperate.

She could also help hook up Dany and Jon if she joined Dany in Essos. Say, while Dany is freeing Volantis or dealing with the Three Daughters. I don't think Tyrion's acquaintance with Jon is enough to do that. 

27 minutes ago, lojzelote said:

Well, it happened kinda quickly. Lyanna Mormont led the hype, and the next moment they were waving with their swords in the air. I guess Jon was still in shock from the battle and all. But, it would have made for a funny, awkward scene if in the next second he started embarassedly, "Wait..."

Still, if some guys (half of them treasonous shitheads who didn't support me against the Boltons) were declaring me king I would decide whether I accepted that or not. Sure, it makes no good scene on screen but that is no excuse for the fact that somebody who doesn't want to be king usually doesn't become king.

27 minutes ago, lojzelote said:

Given GRRM's history of portraying sisters and female friendships, I tend to believe that they would have ended up tearing each other's hair soon enough. Maybe a childless Rhaenys would have been content to follow Visenya, but I'm not so sure of that in case she had already given birth to Aenys, and Visenya would have most likely resented the idea of her younger sister having the last word, especially since Rhaenys basically stole her position as Aegon's wife and mother of his heir. Particularly if Aegon really wasn't Aenys' progenitor. Why should she let herself be commanded by Rhaenys just because she gave birth to a child.

Yeah, that's also possible. But, say, if Aegon and Rhaenys were dead - or Aegon and Visenya - the surviving sister would have managed just fine. And I guess if they had had Aenys already but not yet Maegor then any daughter Visenya might have had in a second marriage could have been married to Aenys. They could also taken themselves another husband to share, although that would have been very weird.

What little we know about Rhaenys' death indicates that both Aegon and Visenya were very pissed about her death. It should have been similar with Aegon.

27 minutes ago, lojzelote said:

I'm not sure. I mean, people are used to Winterfell as the 'capital' of the North, so from this point it has value... but it may be that the wardenship and rest would have from now on remain with the line of the Boltons of the Dreadfort. Going by your scenario, there would likely start a civil war between the Boltons of the Dreadfort and the Boltons of Winterfell the next generation at the latest.

I guess that would depend who ended up inheriting the North.

27 minutes ago, lojzelote said:

I doubt Jon cares much. If he wasn't trying to make allies in the South, I fully expect he would be seeing to the defences of the Wall personally. He wouldn't sitting in some castle hall listening to petitions. He'd let Sansa deal with that.

Still, he is a king now. If he doesn't live and act like a king he'd always remain this puppet of his bannermen that has to take their collective will into account even when he wants to take a shit.

A king isn't a lord in this world. You see this perfectly with the aloofness and authority Robb acquires in the months and weeks before his death. He does as he pleases, and nobody dares question his decisions. That's a real king.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/13/2017 at 11:14 PM, Lurid Jester said:

The only concern I have is the private conversation between Sansa and Arya.  Arya seems very... dense. I don't like her "solve my problems by killing everyone" philosophy. 

Agreed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Lord Varys

Quote

Right. Thanks for going back to the books on that one. The whole skinning thing also is a strong sign that we are truly talking about a King of Winter or King in the North here, not some mere Lord of Winterfell. I doubt that the Conqueror or the Old King would have allowed any Boltons to skin their Wardens in the North. Not to mention tolerating a rebellion in the North.

Yeah. I don't find that all that odd that Ygritte wouldn't have been able to properly distinguish titulature of kneelers at the Southern side of the Wall. I mean, for most of the Northern history, the King in the North was also Lord of Winterfell, so she might not understand why she should not call him "Lord Stark", especially since the last couple of centuries the family patriarch was called Lord Stark. Also, the official title of the king on the Iron Throne happens to be "Lord of the Seven Kingdoms". No wonder the girl was confused lol.

Quote

Well, but we have it well established that Sansa Stark is the heir to Winterfell in the wake of the deaths of Bran and Rickon. That's how the Lannisters, the Tyrells, and Littlefinger treat here. Surely they are not all mistaken in that, right? And even Alys Karstark seems to believe she can rule Karhold, not to mention Lady Dustin ruling Barrowton without any blood claim (that we know of).

A Ruling Lady of Winterfell may be somewhat more controversial but not necessarily impossible.

You misundestand me. Sansa is (or is thought to be) the heiress, but she may be an heiress the way Brandon the Daughterless' daughter was his heiress.

We see this with other Westerosi families as well. In the Reach, the Peakes and the Manderlys fought over which of them has the better right to become king "by the right of their wife". It was not assumed that either of the Gardener princesses should rule, but which of their husbands. Similarly with Joffrey Lydden, who married a Lannister princess and continued House Lannister.

In the RL terms, it's the difference between Elizabeth of Luxembourg, the heiress of Emperor Sigismund, who became a queen consort to Vladislaus III of Poland, and Maria Theresa, who would after her father's death become the empress regnant of the Austrian Empire.

In theory Sansa as a heiress may have more rights than to become her husband's consort, but it doesn't mean anyone in the South or even in the North would want to apply that theory to reality. That happened to Elizabeth of Luxembourg, too.

It's hard to say how it goes with nobility. IRL it seems to differ wildly depending on the exact time and place. For example there didn't seem to be any problem with Eleanor of Acquitaine inheriting her family's ancestral lands, and from what I read on the topic (admittedly not much) it appears that her lords actually answered to her, not to her husbands. Even after the establishment of the salic law, women at the level of nobility could have inherited peerdoms, an example being Queen Claude, the Duchess of Britanny. Claude was born as the daughter of a French king and a duchess of Brittany, but since her parents had no surviving sons, the French crown passed to Claude's cousin Francois. But, Claude was also her mother's daughter and heiress, and because it was thought important to keep Britanny bound to the Crown, a marrige was arranged between Claude and the new king. I have no idea how much power Claude or her mother had over their lands once they entered their respective marriages, but it shows well that noblewomen may enjoy greater rights than princesses. Similarly, lower ranked noblewomen in Westeros may actually have it better than daughters of high lords... or at least daughters of high lords from the more bigoted places.

Quote

Still, if some guys (half of them treasonous shitheads who didn't support me against the Boltons) were declaring me king I would decide whether I accepted that or not. Sure, it makes no good scene on screen but that is no excuse for the fact that somebody who doesn't want to be king usually doesn't become king.

Not gonna disagree. I'd show them my middle finger and continue on my merry way south.

Quote

Yeah, that's also possible. But, say, if Aegon and Rhaenys were dead - or Aegon and Visenya - the surviving sister would have managed just fine. And I guess if they had had Aenys already but not yet Maegor then any daughter Visenya might have had in a second marriage could have been married to Aenys. They could also taken themselves another husband to share, although that would have been very weird.

What little we know about Rhaenys' death indicates that both Aegon and Visenya were very pissed about her death. It should have been similar with Aegon.

I wouldn't use Visenya's reaction to Rhaenys' death as a proof of her affection. Cersei was also absolutely livid when Catelyn carried off Tyrion and Tywin started a bloody retribution in answer. At the same time, they both utterly loathe Tyrion. But touching him meant to touch House Lannister. So, even if Visenya hated Rhaenys at the personal level, she could not have been pleased that she and Meraxes had been put down by the Dornish. It proved that they were not invincible after all.

That said, I don't think she must have hated her. Human relationships can be very complex. Without an access to their thoughts, it's pretty much impossible to tell how they felt about each other.

I guess that Visenya and Aegon were never at the same wavelength so to speak, but they may not have disliked each other initially. But as time went, Visenya's resentment at being the third wheel might have grown, and Aegon might have become disgusted with her if she kept pressing him with making Maegor his heir instead of Aenys.

Quote

Still, he is a king now. If he doesn't live and act like a king he'd always remain this puppet of his bannermen that has to take their collective will into account even when he wants to take a shit.

A king isn't a lord in this world. You see this perfectly with the aloofness and authority Robb acquires in the months and weeks before his death. He does as he pleases, and nobody dares question his decisions. That's a real king.

Well, it depends. The early medieval kings pretty much ruled from horseback, no? Jon has very little reason to care about his seat if he doesn't plan on staying there anyway. He's got different priorities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, lojzelote said:

@Lord Varys

Yeah. I don't find that all that odd that Ygritte wouldn't have been able to properly distinguish titulature of kneelers at the Southern side of the Wall. I mean, for most of the Northern history, the King in the North was also Lord of Winterfell, so she might not understand why she should not call him "Lord Stark", especially since the last couple of centuries the family patriarch was called Lord Stark. Also, the official title of the king on the Iron Throne happens to be "Lord of the Seven Kingdoms". No wonder the girl was confused lol.

Yeah, there are some people out there who want to place Bael the Bard in the 1st century AC but that's just ridiculous.

1 hour ago, lojzelote said:

You misundestand me. Sansa is (or is thought to be) the heiress, but she may be an heiress the way Brandon the Daughterless' daughter was his heiress.

We see this with other Westerosi families as well. In the Reach, the Peakes and the Manderlys fought over which of them has the better right to become king "by the right of their wife". It was not assumed that either of the Gardener princesses should rule, but which of their husbands. Similarly with Joffrey Lydden, who married a Lannister princess and continued House Lannister.

It is sort of confusing, especially since things would have been different in each of the Seven Kingdoms prior to the Conquest - and, of course, within those kingdoms laws and customs would have also changed over time.

For the West we know that Joffrey Lydden was made king by right of his Lannister wife, but in the Reach there was at least one Queen Regnant in her own right. And I'm still inclined to believe that Alyssa Arryn may have been one, too.

It is certainly true that the consort of such queens would have played a very important role (we see this both with Rhaenyra and Daemon and, to a lesser degree, with Rhaenys and Corlys Velaryon - he would have been a very powerful and prestigious Prince Consort, had Rhaenys ruled as Queen Rhaenys I), as would the husbands of ruling ladies.

But there are hints with Lady Dustin, Lady Oakheart, Lady Waynwood, and Lady Mormont that such women certainly can sideline their husbands very effectively, or rule even without them - as Jeyne Arryn, the Maiden of the Vale, apparently did.

From Lady Rohanne Webber we know that there is a risk that you are wed against your will as a female heir, and we see how Bronn seizes power in Stokeworth (although Lollys is apparently a lackwit), but Rohanne also shows us that a woman can wield power in her own right very effectively.

1 hour ago, lojzelote said:

It's hard to say how it goes with nobility. IRL it seems to differ wildly depending on the exact time and place. For example there didn't seem to be any problem with Eleanor of Acquitaine inheriting her family's ancestral lands, and from what I read on the topic (admittedly not much) it appears that her lords actually answered to her, not to her husbands. Even after the establishment of the salic law, women at the level of nobility could have inherited peerdoms, an example being Queen Claude, the Duchess of Britanny. Claude was born as the daughter of a French king and a duchess of Brittany, but since her parents had no surviving sons, the French crown passed to Claude's cousin Francois. But, Claude was also her mother's daughter and heiress, and because it was thought important to keep Britanny bound to the Crown, a marrige was arranged between Claude and the new king. I have no idea how much power Claude or her mother had over their lands once they entered their respective marriages, but it shows well that noblewomen may enjoy greater rights than princesses. Similarly, lower ranked noblewomen in Westeros may actually have it better than daughters of high lords... or at least daughters of high lords from the more bigoted places.

It seems as if the concept of a woman holding a lordship in her own right is pretty much accepted in the Seven Kingdoms. At least since the Conquest or at least since the unification of the laws under Jaehaerys I. How often a woman was really ruling her household, castle, and lands is another question. That would depend on a lot of factors - the personality of the husband, the loyalty of her men-at-arms and servants to her, personally, her own personality, the reputation she has, etc. But it seems there are women who pulled it off. In fact, we have more example for ruling ladies that rule in their own right than for those who are basically controlled by the husbands.

1 hour ago, lojzelote said:

I wouldn't use Visenya's reaction to Rhaenys' death as a proof of her affection. Cersei was also absolutely livid when Catelyn carried off Tyrion and Tywin started a bloody retribution in answer. At the same time, they both utterly loathe Tyrion. But touching him meant to touch House Lannister. So, even if Visenya hated Rhaenys at the personal level, she could not have been pleased that she and Meraxes had been put down by the Dornish. It proved that they were not invincible after all.

Sure, that's possible. I'm inclined to think that Visenya had fewer issues with Rhaenys than she and Maegor were later treated by Aegon. Maegor really seems to have been her blind spot. He was clearly not suited to rule over anything, but she apparently didn't want to see that and did everything she could to prop him up to become king one day. That was not wise. And she is as much to blame as Aenys and Maegor for the Faith Militant Uprising considering that she was involved in Maegor's marriage to Alys Harroway.

1 hour ago, lojzelote said:

That said, I don't think she must have hated her. Human relationships can be very complex. Without an access to their thoughts, it's pretty much impossible to tell how they felt about each other.

Yeah, I don't even think Aegon and Visenya hated each other. They just no longer got along. And the idea that they were too much alike personality-wise actually makes some sense. Aegon was more the quiet and brooding type, too, and Visenya was that to an even stronger degree. Such tendencies usually get a lot worse in old age, and neither of them might have been willing to suffer the shit of the other.

And Visenya should have been not happy at all with Aenys and Alyssa and their growing number of children, or the favors Aegon was showing to them. Not to mention the fact that she may have thought she deserved more rewards or recognition for herself and her son after what she had done to ensure the continued rule and survival of the dynasty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Lord Varys

Quote

It is sort of confusing, especially since things would have been different in each of the Seven Kingdoms prior to the Conquest - and, of course, within those kingdoms laws and customs would have also changed over time.

Yeah. It's confusing to look at the real life history, too. England is a wonderful example of this. Empress Maud has almost become the first English queen regnant, but ultimately she lost her war against Stephen. Philippa Plantagenet was completely ignored in favour of her male cousins. After the War of Roses it was still unthinkable that Elizabeth of York could have become Queen on her own. Henry VIII was so desperate for a son at least in part because he believed that the remants of the Plantagenets will never accept his Tudor daughter on the throne... but surprise surprise. After her brother's death, Mary was very quickly acknowledged as the rightful queen by majority of the country, and the same goes for Elizabeth after her.

OTOH in Spain you several queen regnants ruling the individual small kingdoms, then you have a very strong queen in Isabella of Castile.... folowed up by her daughter Joanna whose rights were usurped by her father, husband, and son. Ultimately the Habsbourgs lost control of Spain because the only male heir died without issue and his sister was unable to inherit.

But, back to my earlier point, I simply find it unlikely that the Starks are an unbroken male line... even if they have lasted only a thousand years, not the unbelievable eight millennia, at some point they should have daughtered out. We can see with the current generation how easy is to lose all male heirs. So, if no woman has ever ruled the North, what other explanation is there than that it were their husbands and sons that were preferred?

We have no idea how much - if at all - has Northern mentality changed in regards to female succession. Acceptance of ruling ladies does not automatically equal acceptance of ruling queens, and the Starks in the North have been regarded as kings in pretty much all but name even before Robb's crowning.

Long story short, Sansa or Arya might be pretty quick to nope out out of any such arrangement that the North may have in store for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, lojzelote said:

@Lord Varys

Yeah. It's confusing to look at the real life history, too. England is a wonderful example of this. Empress Maud has almost become the first English queen regnant, but ultimately she lost her war against Stephen. Philippa Plantagenet was completely ignored in favour of her male cousins. After the War of Roses it was still unthinkable that Elizabeth of York could have become Queen on her own. Henry VIII was so desperate for a son at least in part because he believed that the remants of the Plantagenets will never accept his Tudor daughter on the throne... but surprise surprise. After her brother's death, Mary was very quickly acknowledged as the rightful queen by majority of the country, and the same goes for Elizabeth after her.

OTOH in Spain you several queen regnants ruling the individual small kingdoms, then you have a very strong queen in Isabella of Castile.... folowed up by her daughter Joanna whose rights were usurped by her father, husband, and son. Ultimately the Habsbourgs lost control of Spain because the only male heir died without issue and his sister was unable to inherit.

But, back to my earlier point, I simply find it unlikely that the Starks are an unbroken male line... even if they have lasted only a thousand years, not the unbelievable eight millennia, at some point they should have daughtered out. We can see with the current generation how easy is to lose all male heirs. So, if no woman has ever ruled the North, what other explanation is there than that it were their husbands and sons that were preferred?

We have no idea how much - if at all - has Northern mentality changed in regards to female succession. Acceptance of ruling ladies does not automatically equal acceptance of ruling queens, and the Starks in the North have been regarded as kings in pretty much all but name even before Robb's crowning.

Long story short, Sansa or Arya might be pretty quick to nope out out of any such arrangement that the North may have in store for them.

Does your theory hold if you consider that the Karstarks are simply Starks who live in Karhold?  Seems that with a large extended family that there should be a male cousin somewhere when the dice roll all daughters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, lojzelote said:

@Lord Varys

But, back to my earlier point, I simply find it unlikely that the Starks are an unbroken male line...
 

They don't have to be.

Men marrying into the Stark family would've have adopted the Stark name because it's more prestigious and they'd be making a social climb.

Particularly in The North, where the Stark name is magic (figuratively) in terms of ruling the north so it would be politically expedient for the Stark in-law to take his wife's name.  Doubly so for their inheriting child.  Imagine, if you would, that Sansa had gotten pregnant during her (mercifully brief) marriage to Ramsay.  Let's say that kid was a boy and ended up inheriting Wintefell.  Do you think he'd choose to go by Stark, or Bolton?  He can rightly claim either, but if I were going to be Lord of Winterfell, or King In The North, I know which name I'd use.

Real world aristocrats' full names are of a quite cumbersome length because every marriage alliance through the generations produced another surname worth claiming and so they've got like six or so "middle" names and can rotate them around based on what family tie is most advantageous to advertise.  They even tend to do that with their first names (ex: Prince Charles has declared his intent to rule as "George VII" when he inherits the throne, because George is one of like 17 middle names he has and he wants to pay the tribute to his grandfather.  Also Charles has been a somewhat unlucky name for English/British monarchs.)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×