Jump to content

Wouter

Member
  • Content count

    432
  • Joined

Community Likes

532 Excellent

About Wouter

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

996 profile views
  1. I think all three are supposed to be older versions, allthough it is most obvious with Jon's statue.
  2. While Dany as queen of the 7K (and as such, indeed owner of Westeros and everything on it) would be within her theoretical rights to strip the Starks of Winterfell, her alliance with the north in general and with Jon in particular would be over, as well. Dany is allied to Jon - the normal thing to do with allies is to support them and reward them for services provided. Realistically, she could only move against Sansa in so far she can get Jon to agree or at least to accept, and preferably at least a part of the northern lords would have to accept as well. In Westeros, it's generally quite normal to strip rebellious/defeated lords of their lands, castles, etc. The Tullys had it happen to them during the books/show, and arguably Robert should have done it to the Greyjoys after their first rebellion (not doing so has proven to be a mistake, even if in other instances Robert's mercy worked well). One could argue that the Starks should have stripped the Boltons of their lands and titles, long ago. In the books, Jon allies with Lady Karstark and arranges a way for her to regain her castle and lands, but he has good reasons to trust her as she rebels against her uncles who support the Boltons. He also takes hostages from the Wildlings, though.
  3. It's a long-standing theory among bookreaders that Dany's dragons are "lightbringer" (the magical weapon to use against the Others/White Walkers) and Drogo was the sacrifice to claim that weapon. The existence of Jon, as a serious competitor as far as "prince that was promised" goes, is the main reason that this theory didn't get universally accepted.
  4. Jon is nobly born, too, even without the Rhaegar revelation taken into account. An acknowledged noble bastard is still a noble himself, with nobly privileges.
  5. Just so. Many on Freefolk seem to pretend both are right, but their presentation of the Seville scene(s) is very different. At least one of them does not have the correct information, as far as Seville is concerned. What is Friki's track record in getting accurate spoilers, other than his shortly-before-airing S7 info? He came into conflict with HBO before, but I didn't follow the spoiler scene at that time. What did he spoil? Arya was distrustful of LF (rightly so), but she still let herself be played by him until the moment he overplayed his hand by attempting to sell the idea to Sansa that Arya wanted to be lady of Winterfell. If Tyrion is planning a betrayal, he may well get away with it for a while, just like LF. I do have a problem with Tyrion's motives for betrayal though, considering Jaime is switching sides and the NK is on to them. Betrayal would be self-destructive.
  6. BSB says she has no information about a Tyrion trial and doesn't know what will or won't happen with him. She does maintain that action was filmed at Seville, at least greenscreens were used and stunt people were there. Friki, though, has stated that HBO went for massive misdirection in Seville by flying in actors that didn't film (Joe Dempsie, for example, Jon's body double was also singled out) and by having extras train for an action scene that never was filmed (according to Friki). He also stated that it was an intimate, natural scene without CGI (no green screen, no props) and without any action. BSB has admitted her information clashes with Friki's (who is backed-up by Javi) and that time will tell who has the correct information. They can't both be (100%) right though! Friki and Javi have the advantage of their reputation and they actually come face-to-face with fans, they are not anonymous. This gives them credence, allthough it doesn't mean it's certain they got the right info (Friki's statement of Bran citing "I always chose my family" may be a bit suspect in this regard, as it is a book-only line). BSB is an anonymous member of the Freefolk Reddit group which means she has far less credence, but OTOH her (limited) leaks sound more in line with logical expectations. Then again, when Lads told us about the wight hunt before S7 it was hard to believe, too, so maybe Tyrion does betray the good guys.
  7. Agreed, and theoretically the Tyrells could also do it should they be able to get rid of Cersei and take complete control over KL and the Faith. However, since (f)Aegon is a Varys/Illyrio project, since (f)Aegon seems destined for Arianna Martell or Elia Sand in the books and since he isn't in the show at all, I guess it's very unlikely (in the books) that LF would seek alliance with Aegon (and by extension, Varys). He may go for Dany instead, assuming Sansa and Arya haven't gotten rid of him by then. But annulment by Jon/Dany is still on the table, if they indeed survive as final monarchs (or even one of them). Still undecided on Friki's leaks, we'll see.
  8. The five year gap does not imply it can’t be annulled afterwards. If Jon and Dany reign at the very end, they can easily arrange an annulment if this would be needed.
  9. We don't know if book Tyrion would have any resentment for Sansa at the equivalent point in the books. Tyrion during ADWD has a lot of resentment for Jaime as well, but will it last? At the end of ADWD, he admits to himself that he misses Jaime (and possibly Sansa as well, depending on interpretation). By the time he comes face to face with Sansa again, he will also be back on top of the world, at least in the show he will come as hand to the Queen. And probably more concerned with limiting the damage, rather than the vengeance he wants during much of ADWD, when he's down, powerless and depressed. Not only is lack of consummation not enough by itself (in the books), one would expect this would have to provable in both book and show. Otherwise any marriage could be broken by one side claiming there never was consummation (see Robert and Cersei - since the children weren't his, he could have claimed this until he died). It's possible that in the books, the main purpose of the marriage is to keep LF's plans for a Harry/Sansa marriage on ice, in which case it simply wouldn't be needed in the show (past the purple wedding). Even if not, it may be annulled (in the books that we will never get) yet once a monarch sympathetic to Sansa (and optionally, to Tyrion) is securely in power and able to twist the arm of the Faith. To see the marriage last (so in the show, for them to re-marry or to reaffirm the validity of the original marriage), I think only a theoretical option wherein Tyrion is Aerys' bastard and Dany and Jon have no offspring (but one or both are around with a wish to preserve house Targaryen) could result in that. However, the probable existence of "boatsexbaby" makes this unlikely. The show has also downplayed Tyrion's possible bastard status since he freed the dragons. With Tyrion as a straight Lannister, there does not seem any reason for Sansa to commit or recommit to this marriage. While I don't think Dany would force a Sansa/Tyrion marriage (except for the unlikely case where the future of her bloodline would depend on it), this is a good point relative to how Sansa could view Dany in early S8 (and in between S7 and S8). Sansa does not know Dany, she does know who her father is and what he did, though. In so far Dany has a reputation of her own, it's probably that of a foreign conqueror that brings Dothraki to Westerosi shores and who executes opponents with fire. Sansa is quite possibly aware of Torrhen Stark and what happened to his daughter, at the behest of the conquerors that made him kneel. Now, she knows that Jon has also knelt in much the same way as Torrhen did. Furthermore, it was indicated (in background material or interviews, IIRC) that Sansa seeks power exactly to be safe of such things like arranged/forced marriages. With merely Jon on his own as King, she was perfectly safe in this regard. So if Sansa is far from thrilled with Jon's move (at first, before she gets to know Dany and before she gets to truly experience TAOTD), think about from her perspective. As absolute ruler, Dany could in effect take Sansa as a glorified hostage with or without a marriage that she would chose based on her politics. And since Sansa doesn't (yet) know what the relationship between Jon and Dany is (for all she knows, Jon had to make serious concessions on top of kneeling, to get the alliance he sorely needed, and he is merely one of her underlings now), she couldn't automatically count on Jon stopping it. Torrhen apparently couldn't or wouldn't stop it for his own daughter, either.
  10. While I don’t know about being angry about (supposedly) enabling Dany, I do expect Sansa will be sensitive about being seen as Tyrion’s wife (as Lyanna Mormont threw in her face in s6), especially now that Tyrion has played a decisive role in getting Jon to kneel to Dany. And I wonder if the casual dismissal of the marriage in s5 may yet turn out to be not quite 100% valid, depending on point of view, considering things don’t work like that in the books. Sansa may have to return to something closer to her probable book plot, in this respect. In which case, it will have to be resolved in some way.
  11. I like the sound of that! It also makes sense that the Starks would work together post-LF, and nearing the end. The pack sticks together and it's a time for wolves, after all. I think Sansa and Arya would also end up working closely together in the books, once they work out their inevitable issues (grrm has hinted as much), under the guidance of all-seeing Bran. Their skillsets are complementary in the political game, and all that training must be good for something.
  12. The amount of survivors there must be among the main characters - as the filming in Seville indicates, even regardless of claims by Friki and/or Boatsexbaby - seems to say that the NK loses the battle. KL may be his last attempt to win by attempting to access a ready supply of people to be potentially wightified, after the fighting in/around Winterfell didn't go the way he wanted. While it is possible that the survivors escape through secret tunnels, it seems unlikely to me unless there is a battle in Winterfell and a separate battle involving Dany. I guess at least one battle has to be won or everyone is toast. We're almost sure that the Dany/Jon alliance emerges victorious in the end, which would indicate they cannot lose the vast majority of their troops in Winterfell.
  13. She does, several on this forum alone. I'm one of few who wants to see Sansa's (book) storyline in the Vale reach completion. But then, I like most of the main characters.
  14. We don't know that for sure (it still remains to be seen how bad that fire is; Winterfell is large and there are obviously a lot of survivors, suggesting the NK doesn't really win) and even if it does, chances are it will be rebuilt just like the last time it burned down. Friki had a rumour about reconstruction starting on Winterfell. However, Jon's parentage will come out, removing him from Ned's direct line and putting him somewhere in Targaryen succession instead. If he survives and remains involved in the affairs of the realm, it's more likely to be from whatever the seat of the King and/or Queen will be.
  15. While Dany could strip Sansa from the title (and even give it to Jorah or Grey Worm or her favourite Dothraki bloodrider instead, should she be so inclined), doing so would not only be a slap in the face of the Starks, it would also mean a vote of no-confidence in Jon's decisions. Not only did Jon yield Winterfell to Sansa in the first place, he also put her in charge of the entire north in his absence. Unless Jon would agree with the decision to remove Sansa, doing so would mean the alliance and relation between Dany and Jon would be destroyed before it even truly begun. Stripping someone of titles and lands is something done to traitors, not to people you consider to be allies. Jon is her warden in the north (meaning: lord paramount in book terms), it would be his decision to take and since Sansa has done well in his absence (keeping the lords under control, preparing the castle for a siege and having LF killed in a sufficiently Stark-y way, looking him in the eye and hearing his plea and all) why would he want to alienate his family and his lords? In turn, why would Dany want to humiliate Jon? I don't know what Glover will do (though he isn't the bravest man around, to rebel against Dothraki, unsullied and dragons), but we have seen in the minimal teaser footage we got that Sansa welcomes Jon back home. And she was already aware at the end of S7 that he had knelt to Dany. If she "revolts", it will amount to little more than a sharp discussion in private, I think. Dany made him "warden of the north", which means the other lords in the north have to swear fealty to him while he swears to Dany in turn. The lord of Winterfell isn't automatically the warden/lord paramount, if a Bolton had managed to take control of the Starks (while those were still kings), they would likely have ruled from the Dreadfort. If Dany wants to give Jon lands of his own, she could always make him prince of Dragonstone (a traditional title for the Targ heir) and/or give him the Dreadfort and the lands of the Boltons. Just so. Another example would be Riverrun during the war of the five kings: at the start of the war, it was the seat of the lord paramount of the riverlands (Hoster and then Edmure Tully). At the end of the war, the Lannisters took the castle from Edmure and gave it to one of the Freys (Gemma's husband), but the title of lord paramount went to Littlefinger, along with the seat of Harrenhal. Harrenhal had incidentally been the seat of the kings of Iron Islands and Riverlands, when Aegon burned it. To make things more complicated, the de-facto power in the Riverlands is probably held in the Twins, by Walder Frey, at the time of AFFC. For one thing, Walder holds many hostages to keep the other lords in line, and LF so far isn't attempting to turn his theoretical title into reality. I wrote that Jeor Mormont released his bannermen from fealty (if he even has any, I suppose at least some landed knights may be on Mormont lands), I did not mean to imply this was done in some grand ceremony. He gave up his obligations (as his bannermen swear fealty, he also has a duty to protect them) and his heir - not Jorah, obviously - took them over, along with the fealty of his bannermen. We did not read about this in the books, because Mormont was already lord commander (for quite some time, I suppose) when we met him. We also didn't read about a rebellion on Bear Island having to be put down, so I guess the transfer of power went down smoothly. The vows to Jon were made to the King in the North, not to the lord of Winterfell. Jon explicitly wasn't lord of Winterfell when he was elected as King (Sansa was/is the lady of Winterfell), so the vows clearly do not depend on him owning land. Jon is still following the spirit of his oath, it seems to me: hold no lands and defend the realm of men. The latter happens to demand that he defeats the Boltons, gets to lead the north and make an alliance with Dany. Maybe he did change the terms of the vow, since being subject to the Iron Throne wasn't part of the deal. But then, it wasn't with Torrhen either. And Torrhen didn't have a Night King with army breathing down his back. It wasn't even winter. Circumstances are far more dire for the north, now.