That sucks about the date being pushed back. I'm assuming it'll just be 3 weeks so it'll end around the same time as now?

Jon may be fine bending the knee, but the rest of the North definitely seem to want independence.

quote:

---

Jon may be fine bending the knee, but the rest of the North definitely seem to want independence.

---

How so?

To me all they want is security from threats to the north and recompense for their lords beheading by the hands of the incestuous lannisters.

If Dany wishes them no ill will and only asks for their allegiance should threats arrive, I have no reason to think the Northerners wouldn't be amicable to going back to the way things were.

On two separate occasions they have claimed a King in the North and separation from the Southern Kingdoms. Seems like they are all set on wanting be considered a separate kingdom. Otherwise, they could have simply said that Jon was now their Warden of the North.

At some point next year while all sides are battling, the WW comes and they will have to work together. The only question is does that happen too late?

quote:

---

On two separate occasions they have claimed a King in the North and separation from the Southern Kingdoms. Seems like they are all set on wanting be considered a separate kingdom. Otherwise, they could have simply said that Jon was now their Warden of the North.

---

You realize WHY they did that right?

Joffrey lopped Ned's head off --> Rob becomes King in the North
A continuation of Joffrey's actions + occupation from the cruel Bolton family --> Jon becomes King of the North

Basically, the impetus for their revolt still exists. They are "ruled" by a family that has wronged their liege lord and family.

Once/if Dany takes control, the North has no reason to continue to fight (unless Dany gives them one). I'm assuming that with Tyrion as hand, Dany will see the North as a powerful ally and will not do anything to create a controversy in Jon bending the knee...and the rest of the North will follow suit. Again, because why wouldn't they? They never felt mistreated when Robert was King? They were happy to serve with Ned as Warden. I see no reason why that wouldn't resume with Dany as Queen and Jon as Warden.

I've been reading more about the Sansa-Jon-Littlefinger scene in the last episode. Both the actors (http://www.moviefone.com/2016/07/04/game-of-thrones-finale-explain-sansa-littlefinger-look/) and showrunerrs (http://www.moviefone.com/2016/06/27/sansa-jon-relationship-crucial-to-watch-game-of-thrones-season-7/) have commented on it.

I really do hope there isn't conflict between Sansa and Jon. I don't mind if Sansa makes her own path with Littlefinger as long as it doesn't pit her against Jon in any way. I do think it would be odd for her to want to leave the North though after she has finally returned.

I'm in the camp that Sansa manipulated Jon for her own gain. After years with Cersei, Joffrey, LF, etc., she's been corrupted. Unlike LF, who is driven by a lust for power, Sansa is driven by a lust for revenge. She orchestrated (1) an attack on Winterfell, and (2) the Knights of the Vale joining her cause.

Her next move will be to have the North and the Vale sweep south to take the Twins and restore the Riverlands and then march on King's Landing for revenge against Cersei.

quote:

---

Basically, the impetus for their revolt still exists. They are "ruled" by a family that has wronged their liege lord and family.

---

I completely agree. But, then putting a Targaryen back into power is bowing to another family that executed their Lord and his eldest son/"kidnapped/raped" their daughter prior to Robert's Rebellion. I'm sure there is still no love lost between the north and any Targaryens

I expect the TV series will end without conclusion of the White Walkers. They will leave it as the ultimate F U to all their fans. It will be "you'll have to buy the books to find out what happens".

I don't remember exactly, but when the northern lords named Robb king, it wasn't just about the execution of Ned. That might have been the catalyst, but it felt to me like their was animosity about not being their own kingdom all along. I feel the same way about Dorne.

when Robb was declared King of the north, was he trying to take over all 7 kingdoms, or just protect the North from the Lannister's? It's been a while.

He started out wanting to go free his dad from kings landing. Then, when Ned was killed it became a campaign to establish independence from the south.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Basically, the impetus for their revolt still exists. They are "ruled" by a family that has wronged their liege lord and family.

---

I completely agree. But, then putting a Targaryen back into power is bowing to another family that executed their Lord and his eldest son/"kidnapped/raped" their daughter prior to Robert's Rebellion. I'm sure there is still no love lost between the north and any Targaryens

---

And again, that person, the mad king, paid for his deeds. His entire lineage was almost wiped out. It's been a generation since Ned's brother and father were killed. I seriously doubt Jon, or any northerner, would carry that grudge against someone (Dany) who had nothing to do with the murders of people he has never met.

quote:

---

I don't remember exactly, but when the northern lords named Robb king, it wasn't just about the execution of Ned. That might have been the catalyst, but it felt to me like their was animosity about not being their own kingdom all along. I feel the same way about Dorne.

---

It all precipitated from Joffrey and the Lannister's actions. It had nothing to do with the North and their fealty to KL. Robb's father was in trouble, he called the banners, and the North was obligated to answer. It wasn't a political uprising against an oppressive government. It was all personal.

Idk where you feel like the animosity was deeper than the obvious personal issues, but there isn't much I've read or seen to suggest Jon or any northern lord are hell bent on remaining "independent." (I'm not even sure what 'independence' would grant them that they didn't already have.)

quote:

---

quote:

---

I don't remember exactly, but when the northern lords named Robb king, it wasn't just about the execution of Ned. That might have been the catalyst, but it felt to me like their was animosity about not being their own kingdom all along. I feel the same way about Dorne.

---

It all precipitated from Joffrey and the Lannister's actions. It had nothing to do with the North and their fealty to KL. Robb's father was in trouble, he called the banners, and the North was obligated to answer. It wasn't a political uprising against an oppressive government. It was all personal.

Idk where you feel like the animosity was deeper than the obvious personal issues, but there isn't much I've read or seen to suggest Jon or any northern lord are hell bent on remaining "independent." (I'm not even sure what 'independence' would grant them that they didn't already have.)

---

As long as Cersei is in power I don't think it really matters what Jon or the others want.

The fact of the matter is this - the Boltons were declared Wardens of the North by the king. Jon, Sansa, and Littlefinger committed open rebellion against the crown when they attacked Winterfell.

The lords in the North do not know Dany is on her way and that she will likely unseat Cersei. All they know is that Jon has rebelled against the Crown and retaken Winterfell. Any support or oath of loyalty to him is in direct defiance of the Iron Throne.

By declaring him King in the North they are acknowledging that they do not care that they have defied the Iron Throne. That there fealty is to the Starks first and the Iron Throne second. By supporting Jon, they know that they are casting their lot with his and that if the Lannisters respond, they will be looking to depose all of them and appoint either new families or new leaders of their houses.

They really don't have the option to just say "okay, we're all cool. Jon's back on the throne and we're back in league with the Starks. Pay us no mind, Lannisters." It don't work that way.

quote:

---

As long as Cersei is in power I don't think it really matters what Jon or the others want.

---

As long as Cersei's in power, they will continue to rebel. Arya and Sansa will make damn sure the Starks will never acquiesce to any demands of Cersei.

quote:

---

The fact of the matter is this - the Boltons were declared Wardens of the North by the king. Jon, Sansa, and Littlefinger committed open rebellion against the crown when they attacked Winterfell.

---

This is irrelevant to Dany under the assumption she re-takes the throne. Why would she respect any appointments made by Cersei? Especially when it was given under publicly dubious circumstances.

quote:

---

The lords in the North do not know Dany is on her way and that she will likely unseat Cersei. All they know is that Jon has rebelled against the Crown and retaken Winterfell. Any support or oath of loyalty to him is in direct defiance of the Iron Throne.

By declaring him King in the North they are acknowledging that they do not care that they have defied the Iron Throne. That there fealty is to the Starks first and the Iron Throne second. By supporting Jon, they know that they are casting their lot with his and that if the Lannisters respond, they will be looking to depose all of them and appoint either new families or new leaders of their houses.

They really don't have the option to just say "okay, we're all cool. Jon's back on the throne and we're back in league with the Starks. Pay us no mind, Lannisters." It don't work that way.

---

huh?
1) The Greyjoys "defied the throne" and Dany had no problem aligning with them.

2) The Starks aren't defying the throne, they're defying a false king (Joffrey) and the family who wronged them. I repeat - Their rebellion has nothing to do with politics. It has nothing to do with defying a monarchy. The Lannisters declared open war on the Starks through their treachery. The rest of the North is following the Starks' lead. If Jon Snow bends the knee to Dany, so will they.

2) Tyrion knows exactly what is going on in the North and will no doubt share his sympathies with Dany about the kind of man Jon Snow is vs the woman his vile sister is. Tyrion likes Jon and they have mutual respect for each other. There is 0% chance that either would advocate conflict against each other.

Again, why would Dany care about the North fighting Cersei and the Lannisters? They are a common enemy and Dany has no reason to hate Jon or the North and vice versa for him and Dany. Dany doesn't want to oppress anyone. Jon doesn't want to be King. He wants peace and to protect his family.

You guys are over-complicating this. Dany and Jon WILL align. It makes no sense emotionally, logically, or even narratively for them to fight.

"books on tape presents "Game of Thrones , Book 1 of A Song of Ice and Fire by George RR Martin, read to you by Roy Dotrice..............Prologue"

I still remember the first time I heard that. I know Dotrice and anti-Dotrice comments have been made previously. Roy is not the best orator or 2nd best or 3rd best etc that I have ever heard, but he does a good job with GOT. I think part of it the appeal is that people know he is trying as hard as he can with what he has.

Lots has been brought up about characters such as Mel changing voices as the series went on and I always chalked it up to him being old. When I saw recently that he had gone back and did a read for AFFC , I started listening to it again. The number of voice changes and changes in pronunciation are numerous.

"Jeffrey" instead of Joffrey
"Jilly" instead of Gilly and then later back to Gilly
Different voice for LIttlefinger, which was one of his best from other books
Different voice for Sam

a few others that I can't remember. Is there not some editor that pays attention to this? Can't expect Roy to remember them all

He calls Brienne Breye-eeen instead of Bree-Ann

He flip flops on lots of pronunciations and it's quite bad

quote:

---

You guys are over-complicating this. Dany and Jon WILL align. It makes no sense emotionally, logically, or even narratively for them to fight.

---

I would agree, but I saw this video the other day and it made me think they may be setting up a showdown. We all know this show and GRRM love to go against the classic good vs evil tropes.

quote:

---

He calls Brienne Breye-eeen instead of Bree-Ann

He flip flops on lots of pronunciations and it's quite bad

---

The worst is how he calls Petyr Baelish, "Pee-TIRE".

Pea...

Tear...

Griffin. Peter Griffin. Aw damn it

That would make for a pretty interesting finale.

quote:

---

quote:

---

You guys are over-complicating this. Dany and Jon WILL align. It makes no sense emotionally, logically, or even narratively for them to fight.

---

I would agree, but I saw this video the other day and it made me think they may be setting up a showdown. We all know this show and GRRM love to go against the classic good vs evil tropes.

---

Fixing to watch that video, but I agree that GRRM does not follow the simple tropes. Specifically for me, every time we know how the story would end - in that we can all picture it in our minds - he changes it:

We know how the story ends if Ned stays alive. He unifies the 7 kingdoms, reconciles the Baratheon heirs, has a keen awareness of preparing for winter and the undead, and all is good in the realms.
We know how the story ends if Robb lives: his armies continue winning, gaining more support as they go, probably gaining independence for the North/Riverlands, maintains strength and unity in the North thus protecting against winter and the undead, and all is good in the realms.

We all know how the story ends with Jon and Dany continuing as-is: Dany allies with Martel and Tyrell, overthrows Cersei, reconciles any differences with the Riverlands and the North, perhaps even marries Jon in the weird incestuous Targaryon ways, together they destroy the army of the dead with dragons, and all is good in the realms. Therefore, that for sure will not happen, and a change is due - whether through politics, or death, we'll see. To me it's either the hints of independence I feel like I'm picking up from the show (maybe it's the living in secession minded Texas, or the Brexit stuff messing with me), or LF f'ing it all up, Euron playing some game we have no idea about, greyscale or the red god playing a bigger part, or what ever, we'll see.

My guess is Danny overthrows Cersei with the help of Jaime, but Jaime deserts for C.Rock... She summons Jon south and he refuses. Her Dothraki either die in the winter colds or head south to set up shop in Dorne and resume their ways.

She gets mad and takes her imp and dragons North only to discover the wall is gone and WWs are running loose in the north.

The WWs somehow trap her but Jon does the rescuing this time due to Bran ability to green see , but Danny dies. Bran rides a dragon to his death protecting Sansa or some such.

Jon defeats WW with Sams help; marries Sams sister and takes over 7 kingdoms. Tyrion becomes Lord of C. Rock.

Started rereading the books this week. Dany's POV refers to the Starks in some pretty derogatory terms. I'm guessing she isn't ready to just kiss and make up with Jon or Sansa when she arrives. I feel there will be a showdown between her and the Starks before there is ever any reconciliation (if there ever is any reconciliation).

Bran will bust in and Dany and Jon will have a Batman v Superman moment

Quick question for you detail oriented types. It has zero implications on the story going forward, but did Catelyn know of Jon's true origins? Her contempt for him seemed to go beyond him just being a *******. To me at least. If you think about it her family would have been in danger (destroyed anyways) if Robert knew he was a Targaryen.

No Catelyn did not know.

It in a way did go beyond him being a bastar - it was b/c Jon was a constant reminder of Ned's infidelity to her.

Seeing of all things a joke gif with Varys, reminded me where I got my democracy/Republic ideas. My take on Varys is that he hopes for a Westros where the people rule (he frequently mentions he is on the side of Westros, not a specific house). Maybe that's the game he's playing.

Just watched the video.

1. I think we can predict the show pretty accurately. I think before the show began D&D created a road map with key points and, until season 6, used the books to flesh it out. In the books GRRM has publicly stated he has changed both minor and major things in response to what he has heard or read. It is a moving goal post. Someone may correctly deduce what he has planned only to have GRRM change it. I also think the books have gotten away from him, and he is making major changes to his original outline. Either way I still enjoy guessing at what is coming, I just cannot take book predictions seriously.

2. GRRM loves subverting traditional stories (specifically The Lord of the Rings) and has said a dozen plus times no one is totally evil, or totally good. It is very rare someone truly deserves to die, and there is no group that is totally evil. In his books "the other" is universally used to refer to the protagonist's enemy who is either the moral equal, or superior of the protagonist. "The other" is never morally worse than the protagonist. Thus we can say with fair certainty, in the original version of the books, the Others (White Walkers) will be equal to or better than man.

3. GRRM is an old hippy who hates war and thinks no ultimate good can come from war. He has repeatedly said the evil/futility of war is the biggest theme of his books. The better part of books 4 & 5 is spent establishing how much harm war causes. Thus, in the books, I think we can say no ultimate positive resolution will come on the battlefield. Any positive resolution will come from greater understanding, cooperation, & other hippy ideology.

4. If the show can be finished in 13 episodes I do not think there is enough time to have a major Dragons v. the North plot line. I think in the show Daenery shows up planning "Fire and Blood" conquest but is convinced to "break the wheel" and find common ground with her enemies. Probably with a lot of guidance from Tyrion. I think the "war for the dawn" will be futile and the ultimate resolution with the White Walkers will come from some peace treaty. Possibly brokered by Bran.

5. That said I can easily see (maybe 1/3 chance) Daenery becomes the new "big bad" and there is some conflict between her and the North. However, as D&D have said season 7 will focus on Cersei's character ark I doubt they have 5-7 episodes on Cersei and then 5-8 episodes about Danery fighting the North. That seems to compressed. Especially with Little Finger and all the other unresolved plots floating around.

quote:

---

I am not saying I think Daenery and Jon fight, but it does make emotional, logical, and narrative sense for them to do so.

In universe the north rebelled against evil rulers, however just because a "good" ruler shows up does not mean they have any desire to surrender their independence. In both the show and books the Targaryens are hated by the north, and just because Daenery seems good to the viewers does not mean that is how they will perceive her. If King George had been replaced by a better King, do the colonists decide against revolution? The grievances were against the State, not a single individual. Thus the north may similarly not care who sits on the Iron Throne, they may still want to remain free from southern rule.

---

1) Please read that highlighted sentence again. How in the world does that correlate with the fictional sentiments of the north? Their grievances are EXPLICITLY PERSONAL. The North did NOT rebel against an oppressive government, the STARKS rebelled against a murderer and false king. By proxy of allegiance, the rest of the North followed suit. There is 0 evidence in the show or books that the North was fighting for 'independence.' And again, please tell me exactly what they would gain that they did not already possess? This is 2 families at war, the Lannisters and Starks, not 2 nations.

Based on the above, I have no clue how anyone can infer the North is now intolerant to any future rulers. Jon Snow, the now King of the North, has shown time and time again that he has no desire to rule. In his own words, he's "tired of fighting." He wants peace. If bending the knee to a just ruler (such as Dany has been shown to be, especially with the counsel of Tyrion, a man Jon respects), I don't see why you think they wouldn't do so.

2) Yes, traditionally there has been bad blood between the North (Starks) and the Targaryens, which all came to a boil with the Mad King murdering Neds father and his son, Rhaegar, "kidnapping" Neds sister. But here's the bridge to that conflict....

Jon Snow IS HALF TARGARYEN.

When you boil it down, Jon and Dany have no cause to hate each other. They have not wronged each other, nor do they possess conflicting aspirations. Combine that with point 1 and the fact that Jon is her biological nephew, it does in fact make no logical, narrative, or emotional sense for them to fight. (Not yet anyways)

I feel anyone who thinks otherwise is reading a bit too much into it.

quote:

---

Narratively the show is about conflict. I do not think 13 episodes is enough time to have a big fight between Daenery and Cersei, and a fight between the north and Danery, and a fight between Man and White Walkers. They could pick the pace up and pull it off, but I do not think they will. However, subverting traditional expectations about (good looking) underdog heroes joining forces to defeat the ultimate bad guy is 100% in line with the Song of Ice and Fire.

---

3) I'm confused, did you just talk yourself out of your own argument?

Tyrion likes and respects Jon and vice versa. I think through Tyrion Jon and Dany will be able to find common ground.