Jump to content
L’Age d’or

Sansa's backing out should have ended up with all others claiming independence

Recommended Posts

"Blood of the First Men" as a reason for independence is rather silly, but it appears that blood of the First Men (or more accurately, blood of the Children of the Forest) is important magically. The three greenseers we know about apart from Bran Stark are Jojen Reed and Bloodraven. The Reeds are crannogmen and (apparently) descend from the First Men. Bloodraven's mother was a Blackwood who are located in the Riverlands, but it is clear they are originally from the North and descended from the First Men. The First Men are the only ones who laid with the Children (and even then that's considered a legend, but clearly it is true) so in order to be a greenseer you need to be from the First Men (though it's not sufficient).

As for the North being independent for thousands of years, so was every other kingdom. Heck, Dorne was independent later (though not longer).

It's a bizarre ending.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, L’Age d’or said:

Isn't the whole subversion of expectations is what this is all about? I suspect that D&D used this as a justification to make big changes and write the ending of GOT in their own hand as much as they could. I don't think Martin would have Arya eliminate the WW threat or have Sansa turn into a snarky teen who can't stay civil for a moment; raze KL to prove a moral point etc. 

I agree to an extent, but the same ending to me meant we find out who rules Westeros, WW are defeated (although I really hope it's a different version on how) and Dany burns KL (maybe not intentially like the show, but I imagine she will) Jon going beyond the wall, they seem to be the big endings that would make sense to copy from what GRRM told them. I hope you are right, but unless D&D or GRRM say this isn't much like GRRM's intended ending I honestly don't know if I care about the book ending anymore. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, L’Age d’or said:

Dorne and the Iron Islands have always been as ready to proclaim their own kingdoms; I was expecting them to jump on the opportunity and set the whole elect a new king into shambles. What's the point of lords and ladies of Westeros to vote a king if they can call themselves kings and queens? 

Alas, as always I was wrong in giving D&D the benefit of the doubt, the reactions of the side characters is dictated by the mood even when somebody makes a complete 180 degree turn. 

Exactly!

Why would Dorne and Iron Islands stay after Northern Brexit ?

And why would North separate when one Stark is the new king?

And why would 6 kingdoms accept Stark without the North ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, L’Age d’or said:

Dorne and the Iron Islands have always been as ready to proclaim their own kingdoms; I was expecting them to jump on the opportunity and set the whole elect a new king into shambles. What's the point of lords and ladies of Westeros to vote a king if they can call themselves kings and queens? 

Alas, as always I was wrong in giving D&D the benefit of the doubt, the reactions of the side characters is dictated by the mood even when somebody makes a complete 180 degree turn. 

That's exactly what I was thinking when Sansa said for the 100th time "we want to be independent of the 7 kingdoms."  It would be natural for every other kingdom to claim their independence. Sansa is a fucking idiot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, Giskard Reventlov said:

Exactly!

Why would Dorne and Iron Islands stay after Northern Brexit ?

Maybe the won't in the future. The new Martell Lord is likely a second or third cousin, with not the same hold on Dorne as his cousin and not in a position to simply leave ASAP without consulting his Lords. It may even be that he was not next in line and only got the seat due to the support of the Crown, needing them to back him up.

Yara makes no sense, but I'm guessing they needed someone to speak up in defense of Dany. Edmure and the Vale Lords were not going to do so and they likely did not want to have one of the 'extra's' do it.

Quote

And why would North separate when one Stark is the new king?

I doubt the North cares. Sansa does though, for the last two series Northern independence has been one of the central themes to her story. As the voice of the North at that council she got to request what she wanted.

She may not have been so bold if it was not one her brothers or Tyrion put in charge, but she can expect peace with Bran and Tyrion ruling the realm.

Quote

And why would 6 kingdoms accept Stark without the North ?

More importantly why would they accept a cripple who his own subjects are calling him 'The Broken'.  His small council is a hated kingslayer Dwarf as Hand, a female Lord Commander of Kingsguard, Sam, a joke among the Reach nobles and two former criminals who were born peasants. This is a crown that is going to be challenged often.

Edited by Bernie Mac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

......

More importantly why would they accept a cripple who his own subjects are calling him 'The Broken'.  His small council is a hated kingslayer Dwarf as Hand, a female Lord Commander of Kingsguard, Sam, a joke among the Reach nobles and two former criminals who were born peasants. This is not a crown that is going to be challenged often.

Well, yeah, that does not look  well for the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Forlong the Fat said:

The Iron Born were much weaker than the North to begin with. If nothing else, take a look at a map. And yes, the Ironborn are probably more decimated because, among other things, their ships were torched.

I take a look at the map and see no fleet capable of invading the Iron Islands and no army to match Dorne in the field.

Game Over Bran.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

I doubt the North cares. Sansa does though, for the last two series Northern independence has been one of the central themes to her story. As the voice of the North at that council she got to request what she wanted.

She may not have been so bold if it was not one her brothers or Tyrion put in charge, but she can expect peace with Bran and Tyrion ruling the realm.

I think Northern independance being a key point in the last few seasons was the only reason that they wanted this storyline to be completed so badly. But in this constellation it just makes absolutely no sense for it to play out this way. Why would anyone buy that the North wants to be independant if there is a Stark ruling over the seven kingdoms? What possible justification could there be for it to be two seperate kingdoms both ruled by Starks other than Sansa wanting her own kingdom to rule over so badly. Why should Bran allow this when it should be obvious that it is a possible source for new riots to form in the other kingdoms. Especially after he sent Jon Snow to the wall just to ensure peace with the Unsullied who sailed away five minutes later and therefore aren't even part of the seven kingdoms anymore.

And if they want it to play out this way, at least show a witty way how Sansa manipulated the others so things would develop according to her wishes. I mean why have her whole development since season 1 be about learning to play the game of thrones by having her interact with the best players at this game, if all she needs to do in the end is ask her brother to get her will?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the only kingdom for it to not make sense that they didn't demand independence is the Iron Islands, since the North and the Iron Islands have both been actively seeking independence. Dorne, I'm not sure it's clear in the show whether they've been seeking independence, and they already have a sort of pseudo-independence and who knows what other internal political turmoil. The rest of the kingdoms are probably in all kinds of turmoil following the war, many with new rulers, so perhaps they may want independence later, but it would be a poorly-thought-out decision for them to demand it then and there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Theon referred to Yara as queen earlier in the season, so I think the Iron Islands are also independent. In a way, this makes sense, seeing as both regions failed to assimilate and already largely operate on their own. While the same could be said for Dorne, one big difference is that Dorne follows the Faith of the Seven, and having a common religion goes a long way in forming a nation.

It wouldn't surprise me if both the North and Iron Islands are independent at the end of ASOIAF. How they get that way, I'm certain, will be much more clever than what the show gave us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Erkan12 said:

Yup this, people are insisting on ignoring this fact, and they are not andals like the rest of the 6 kingdoms.

Also geographically the North is larger than the all other 6 combined, it's harder to keep that large region intact with the other regions.

You do realize that the Kingdom of Westeros is only 300 years old? The other six kingdoms have all been going for thousands of years so they are in the same position as the North. The Reach, Westerlands, Stormlands, Dorne, the Iron Islands and the Vale are all pretty much just as old or older than the North and were founded by First Men houses when the First Men came to Westeros via the Arm of Dorne.

Edited by KingMudd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, Kajjo said:

The North has been independent for thousands of years. So there is some justification to this.

But yes, I agree that a lot of free cities and independent kingdoms would have been a better choice.

When watching the scene for the first time, I expected that, too. 

13 hours ago, divica said:

All other kingdoms were independent for thousands of years... 

The only thing special about the north is that they were always ruled by a Stark... 

All the other Kingdoms were independent for thousand of years, and most of them were ruled by ancient families... The Lannisters, the Arryns, and the Martells are as ancient as the Starks. The Tyrells not so much, but the Hightowers are easily as old as the Starks...

2 hours ago, El Diego said:

"Blood of the First Men" as a reason for independence is rather silly, but it appears that blood of the First Men (or more accurately, blood of the Children of the Forest) is important magically. The three greenseers we know about apart from Bran Stark are Jojen Reed and Bloodraven. The Reeds are crannogmen and (apparently) descend from the First Men. Bloodraven's mother was a Blackwood who are located in the Riverlands, but it is clear they are originally from the North and descended from the First Men. The First Men are the only ones who laid with the Children (and even then that's considered a legend, but clearly it is true) so in order to be a greenseer you need to be from the First Men (though it's not sufficient).

As for the North being independent for thousands of years, so was every other kingdom. Heck, Dorne was independent later (though not longer).

It's a bizarre ending.

ALL of Westeros have the blood of the First Men. The Lannisters are descended from the First Men. The Hightowers are descended from the First Men. The Cranes are descended from the First Men. The Bracken are descended from the First Men. The Blackwoods are descended from the Firs Men. The Yronwood are descended from the First Men. The Daynes are descended from the First Men.

The Tyrells and the Florents are descended from the Gardeners, who were a royal family among the First Men.

Hell, the Farwynds from the Iron Islands, the Cranes from the Reach and the Blackwoods of the Riverlands have a reputation of producing Skinchangers due to their strong First Men's blood!

As for the commoners, they all have more First Men blood than Andal blood... the Andals came as a warrior class of conquerors that intermarried with the nobility of the First Men, but the peasants were mostly First Men even after the Andal conquest...

Edited by Ser Lepus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, KingMudd said:

You do realize that the Kingdom of Westeros is only 300 years old? The other six kingdoms have all been going for thousands of years so they are in the same position as the North. The Reach, Westerlands, Stormlands, Dorne, the Iron Islands and the Vale are all pretty much just as old or older than the North and were founded by First Men houses when the First Men came to Westeros via the Arm of Dorne.

Other 6 kingdoms conquered by the Andals, the North didn't.

''The Andals conquered every kingdoms in Westeros save one, the North.''

Which is why the North is different and the older than the rest.

Edited by Erkan12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Kajjo said:

But yes, I agree that a lot of free cities and independent kingdoms would have been a better choice.

The idea was to stop the fighting. I think there was a better chance of a longer lasting peace if they were united. and the Iron Born were nearly obliterated, so they need to regain their strength before being independent would be a good option for them.

10 hours ago, legba11 said:

Why would the other kingdoms agree to have a Northern Man

Because he is no longer a nothern man. He lost his identity as Brandon Stark when he became the 3ER. He is the memory of all of Westeros, which presumably makes him neutral.

11 hours ago, Erkan12 said:

Also geographically the North is larger than the all other 6 combined, it's harder to keep that large region intact with the other regions.

Yes, there comes a point when it is not plausible to effectively have one ruler over such a large geographical area. Like Rome had to stop pushing the boundaries of its empire because it became untenable.

17 hours ago, Kaguya said:

Why would Sansa be fearful of her own brother? She should have been fine being his warden. 

It wasn't about Sansa and her brother. She was representing the interests of the North. This was nothing new. It has been a recurring theme for at least 2 seasons, so why are people so surprised by it?  (You may ask why they would have a problem with Bran; they don't necessarily. They have a problem with bending the knee to any southern ruler.)

18 hours ago, King Perkis said:

Also, where is the logic in Jon going to the Wall after what he did?  If the North is a separate kingdom and the Unsullied are leaving, why isn't John just named KotN once he gets to Winterfell. 

He committed the crime in Kings Landing, therefore it fell under the jurisdiction of the king in KL. That was plainly stated. Being sent to the wall was a life sentence-a compromise between executing him and pardoning him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
26 minutes ago, SansaJonRule said:

 

Because he is no longer a nothern man. He lost his identity as Brandon Stark when he became the 3ER. He is the memory of all of Westeros, which presumably makes him neutral.

We know that, his family know that. Do the majority of people know that? Even the Northern and Vale lords at Winterfell are not really going to be aware of that. He's the creepy kid in a wheel chair who barely speaks sense.

The line 'Bran's the three eyed raven' is mumbo jumbo to pretty much every Westerosi lord, we the viewers who have followed Bran's journey are still not entirely sure what on earth it means and we've seen his importance and journey.

Bran being elected king in the show is pure fanservice. Not saying the books will be any different, but from the episodes we've seen him being accepted as King seems unlikely. The prevailing view in the first season by the average Westerosi, including the monarch, was he was better of dead than a wretched cripple.

 

Edited by Bernie Mac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I don't understand why they didn't just go with a similar system that they had previously, just slightly different. I thought the show would end with Westeros becoming more of an equality state. 7 Kingdoms to form their own central government (similar to the Warden system) and council to make laws for trade, crime etc. to self-govern themselves as much as possible. But then also have a central government that deals with concerns regarding the whole realm, made up of representatives from each Kingdom. This gives more equality to all Kingdoms to have a say in what happens.

If D&D were dead set on 6 Kingdoms and a separate North, at least have the council for the 6 Kingdoms be made up of representatives from the 6 Kingdoms. As it is, what they came up with is completely unrealistic. That whole thing will implode within a year or earlier. The King is constantly tripping on drugs or something to the point he won't even spend 2 minutes meeting with his council. Tyrion is a failure. Bronn is a joke. And lets not forget who these people are. Sellsword, smuggler, traitor/kinslayer and so on. There is no way the other Kingdoms or anyone else will be fine with that.

Edited by Mystical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, ARYa_Nym said:

I thought that the Ironborn also descend from the First Men?

 

The Ironborn themselves deny this. First Men weren't seafarers and the IB worshipped a different god. The maesters just try to impose an assumption on the IB there, because they have no alternative where the IB came from. I don't know myself, but it ain't FM imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Ser Lepus said:

All the other Kingdoms were independent for thousand of years, and most of them were ruled by ancient families... The Lannisters, the Arryns, and the Martells are as ancient as the Starks. The Tyrells not so much, but the Hightowers are easily as old as the Starks...

The Lannisters is a family as old as the Starks, except they weren't kings as the Starks were. Same for the Hightowers: as old, but no kings.

The Arryns are Andals and about 4000 years younger than the Starks and Lannisters. The Arryns and the Andals though do have a nack in trying to muddy the history by inserting themselves into earlier times, by claiming the Falcon Knight was an Arryn, while he clearly wasn't as he predated the Arryns and knighthood was an Andal invention. So, the Falcon Knight was not a knight and no Arryn.

The Martells exist and rule only for 1000 years. Nymeria fled Essos and the oppression of Valyria with her people, arrived at Dorne and started House Martell.

The IB have been around for longer than the Andals, but the Greyjoys haven't always been the Kings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Ser Lepus said:

As for the commoners, they all have more First Men blood than Andal blood... the Andals came as a warrior class of conquerors that intermarried with the nobility of the First Men, but the peasants were mostly First Men even after the Andal conquest...

And those Andal nobles didn't father bastards on the peasants and the serving folk?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
12 hours ago, legba11 said:

Why would the other kingdoms agree to have a Northern Man who they don't know rule them when even his sister doesn't accept his rule?  It makes no sense. 

The Iron Islands are a part of the North and they are now under Bran even though they were independent under Dany?

It was an absurd scene.

Several real world kingdoms elected and invited someone to be their king who was related to an already long established royal family of other kingdoms and ultimately became hereditary. Belgium chose a German Prince of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha as King Leopold I, the first King of the Belgians. And that family actually managed to marry into a lot of European royal lines, a type of pre-cursor to establishing kingdoms that were more or less at peace, once empires imploded and before some tried to be an empire again.

Seems to me that the Starks in the finale sort of take after that family (Saxe-Coburg-Gotha), which sortof make sense if you end up with Dany being like Robespierre and Napoleon Bonaparte in one, while Aegon the Conquerer was more like the Spanish emperor Charles I. Even though you lack a renaissance and middle class formation in Westeros.

That said, I do agree that neither Dorne nor IB ever have shown themselves to rationally prefer being part of the 6 kingdoms, but instead preferred independence. And for both cultural and religious reasons respectively it makes sense. I think the real issue for them is that are far more dependent on food supply from the rest of Westeros, with Dorne being a desert and the Iron Islands barren, nor are they anywhere near the size of the North. And that scene was quite ridiculous.

Edited by sweetsunray

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×