dany and sansa

[Danny-]

Some people are saying things will get better between Sansa and Dany in episode 2, i think things will get worse especially if Jon’s true parentage is revealed to all.

[SeanF]

5 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

The quote you just pulled out is just as damning. The whole reason he feels he has to manipulate Jon in the first place is because he's terrified of Daenerys. They ended the episode with her cold, inhumane account. They started the episode with a scene where she intentionally scares the common folk. It came full circle. 

The method of execution wasnt even brought up!!!!!!!! Sam reacted like that without even knowing they were burned alive.

In fairness to Dany, I think she handled the encounter as well as she could.  If she'd expressed remorse, or offered condolences, she would have been a hypocrite.   If she'd bad-mouthed Sam's family, or gloated over their deaths, she'd be a complete monster. 

I don't think she feels any guilt over their deaths, but she does wish they had been willing to bend the knee.  One can still argue about whether one, or both, of the deaths were necessary. 

I don't think there's any evidence at all that Daenerys in the series takes pleasure in inflicting suffering on other people (except perhaps, some of the Great Masters).  But, there's plenty of evidence that she's willing to inflict suffering on others - whether innocent or guilty - to fulfil her ambitions.   She's proud, ruthless and selfish, rather than a sadist.

 

[Mystical]

3 hours ago, Risto said:

For the third season in the row (and thanks to all the Gods of all the worlds), we have the same debate... "Sansa is a power-hungry monster and she will betray Jon". And for the third season in the row, that is not happening. So, I am more inclined to believe that we are all crazy than to see this as some sort of writers hitting some soft spot.

I think it's just in this day and age people tend to get mental when it comes to fictional characters. And they are so convinced that their opinion is right, they bend over backwards to defend it. If D&D really intended to make someone like me think 'Sansa is power hungry and will betray Jon', they massively failed at the execution. Most people who think that way can't even pull up evidence directly from the show. Which is the only evidence that counts. And the only evidence they really have is the BotB and only because they threw Sansa's character under the bus, left giant plot holes in the story...all to get their LOTR moment. So it wasn't even about Sansa betraying Jon as the purpose of the story.

But mostly they use interviews, outside the episode and scripts as their evidence. Those are worthless because in the end the only thing that counts is the finished product on screen.

[Jen'ari]

7 hours ago, Nictarion said:

Complete nonsense. He’s not afraid for his own safety, or even Gilly’s or little Sam’s in that moment. He’s angry about his brother (which is understandable).  

Exactly this, he didn’t seem too bothered about his dads death but understandably became very upset/angry when he learned of his brothers, who he did care about.

[AryaNymeriaVisenya]

9 hours ago, Nictarion said:

Right?

Bradley himself has stated Sam is a manipulative character when it comes to Jon. 

“Sam always has had a habit of manipulating Jon. He's manipulated him on so many other occasions. The reason he manipulates him in the past is to keep Gilly and Baby Sam safe. He manipulated him to be the Lord Commander of the Night's Watch because that was the best chance of getting Gilly and Baby Sam out of Castle Black and into the Citadel. If Jon is in a position of power, he thinks he can work on Jon to make as safe a life as possible for the people he cares the most about in the world. It's a little cynical, but I do think Sam is so hyper-intelligent and calculated that any plot he can scheme and any route he can take to keep Gilly and Baby Sam safe, he's going to do it. If Jon is in a position of power, then he can grease those wheels more easily.”

He will be. It seems he will manipulate Jon against the woman who murdered his family. He will use Jon's claim to leverage her out of the picture

[Nictarion]

8 minutes ago, AryaNymeriaVisenya said:

He will be. It seems he will manipulate Jon against the woman who murdered his family. He will use Jon's claim to leverage her out of the picture

I don’t think so, no. Jon loves her. And if she’s pregnant (like I think she is) that’s that. No way he leaves her. 

Also, I don’t really see Dany “out of the picture” if she’s alive. He might have the strongest claim, but she has all the power. 

[El Guapo]

I don't even know what out of the picture even means. lol. Do people think he Dothraki army and Unsullied army and her dragons are going to abandon her or something. Hint: They are not.

[AryaNymeriaVisenya]

4 minutes ago, El Guapo said:

I don't even know what out of the picture even means. lol. Do people think he Dothraki army and Unsullied army and her dragons are going to abandon her or something. Hint: They are not.

No, they are going to fight an army of the undead and lose

[Kajjo]

4 hours ago, Danny- said:

Some people are saying things will get better between Sansa and Dany in episode 2, i think things will get worse especially if Jon’s true parentage is revealed to all.

Would be my guess, too. 

Chances are that WW become imminent and the sassy girls have to behave, though.

[MinscS2]

"I mean no offense your grace, but I don't know you. As far as I can tell your claim to the throne rests entirely on your father's name."

Jon said this to Daenerys in S7, but ironically, anyone could say the same to Jon now in S8 if he starts to push the claim around (which he probably won't.)

It's funny how both the show-writers (out of the blue) and so many fans seems to think that Jon's claim means anything without the power to enforce it. 

I like Jon, but all the talk about him being the "rightful heir" makes no sense in a world where might makes right.
Robert wasn't the rightful heir, but when he took the throne by force, no one (openly) questioned him.
If Daenerys takes the throne by force, it doesn't matter if she has an older nephew who is technically ahead of her in the line of succession if he doesn't have the power and will to challenge her.

[Mystical]

14 minutes ago, MinscS2 said:

It's funny how both the show-writers (out of the blue) and so many fans seems to think that Jon's claim means anything without the power to enforce it.

Jon's claim means nothing because it would be near impossible to set aside a legal marriage (Rhaegar+Elia), polygamy is not accepted and more importantly, the marriage of Raeghar and Lyanna was performed without witnesses. D&D don't understand the settings of GRRM's world but no one should accept the R+L marriage as legal to begin with because it wasn't a legal marriage. So Jon is still a bastard with no claim. That's how it should be anyway but D&D don't seem to get it.

[El Guapo]

30 minutes ago, AryaNymeriaVisenya said:

No, they are going to fight an army of the undead and lose

Really. Well considering that Dany's forces make up about 98% of the forces that are lined up to fight the AOTD I guess that means Jon loses too.

[AryaNymeriaVisenya]

Just now, El Guapo said:

Really. Well considering that Dany's forces make up about 98% of the forces that are lined up to fight the AOTD I guess that means Jon loses too.

It does but he has no power as it is.

[Error-504]

5 hours ago, Mystical said:

Jon's claim means nothing because it would be near impossible to set aside a legal marriage (Rhaegar+Elia), polygamy is not accepted and more importantly, the marriage of Raeghar and Lyanna was performed without witnesses. D&D don't understand the settings of GRRM's world but no one should accept the R+L marriage as legal to begin with because it wasn't a legal marriage. So Jon is still a bastard with no claim. That's how it should be anyway but D&D don't seem to get it.

Your wrong on this matter, completely wrong. GRRM will orchestrate this small section of the story in the exact same fashion. And marriages were annulled in these times just as the story is told. And the maesters words are always taken as truth. Their documentation is all that really will be needed. now granted, they might not just take Sam's word on the matter, but should the Maesters in old town correlate, that will be more than suffice. 

[Mystical]

51 minutes ago, Error-504 said:

Your wrong on this matter, completely wrong. GRRM will orchestrate this small section of the story in the exact same fashion. And marriages were annulled in these times just as the story is told. And the maesters words are always taken as truth. Their documentation is all that really will be needed. now granted, they might not just take Sam's word on the matter, but should the Maesters in old town correlate, that will be more than suffice. 

Ahh so you have a copy from either TWOW or ADOS then? Would you mind terribly to share with the class? If not, who are you to say someone is wrong? And has there ever been an instance where a crown prince got married without witnesses and the marriage was considered legal? I'm blanking if that happened in the books. But you seem to know so can you help me out here?

[Error-504]

3 hours ago, Mystical said:

Ahh so you have a copy from either TWOW or ADOS then? Would you mind terribly to share with the class? If not, who are you to say someone is wrong? And has there ever been an instance where a crown prince got married without witnesses and the marriage was considered legal? I'm blanking if that happened in the books. But you seem to know so can you help me out here?

Whose Jons parents where has always been key to the whole dam story. Their  knowledge of the fact who's Jons parents were was also key for D&D to secure GRRM's trust allowing them to turn his books into an HBO adaptation. It's a key plot to the whole dam story. Do you for one second think that the books are going to change so significantly that Jon is not the legitimate heir to the Iron Throne? 

wow, just wow..............

think before you post

 

Oh, and for your reading pleasure.....

https://www.salon.com/2017/08/19/how-legitimate-is-the-annulment-shocker-that-game-of-thrones-tossed-at-us/

[Gertrude]

36 minutes ago, Error-504 said:

Knowing whose Jons parents where has always been key to the whole dam story. Their  knowledge of the fact who's Jons parents were was also key for D&D to secure GRRM's trust allowing them to turn his books into an HBO adaptation. It's a key plot to the whole dam story. Do you for one second think that the books are going to change so significantly that Jon is not the legitimate heir to the Iron Throne? 

I don't disagree that Jon's parentage is the central mystery of the books. As for D&D knowing, I think that was a test to know if they payed attention to the clues and cared about the story, nothing more.

You say it's a key plot, but that's not really true as far as we know. Perhaps no one will ever know or if they do know, they won't care or believe. If Jon is the Song of Ice and Fire, the Prince Who was Promised, Azor Ahai - whatever he is, he just has to be that. None of that says he has to be king. Another oft quoted line is that "power resides where men think it resides". If people want to believe his claim and it benefits them, they will - if it doesn't they won't. Simple as that.

The annulment is such a small part of Jon's story via R and L that I don't know why you are so adamant that it will be exactly as in the show. As I said, if people want to believe, they will, if they don't want to believe, they won't - facts don't matter.

And the article you linked is two professors discussing something that has no relevance on the book/show. They can make up any rules they want about marriage, annulment, succession, etc. It's a story.

[Error-504]

10 minutes ago, Gertrude said:

I don't disagree that Jon's parentage is the central mystery of the books. As for D&D knowing, I think that was a test to know if they payed attention to the clues and cared about the story, nothing more.

Agreed

Quote

You say it's a key plot, but that's not really true as far as we know.

I would argue the opposite is true. In show universe, it most certainly is. I don't care to go down the it might happen in the show, but not in the books rabbit hole. My argument resides in the fact that GRRM has said the major plot line of the show version will align with the book version. And this is a major plot line, Jon being the rightful heir to the Iron throne. That is all the proof I need. Who's Jon parents are isn't a major factor if he is just a bastard from a different father. 

 

Quote

Perhaps no one will ever know or if they do know, they won't care or believe. If Jon is the Song of Ice and Fire, the Prince Who was Promised, Azor Ahai - whatever he is, he just has to be that.

I will allow for that possibility, yes. But what Jon's does with the information is still important. and now others know as well. 

Quote

 

 

None of that says he has to be king. Another oft quoted line is that "power resides where men think it resides". If people want to believe his claim and it benefits them, they will - if it doesn't they won't. Simple as that.

I never said he has to be king though. it is totally within Jon's right to abdicate the throne.

 

Quote

The annulment is such a small part of Jon's story via R and L that I don't know why you are so adamant that it will be exactly as in the show. As I said, if people want to believe, they will, if they don't want to believe, they won't - facts don't matter.

Because it is not a small part of the story at all. if it was a small part, why was it so important to GRRM? You can't just say who is the rightful heir to the throne is inconsequential in this story. The whole story is based on this, after all, it is called, the game of thrones. 

[Gertrude]

All I am saying is that the annulment is not an important piece of that story. Perhaps Rhaegar married Lyanna and brought back polygamy because he's the god-damned heir and he says so. Perhaps Jon is a bastard but people push his claim because he is male over Dany's more legitimate claim because she is female. The Blackfyres were introduced to show that claims are fragile.

And the first book is named A Game of Thrones. The series is named a Song of Ice and Fire. You're so adamant about this small detail (annulment) and I'm not sure why. It could play out many ways and Jon could get to the same end by may paths. I'm not saying it won't happen, just that it doesn't have to.

[Error-504]

20 minutes ago, Gertrude said:

All I am saying is that the annulment is not an important piece of that story. Perhaps Rhaegar married Lyanna and brought back polygamy because he's the god-damned heir and he says so. Perhaps Jon is a bastard but people push his claim because he is male over Dany's more legitimate claim because she is female. The Blackfyres were introduced to show that claims are fragile.

And the first book is named A Game of Thrones. The series is named a Song of Ice and Fire. You're so adamant about this small detail (annulment) and I'm not sure why. It could play out many ways and Jon could get to the same end by may paths. I'm not saying it won't happen, just that it doesn't have to.

Because it is not a small detail. Saying it is doesn't make it so. Wars are fought over claims to the Iron Throne. It is an important piece of that story. Might as well say Jon is the product of rape then. The demon spawn of Rhaegar. To argue on this matter is just plain silly.