Season 8: News, Spoilers And Leaks

[Error-504]

2 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

I really dont think Ned was thinking about Jon's inheritance rights to the North when he said that line. He said Jon doesn't have his name, and in the feudal system the name is all that matters. Being a blood relation isn't good enough to control Winterfell. Plus they already tried the "blood" relation when they appointed him king as "Ned Stark's son," and look how that turned out - he gave it to a Targaryen. Jon isn't really helping matters when he switches from Ned Stark's bastard to Lyanna's son, he still doesn't have the Stark name. 

I never said Ned was referring to Jon's inheritance rights, now did I? And as I already pointed out, inheritance rights have nothing to do with who is KotN, as we have already seen, the Northern Houses have no issue with foregoing inheritance when choosing a king, otherwise it would be Sansa in that role. As for the liege lord of WF, who knows, but more importantly, who cares? So yes being blood relation is good enough, as has already been proven. 

"Plus they already tried the "blood" relation when they appointed him king as "Ned Stark's son," and look how that turned out"

I don't know, how did it "turn out". Your using speculation as to what will happen as fact. So far it has turned out rather well, Jon has managed to regain WF, re-united the entire North, and gain a valuable ally in the fight against the WW's with Dany. Do you think Sansa could have pulled this off? No, dumbass Sansa couldn't even let Jon in on the fact that the Vale was coming, had she told him, how many more Northern lives would  have been saved in the BotB's?  Oh, maybe she wouldn't have raised the ire of certain ignorants in the North (by recruiting Dany's help), but then again she would have insured the death of all Northerners in the process. But I guess in your mind, the North would rather be extinct than to serve under a half Stark half targaryen Jon. 

As Jon has already stated, the North will come to see Dany for who she really is

And that is how this will all play out. Some disgruntled Northern fools at first, until they see the sacrifices Dany makes saving their butts, and Jon will be vindicated for his decisions as it will become obvious they would have all been dead if not for Jon. 

End of argument. 

[Ser Gareth]

8 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

Yeah I remember that. It's interesting, Jon doesn't have the Stark name but he has the wolf, Sansa has the Stark name but she doesn't have a wolf. They're both weak in different areas. 

As for Sansa's marriage to Tyrion: What's remarkable is that in the books, Jon insists WF belongs to Sansa anyway! It's magnificent. He restores the rights Robb took them away and its almost like he senses that the wedding was a sham anyway. If GRRM wanted to permanently keep Sansa from being a Stark at WF he would have had that marriage consummated.

The other thing that was interesting was that GRRM said after ACOK and before ASOS, that he used to read online fan forums and that someone had figured it all out in relation to the end game and fates of the characters.  He also said his original intention was to tell the entire story through the eyes of the characters who had POVs in AGOT.  So everything that matters, it's all in those first two books.  Now Maisie Williams has come out and said fans should re-watch season 1 because there are a lot of similarities between Season 1 and Season 8.

In the first book Sansa betrayed Eddard and effectively won the Lannisters the War of the Five Kings.  There was also a lot of foreshadowing that either Sansa or Arya will end up becoming Queen.  But Queen of what?  Maybe she'll end up becoming the Queen of the North or maybe she'll end up becoming Queen of the Seven Kingdoms and fighting the North.

I am convinced that GRRM is changing the ending in the books anyway, so we would have ended up with two fates!

 

[Mystical]

3 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

I really dont think Ned was thinking about Jon's inheritance rights to the North when he said that line. He said Jon doesn't have his name, and in the feudal system the name is all that matters. Being a blood relation isn't good enough to control Winterfell. Plus they already tried the "blood" relation when they appointed him king as "Ned Stark's son," and look how that turned out - he gave it to a Targaryen. Jon isn't really helping matters when he switches from Ned Stark's bastard to Lyanna's son, he still doesn't have the Stark name. 

None of it makes any sense in the show. Does Jon have Stark blood? Yes. Does Jon have Ned's blood? No. That's the whole point. However in a feudal system that's based on a patriarchy, the mother's blood doesn't matter so much unless there are extreme circumstances or a place like Dorne where it doesn't matter. If Lyanna and Rhaegar hadn't died, married and had Jon, his name would not be Stark unless the Stark house was higher nobility than the Targs. Which it was not.

In the show they specifically have Lyanna Mormont say 'Ned Stark's blood', which is false. And of course the idiocy that is 'We know no King but the King whose name is STARK.' Jon's name is SNOW. That line makes absolutely no sense. So if she wanted a Stark, why was she not swayed when she was told that the actual Stark 'King' (Rickon) was held by the Boltons? And who in their right mind  makes a bastard King and not at the very least insist that said bastard legitimizes himself? That's a giant mess waiting to happen. Didn't they just have the war of the 5 Kings in part because there was a bastard sitting on the IT? Hell Sansa made it a point when Ramsey was boasting about being legitimate that he got said status from another bastard (Tommen). Why would the Lords in the North set such a dangerous precedent for themselves? If I were a bastard from a Northern house, I would be knocking on the door demanding my rightful seat. If the bastard stigma no longer matters for titles, other bastards have to be afforded the same right. That's just stupid.

[LucyMormont]

5 hours ago, Mystical said:

LMAO. So what? Ned lied to Jon his whole life about being his father, in fact Ned lied to his whole family. Hence FALSE assumptions because of false facts. He has Stark blood but not Ned's. And Ned has nothing to do with Rob's will except that his lie about Jon's real mother and father made it so that Jon was even considered by Rob as his heir. Doesn't change the fact that Robb made the will under false assumptions. A point btw you keep ignoring by quoting something that in fact supports my argument which is Ned's lie.

In the show there's no will, so this is irrelevant. In the books, it doesn't matter Jon wasn't Ned's son, had Robb known who Jon's parents were,  he would have equally considered Jon as succesor, given that he didn't want to leave Winterfell to the girls. When Cat and Robb were talking about this, she even mentioned some descendants  of Ned's grandfather sister as suitable candidates. A son of Ned's sister is way better than that. Obviously, Robb's brothers were alive, that was a false asumption that could have changed Robb's mind, but not that Ned wasn't Jon's father.

Quote

“No,” Catelyn agreed. “You must name another heir, until such time as Jeyne gives you a son.” She considered a moment. “Your father’s father had no siblings, but his father had a sister who married a younger son of Lord Raymar Royce, of the junior branch. They had three daughters, all of whom wed Vale lordlings. A Waynwood and a Corbray, for certain. The youngest... it might have been a Templeton, but...”
“Mother.” There was a sharpness in Robb’s tone. “You forget. My father had four sons.”
She had not forgotten; she had not wanted to look at it, yet there it was. “A Snow is not a Stark.”
“Jon’s more a Stark than some lordlings from the Vale who have never so much as set eyes on Winterfell.” (ASoS)

 

[SirArthur]

2 hours ago, LucyMormont said:

Obviously, Robb's brothers were alive, that was a false asumption that could have changed Robb's mind, but not that Ned wasn't Jon's father.

Does it really matter ? The show has thrown all the succession rules out the window with Cersei on the IT. At that point there is really no reason why Sansa shouldn`t inherit instead of anyone else.

[HouseLancaster]

Seven hells!! Have the last 5 pages of the Spoiler and Leaks thread really just been about arguing succession so that Sansa will out rank Jon for the North or that Jon will need to marry Sansa to keep the North?! How has this happened?

Let's just simplify this. Somehow the TV show made Jon King in the North, this isn't going to change. YES, the Northerners will be disgruntled about Dany (maybe even Jon's heritage) at first - but by the time walkers attack they're alllll gonna be on board and that will be that. Because if there is one thing the show is not going to have time to do in six episodes - it's create a new story line about a Northern Civil War or revolt over leadership.  

Whatever happens down South, I have little doubt that Sansa WILL end up in power of the North, either as ruler or as warden.

Jon will either sit on the Iron Throne, die, or rule over the 7 with Danearys and for me, neither of these options will change Sansa being in charge of the North, just vary how that 'power' is defined.

I hope this sounds reasonable enough for everyone and we can get back to chattin' sh!t about outcomes and all the other cool characters too.

(Not saying I don't want to talk Sansa, I do - I'm really interested in what role she'll play post episode 3, have no idea, and does anyone tink she'll get close to the fighting, kill anything??)   

[Rose of Red Lake]

43 minutes ago, HouseLancaster said:

hatever happens down South, I have little doubt that Sansa WILL end up in power of the North, either as ruler or as warden.

Jon will either sit on the Iron Throne, die, or rule over the 7 with Danearys and for me, neither of these options will change Sansa being in charge of the North, just vary how that 'power' is defined.

I hope this sounds reasonable enough for everyone and we can get back to chattin' sh!t about outcomes and all the other cool characters too.

This came up because the leaks suggested Sansa doesnt like Dany, that the Northern Lords don't recognize her as queen, and that Sam would rather have Jon on the throne than Dany, so I cant really agree that everything will just fall on line for Dany eventually. That's why who hold power in WF matters. I would also argue that the succession IS worth predicting, since R+L=J is exactly about that.  I think Jon's parentage will affect the plot in a major way.

That said, if anyone would like to discuss the succession further, I created a thread.

 

[NonoNono]

1 hour ago, HouseLancaster said:

Seven hells!! Have the last 5 pages of the Spoiler and Leaks thread really just been about arguing succession so that Sansa will out rank Jon for the North or that Jon will need to marry Sansa to keep the North?! How has this happened?

Let's just simplify this. Somehow the TV show made Jon King in the North, this isn't going to change. YES, the Northerners will be disgruntled about Dany (maybe even Jon's heritage) at first - but by the time walkers attack they're alllll gonna be on board and that will be that. Because if there is one thing the show is not going to have time to do in six episodes - it's create a new story line about a Northern Civil War or revolt over leadership.  

Whatever happens down South, I have little doubt that Sansa WILL end up in power of the North, either as ruler or as warden.

Jon will either sit on the Iron Throne, die, or rule over the 7 with Danearys and for me, neither of these options will change Sansa being in charge of the North, just vary how that 'power' is defined.

I hope this sounds reasonable enough for everyone and we can get back to chattin' sh!t about outcomes and all the other cool characters too.

(Not saying I don't want to talk Sansa, I do - I'm really interested in what role she'll play post episode 3, have no idea, and does anyone tink she'll get close to the fighting, kill anything??)   

It doesn't take a long time to do this like you make it sound.

Yes someone might well want to screw Dany's army, especially if they feel they have no chance against the dead anyway.

I expect the northeners to force Jon to give up the KitN title and let Sansa rule, to calm things down. (hinted at strongly in S7, certainly going to get worst now)

I expect Dany to be rejected to the point where she bolts out of Winterfell before the NK arrives, with Drogon, leaving only Rhaegal for Jon and ordering her army to stay and help and obey him.

We have actual recorded footage of men, while Winterfell is at war, doing a repetitive "chant" like you would expect from people slamming a battering against a gate in unison. The army of the dead does not fight like that, and can't be fought against like a conventional army. We know most of the Winterfell army will be outside the gates, as shown in the trailer. It sounds like someone closes the gate on them and they try to make their way back in forcefully.

I expect those same northeners who wanted Dany out to close the gates on the army outside, and flee through Winterfell's tunnels, hoping to essentially have Dany's army wiped out and slow down the WWs' advance. I believe Winterfell is on fire because when the gates are closed on them, Rhaegal attacks Winterfell/the traitors.

The trailer went out of its way to hide who they are fighting against, and in fact there is a big splash of blood when Arya kills a man, which is unlike what you would expect from WWs. They have no reason to hide them fighting WWs, since everyone expects it, they have very good reasons to hide that they are fighting humans.

[HouseLancaster]

37 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

This came up because the leaks suggested Sansa doesnt like Dany, that the Northern Lords don't recognize her as queen, and that Sam would rather have Jon on the throne than Dany, so I cant really agree that everything will just fall on line for Dany eventually. That's why who hold power in WF matters. I would also argue that the succession IS worth predicting, since R+L=J is exactly about that.  I think Jon's parentage will affect the plot in a major way.

That said, if anyone would like to discuss the succession further, I created a thread.

 

 

Thanks for pointing that out, and for creating a thread. 

This came up because the leaks suggested Sansa doesnt like Dany, that the Northern Lords don't recognize her as queen, and that Sam would rather have Jon on the throne than Dany,

None of this would surprise me, but the walkers attack will put a lot of those issues to bed and the focus will shift back down south for the Cersi climax/conflict. Nothing I've seen in the last two seasons convince me D&D care about the political/succession subtleties the way it has been discussed here. After all, as already pointed out, the way Lady Mormont named Jon Snow 'King In The North' doesn't really make that much sense against the backdrop of Westerosi lore. They just needed to get from A to B, and make Jon a King somehow. 

 

[HouseLancaster]

13 minutes ago, NonoNono said:

It doesn't take a long time to do this like you make it sound.

Yes someone might well want to screw Dany's army, especially if they feel they have no chance against the dead anyway.

I expect the northeners to force Jon to give up the KitN title and let Sansa rule, to calm things down. (hinted at strongly in S7, certainly going to get worst now)

I expect Dany to be rejected to the point where she bolts out of Winterfell before the NK arrives, with Drogon, leaving only Rhaegal for Jon and ordering her army to stay and help and obey him.

We have actual recorded footage of men, while Winterfell is at war, doing a repetitive "chant" like you would expect from people slamming a battering against a gate in unison. The army of the dead does not fight like that, and can't be fought against like a conventional army. We know most of the Winterfell army will be outside the gates, as shown in the trailer. It sounds like someone closes the gate on them and they try to make their way back in forcefully.

I expect those same northeners who wanted Dany out to close the gates on the army outside, and flee through Winterfell's tunnels, hoping to essentially have Dany's army wiped out and slow down the WWs' advance. I believe Winterfell is on fire because when the gates are closed on them, Rhaegal attacks Winterfell/the traitors.

The trailer went out of its way to hide who they are fighting against, and in fact there is a big splash of blood when Arya kills a man, which is unlike what you would expect from WWs. They have no reason to hide them fighting WWs, since everyone expects it, they have very good reasons to hide that they are fighting humans.

Yeah agreed, everything you've said about them fighting 'men' makes sense BUT hasn't it already been established the Golden Company come up from behind and attack Winterfell during the Walker attack??

i.e. I don't think it has anything to do with a Northern defection, and certainly not the dragons attacking Winterfell

(again I'm basically saying The North, Dany, Tully's, Vale and the Greyjoys will all be as one when they get attacked - thus the Northern squabbling put to bed until the climax revealing who survives with what)

 

 

   

[NonoNono]

3 minutes ago, HouseLancaster said:

Yeah agreed, everything you've said about them fighting 'men' makes sense BUT hasn't it already been established the Golden Company come up from behind and attack Winterfell during the Walker attack??

i.e. I don't think it has anything to do with a Northern defection, and certainly not the dragons attacking Winterfell

(again I'm basically saying The North, Dany, Tully's, Vale and the Greyjoys will all be as one when they get attacked - thus the Northern squabbling put to bed until the climax revealing who survives with what)

 

 

   

There has been no indication that the GC goes to WF. In fact, there were shots of dead bodies/fake corpses and none were the GC, it was a bit of everyone of Dany's army, some Iron Borns, etc.. I don't think they go to WF, they can let the WW kill everyone there, Cersei has nothing to gain, she knows that at worst they will all be weakened when they come to KL after fighting the dead.

[Lady Fevre Dream]

14 hours ago, Error-504 said:

The cities constantly change on the intro, for instance in season 5 Wf had the flayed man as it's sigil.

Season 4 had Wf in ruins

 

Season 3 had Wf in ruins also, and introduced Harrenhall to the map. 

Season 2 a Healthy WF

 

Season 7 a healthy WF with the Stark sigil restored. We get a glimpse of old town as well. 

 

 

I'm not sure what the point of this is, directed at me, for that matter?  I was posting about what the possibilities are for brand new things in the openings for THIS COMING SEASON, as posited by the creators in the previously linked articles.  I know the many changes over the years, they were also mentioned in the links.  I was curious to know what could could turn up in any of the new episodes opening credits that lead them to say:  As to what this means for season 8, I can’t wait for people to see it.  There's obviously something/s new to see, is it in relation to technology, story, both? 

 

 

[NonoNono]

14 minutes ago, Lady Fevre Dream said:

I'm not sure what the point of this is, directed at me, for that matter?  I was posting about what the possibilities are for brand new things in the openings for THIS COMING SEASON, as posited by the creators in the previously linked articles.  I know the many changes over the years, they were also mentioned in the links.  I was curious to know what could could turn up in any of the new episodes opening credits that lead them to say:  As to what this means for season 8, I can’t wait for people to see it.  There's obviously something/s new to see, is it in relation to technology, story, both? 

 

 

I'm guessing that after each episode it will change. The teaser probably hinted at what it would look like in the end:

 

My guess is: a new wall further south, Winterfell ruined beyond it, snowed in along with anything north of said new wall.

I really think Arya will turn Jon into a new NK, when Jon is ordered to be executed by Sansa/fAegon. She will have the dagger Bran gave her, which was supposed to be used to kill a Stark, and her dragonglass dagger. Which will she use to "swing the sword"? I think the later, to save the Starks, to make sure there will always be a Stark in Winterfell, and will stab Jon in the heart with the point end of her dragonglass dagger, turning him into the new NK.

Aaaaaaand I guess Theon will bring NK-Jon back north on his ship. A meaculpa of sorts for him.

[HouseLancaster]

1 hour ago, NonoNono said:

There has been no indication that the GC goes to WF. In fact, there were shots of dead bodies/fake corpses and none were the GC, it was a bit of everyone of Dany's army, some Iron Borns, etc.. I don't think they go to WF, they can let the WW kill everyone there, Cersei has nothing to gain, she knows that at worst they will all be weakened when they come to KL after fighting the dead.

I hope the GC don't go to Winterfel for the reasons you've alluded to.

If you assume there is some Northern Descent, it still doesn't really (whatever the ruling Jon/Dany combo is down South) impact the Sansa either being warden or ruling the North outcome. Since her presence would in theory sooth the Northern upheaval?    

[NonoNono]

2 minutes ago, HouseLancaster said:

I hope the GC don't go to Winterfel for the reasons you've alluded to.

If you assume there is some Northern Descent, it still doesn't really (whatever the ruling Jon/Dany combo is down South) impact the Sansa either being warden or ruling the North outcome. Since her presence would in theory sooth the Northern upheaval?    

Yes, I think she secures the north's support, especially in the face of the alternative being Dany/Jon, I think it will cement it. I think she becomes queen ultimately. But people don't like it when I say the GC leader will be her husband

edit: But I also think there will be no one ruling over Winterfell other than a new King Beyond the Wall or new NK. Sansa would be in KL, and the northerners stuck south of the new wall. Wildlings though would go back north of it.

[Mystical]

4 hours ago, SirArthur said:

Does it really matter ? The show has thrown all the succession rules out the window with Cersei on the IT. At that point there is really no reason why Sansa shouldn`t inherit instead of anyone else.

It's not just Cersei. Since D&D decided to wholly disregard the world the show takes place in (since around S5 at least if not earlier), the whole drama around Jon bugs the hell out of me. Why does it suddenly matter if Jon is legitimate from R+L? Kinslaying seems to be all the rage now and no one bats an eye. Barely any Kingdom is lead by the actual rightful, legitimate ruler except maybe the Vale. Ellaria seemed to rule Dorne, Oleanna the Reach (even though Margery mentioned cousins to Sansa), Cersei on the IT, Euron through kinslaying (same for Ramsey) and of course a bastard became KitN. Legitimacy and succession was thrown out a long time ago.

I really don't understand why Jon's status suddenly plays any kind of role when it didn't back at the end of S6. And not only that but it makes no sense and in verse no one should accept his legitimacy anyway. Even in this day and age in our world you can't get married without witnesses, this goes double for a freaking Targ crown prince in Westeros. Anyone in that world would/should not accept that marriage which was clearly performed by a very drunk Septon. The only reason why D&D remembered that legitimacy is a thing (in the most nonsensical way) is because suddenly it's needed for conflict.

[HouseLancaster]

22 minutes ago, NonoNono said:

Yes, I think she secures the north's support, especially in the face of the alternative being Dany/Jon, I think it will cement it. I think she becomes queen ultimately. But people don't like it when I say the GC leader will be her husband

edit: But I also think there will be no one ruling over Winterfell other than a new King Beyond the Wall or new NK. Sansa would be in KL, and the northerners stuck south of the new wall. Wildlings though would go back north of it.

Ha!

I have no idea what I think the greater political landscape as you've described will look like... 1 kingdom? 7 kingdoms? an North and a South? I've gone round and round it over the years. At the mo my gut is telling me not having 1 iron throne ruler will lesson the impact of the whole ending (a 'cop out' maybe?). Will there be any dragons left? I used to subscribe to the three dragon riders theory, but right now I think there will be none. And I sort of have come around to the idea that there will be no wall at the end either. As for the gold cloak leader... not a clue. But actually, one prediction I still hold to is that Sansa will end the story ruling somewhere as a fierce loner (a lord or royalty - I can't decide).

 

[HouseLancaster]

15 minutes ago, Mystical said:

It's not just Cersei. Since D&D decided to wholly disregard the world the show takes place in (since around S5 at least if not earlier), the whole drama around Jon bugs the hell out of me. Why does it suddenly matter if Jon is legitimate from R+L? Kinslaying seems to be all the rage now and no one bats an eye. Barely any Kingdom is lead by the actual rightful, legitimate ruler except maybe the Vale. Ellaria seemed to rule Dorne, Oleanna the Reach (even though Margery mentioned cousins to Sansa), Cersei on the IT, Euron through kinslaying (same for Ramsey) and of course a bastard became KitN. Legitimacy and succession was thrown out a long time ago.

I really don't understand why Jon's status suddenly plays any kind of role when it didn't back at the end of S6. And not only that but it makes no sense and in verse no one should accept his legitimacy anyway. Even in this day and age in our world you can't get married without witnesses, this goes double for a freaking Targ crown prince in Westeros. Anyone in that world would/should not accept that marriage which was clearly performed by a very drunk Septon. The only reason why D&D remembered that legitimacy is a thing (in the most nonsensical way) is because suddenly it's needed for conflict.

Agreed! 

Also. Naming 'Cersi Lannister, first of her name' not Baratheon really bugged me. I've not given it too much thought or research but surely that would not be the way? Anyone know?

[NonoNono]

16 minutes ago, HouseLancaster said:

Ha!

I have no idea what I think the greater political landscape as you've described will look like... 1 kingdom? 7 kingdoms? an North and a South? I've gone round and round it over the years. At the mo my gut is telling me not having 1 iron throne ruler will lesson the impact of the whole ending (a 'cop out' maybe?). Will there be any dragons left? I used to subscribe to the three dragon riders theory, but right now I think there will be none. And I sort of have come around to the idea that there will be no wall at the end either. As for the gold cloak leader... not a clue. But actually, one prediction I still hold to is that Sansa will end the story ruling somewhere as a fierce loner (a lord or royalty - I can't decide).

 

She has to marry and have an heir, or at least the one ruling Westeros must, it's needed to offer stability, avoid counter-claims, etc. Tyrion bickered Dany about it and she ended up crying that the dragons are the only children she will ever have, which likely made both realize this isn’t going to work out. I think Sansa would marry, but be the true ruler.

We do know Toby Osmond is playing the role of a royal in golden armor, it was supposed to be kept secret, and he apparently had a lot of Oberyn videos on his youtube account, so some new Dorne ruler is likely, but I doubt she would marry him, although it would be possible.

Don't discount Robyn. I don't believe Sansa will marry him, but I do believe he will try. He destroyed her snow castle for a reason. Wouldn't be surprised he makes an offer at the worst of times only to get rejected at Winterfell lol. Might even contribute to anger thrown Sansa's way by the Vale if she has to defend Tyrion's reputation in the process.

[Error-504]

1 hour ago, Lady Fevre Dream said:

I'm not sure what the point of this is, directed at me, for that matter?  I was posting about what the possibilities are for brand new things in the openings for THIS COMING SEASON, as posited by the creators in the previously linked articles.  I know the many changes over the years, they were also mentioned in the links.  I was curious to know what could could turn up in any of the new episodes opening credits that lead them to say:  As to what this means for season 8, I can’t wait for people to see it.  There's obviously something/s new to see, is it in relation to technology, story, both? 

 

 

I was just showing how the opening changes from season to season, and expecting a change for season 8 that might be of significance to watch for. Nothing more.