Was Sansa aiming for Jon?

[CrypticWeirwood]

3 minutes ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

Sansa was never trying to overthrow Jon. If anything, she cares more about his well-being than he does.

It's as if he doesn't much care about his own well-being anymore. That may take time. 

[RFL]

He doesn’t care for his well being. He gave Melisandre explicit instructions not to resurrect him again prior to the Battle of the Bastards. That was before Rickon died in his arms and before he “had” to kill Dany

[Mystical]

15 minutes ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

Sansa has spent the majority of the last two seasons trying to prevent Jon from getting himself killed (again). She pleaded with him not to go to Dragonstone. She was given the opportunity to seize power after Jon went south, but chose not to. When Arya threatened to release her season one letter, she was worried that the northern lords would abandon Jon, not her. She broke down in tears when Jon left to attack King's Landing, and conspired to put him on the Iron Throne. When Jon was sentenced to the Night's Watch, Tyrion claimed that Sansa wanted Jon exonerated. This was after the North declared independence, meaning that Sansa expected Jon to be king again. 

Sansa was never trying to overthrow Jon. If anything, she cares more about his well-being than he does.

Spot on. And all of this was actually on screen. But try to convince the Dany stans, Jon stans, Jonerys stans or whatever stans and Sansa haters or any combination thereof of these facts. It's like talking to a wall. This thread is a good example of that. People have now several times brought up actual canon facts from both S7 and S8. And it's completely ignored by those who wish to see something that wasn't there so they offer platitudes and wishful thinking instead of canon facts. This is how we get the same boring, nonsensical discussions over and over again. 'I don't like this character so I'm going to go through extreme lengths, including ignoring the canon, to prove I'm right'.

[Areisius]

2 hours ago, CrypticWeirwood said:

Good Queen Margaery was never cold nor vindictive. She was very, very smart, just like her grandmother and nothing like Cersei. And she won the love of the common people, something critical for a ruler’s long-term success.

You're right about Margaery not being cold or vindictive (I actually liked her character) but she was manipulative. 

[It_spelt_Magalhaes]

8 hours ago, Mystical said:

Spot on. And all of this was actually on screen. But try to convince the Dany stans, Jon stans, Jonerys stans or whatever stans and Sansa haters or any combination thereof of these facts. It's like talking to a wall. This thread is a good example of that. People have now several times brought up actual canon facts from both S7 and S8. And it's completely ignored by those who wish to see something that wasn't there so they offer platitudes and wishful thinking instead of canon facts. This is how we get the same boring, nonsensical discussions over and over again. 'I don't like this character so I'm going to go through extreme lengths, including ignoring the canon, to prove I'm right'.

In the show, proximity with LF turned Sansa the prospective woman in power into a schemer. It was deliberate, I guess?

The idiotic agenda of the Jonerys endgame to push the story at romantics in the audience when the last thing the story cares about is lurve? Ugh...

By this viewpoint, what Sansa says and what Sansa means would only very occasionally overlap, and her awareness of how women manipulate men becomes yet another point against her being fully honest in her dealings with Jon. Maybe because in some bits he is portrayed as having the mental accumen of a thirteen year boy with a crush?

I saw her as a skilled political operator. Though disappointed by the way it was done, she would use Jon if necessary, same as she would use anything at all to achieve her goal of Northern independence.

It had the bonus of allowing her the power to no longer be at others' mercy.

Can we consider her as a facsimile of the North itself?

I really do think it's naive to think they would welcome the foreign armies and dragons with open arms. 

Any ally who is more powerful will make you submit, or were people expecting 'charity and goodness for zero giveback' in a feudal setting?

[Kaapstad]

9 hours ago, RFL said:

He doesn’t care for his well being. He gave Melisandre explicit instructions not to resurrect him again prior to the Battle of the Bastards. That was before Rickon died in his arms and before he “had” to kill Dany

He did that because Sansa said she would commit suicide if he lost the battle.  He goes to Melisandre immediately after she says that. 

[Mystical]

2 hours ago, It_spelt_Magalhaes said:

By this viewpoint, what Sansa says and what Sansa means would only very occasionally overlap, and her awareness of how women manipulate men becomes yet another point against her being fully honest in her dealings with Jon. Maybe because in some bits he is portrayed as having the mental accumen of a thirteen year boy with a crush?

Which men did Sansa manipulate besides LF? Which btw she was only able to do because LF threw his brain out the moon door with Lysa Arryn back in S4. She has never manipulated Jon. Wasn't one of the complaints people had with Sansa that she was always confrontational with Jon? It can't be both. Sansa never used Jon or manipulated him. I guess you could make an argument that she used her knowledge of his true parentage to manipulate things. But her reason for that was stated on screen, she feared for his life.

2 hours ago, It_spelt_Magalhaes said:

I saw her as a skilled political operator. Though disappointed by the way it was done, she would use Jon if necessary, same as she would use anything at all to achieve her goal of Northern independence.

No she wouldn't use Jon. How do I know that? Well she didn't in the show so again that's wishful thinking and not supported by anything in canon. The one person who definitely used Jon was Bran but then that's not really Bran. But there is actual evidence for that depending on how you read the ending of GoT while there is nothing I can think of where Sansa used Jon besides rallying him to take back WF. And that wasn't really manipulation as she was upfront with him about wanting to take back WF. But for Northern Independence, there was no instance I can think of.

2 hours ago, It_spelt_Magalhaes said:

It had the bonus of allowing her the power to no longer be at others' mercy.

But that had nothing to do with her having the power in the end. She was fine with any of her family in power because she knew she would be safe. That's why she had no issue with Jon being King (having issues with his decisions is a different matter) and why she told Bran as soon as he came back that he was Lord of Winterfell. I clearly didn't matter to her which Stark was in power so long as she was safe.

[It_spelt_Magalhaes]

26 minutes ago, Mystical said:

Which men did Sansa manipulate besides LF? Which btw she was only able to do because LF threw his brain out the moon door with Lysa Arryn back in S4. She has never manipulated Jon. Wasn't one of the complaints people had with Sansa that she was always confrontational with Jon? It can't be both. Sansa never used Jon or manipulated him. I guess you could make an argument that she used her knowledge of his true parentage to manipulate things. But her reason for that was stated on screen, she feared for his life.

No she wouldn't use Jon. How do I know that? Well she didn't in the show so again that's wishful thinking and not supported by anything in canon. The one person who definitely used Jon was Bran but then that's not really Bran. But there is actual evidence for that depending on how you read the ending of GoT while there is nothing I can think of where Sansa used Jon besides rallying him to take back WF. And that wasn't really manipulation as she was upfront with him about wanting to take back WF. But for Northern Independence, there was no instance I can think of.

But that had nothing to do with her having the power in the end. She was fine with any of her family in power because she knew she would be safe. That's why she had no issue with Jon being King (having issues with his decisions is a different matter) and why she told Bran as soon as he came back that he was Lord of Winterfell. I clearly didn't matter to her which Stark was in power so long as she was safe.

I meant freedom.

Freedom from the Boltons and the Lannisters, personally and for the North.

And then freedom from the Mother of Dragons' increasingly certain yoke.

Freedom to be the North, for the North.

I think it'd be a discredit to her to spin Sansa into a 'good for goodness and no true return' character. She knows what is necessary, so she plays the Game to achieve it.

You don't want to call it manipulation, fine.

I never meant to imply malice. But she did have to manage Jon's less desirable tendencies as a leader. As a decent advisor would.

The transformation, or failure to develop?, Sansa from 'prospective political power' into actual decent rule? Her directness and snipping got to Mean Gurls dialogue.

Major letdown for me.

She could've been plainly shown as another Margaery, but in some instances it was like they were steering the audience to see her as 'the Bitch in the North'.

And my intent was not to indicate her as always having designs on a throne for herself.

By the result of her journey, she can trust only in her family, if so, and there must always be a Stark in Winterfell, yes?

[TheNecromancerofMirkwood]

17 hours ago, CrypticWeirwood said:

The losers in a conflict that results in an occupying force always remember far longer than the winners.

Speaking as someone from the southeastern United States, you hit the nail on the head. Moral or immoral, Southerners in the US feel put upon (butt of too many jokes for far too long) because we're kinda insular and backward (but are oddly welcoming to people). Tradition and family tend to be big deals (even if you family throws you under the bus). But yes, the descendants of those who prevailed over the Confederate States cannot fathom why "we can't just get over it" since its been 150 years since the issue was decided. The recent spate of "maybe we should burn/occupy the South again" from those outside the region hasn't helped one iota.

The North certainly had every right to demand its independence. In all honesty, I thought the Iron Throne would be abolished and each of the 7 Kingdoms would go back to being independent or at least semi-independent of one another. At the very least, the North, the Iron Islands and Dorne would all either be completely independent of the crown, or at the very least semi-independent Grand Duchies or Principalities (ala The Holy Roman Empire). The writers simply lack of the kind of attention to detail that Martin brings (being a fan of the historical eras where The Holy Roman Empire was a thing) and the ending makes no sense because its muddled in trying to simply wrap up everything with a garishly colored bow simply because "muh subverted expectashuns!"