|
All book discussion in this thread is now allowed. |
On June 02 2016 04:20 BlackCompany wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2016 04:14 Djzapz wrote:On June 02 2016 04:09 BlackCompany wrote:On June 02 2016 04:00 OtherWorld wrote:On June 02 2016 03:57 KwarK wrote:On June 02 2016 03:52 OtherWorld wrote:
I don't think Sansa can become head of the Starks with Jon, Bran and the little brother whose name I just forgot still alive. Jon isn't a Stark until a king legitimizes him. Bran and Rickon come first. That's true, but in the event everyone still thinks Bran and Rickon are dead (or both die soon), I guess Jon would take precedence over Sansa? Unless he gets declared a Stark he cant inherit Winterfell / the Stark name & everything. It's as if he did not exist for inheriting the North. So Bran should be the actual heir/lord of Winterfell (unless Starks have the rule that Sansa can inherit which i dont know) But since he is assumed dead... should be Rickon since the Boltons have him. It seems like many of the rules of conduct and hierarchy have been thrown out the window in these hard times in Westeros though. At the beginning of the show we were told loud and clear that Kinslaying is the worst thing ever, now we have Balon Greyjoy and Roose Bolton and sort of Doran Martell who have been killed by family or family-ish persons and the world hasn't stopped turning, they just kind of came to accept it. It seems plausible that the north could rally around the bastard son of Eddard Stark (or Lyanna Stark) even if he wasn't declared a Stark because the dire situation calls for it. I mean "the north remembers" and all that, the pain from getting fucked by the Boltons, Karstarks and Umbers has to be quite painful for those people. I mean what's so hard about rallying behind Ned's bastard when the highest lord in the north is a sadistic kinslaying rapist bastard... If Robb could choose to give Jon the name Stark he probably would but he was betrayed. It's not too hard to legitimize Jon as the heir of the North or Winterfell under those circumstances. That's true. I meant from a "legal" point of view in Westeros Jon could not inherit right now. But you are absolutely right. Plus he would make a better leader than some of the others that are around right now  . That said it will be interesting to see if Jon even wants to rule. He always wanted to be a Stark but maybe he is fed up with everything IF he survives till the end and just lives in a lonely hut far away from everyone^^
Don't see Jon ever ruling anything. Not because it's unplausible plot wise, but because after his story arc as LC of the Night's Watch, it seems very out of character. He is one of the two strongly independent characters of the show with Arya.
By the way, I am interested in how Arya will escape the faceless assassins? That seems a bit difficult if I remember previous seasons magic murderings.
|
On June 02 2016 04:28 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2016 04:07 Djzapz wrote:On June 02 2016 03:57 KwarK wrote:On June 02 2016 03:52 OtherWorld wrote:
I don't think Sansa can become head of the Starks with Jon, Bran and the little brother whose name I just forgot still alive. Jon isn't a Stark until a king legitimizes him. Bran and Rickon come first. The only one who's in the running is Rickon, and he's currently quite indisposed. Bran is well on his way to Hogwarts by now and probably won't be leadership material ever. As for Jon, it seems plausible to me that he's actually the son of Lyanna Stark and not Ned, which I guess would make him a suitable heir in the absence of Rickon, should he be murdered by Ramsay while Bran is learning how to wingardium leviosa. Wouldn't put him before Sansa or Arya. The rule goes 1) Current lord While current lord is alive the succession goes 2) Legitimate sons (eldest to youngest) 2a) Legitimate children of sons (eldest to youngest boy and then girl of each son respectively in the order of age) 3) Legitimate daughters eldest to youngest) 3a) Legitimate children of daughters (eldest to youngest boy and then girl of each son respectively in the order of age) If any of those exist then they become current lord and the search stops and the entire order is revised. So, for example, if Robb's child had been born then the child would have become #2, not Bran. If none of these are alive then you go up one level and retry the rules at the generation before. Additionally for the purposes of lineage all dead people are treated as though they are alive so if Robbs child had been born while Ned was alive and then the succession would have gone Ned, Robb, Robb's child, with Bran and Rickon following and even had Robb died before Ned the heir would still have been Robb's child because his dead body still counts for the purposes of who comes first, it just gets skipped for actual lordship.
Interesting, thanks.
|
On June 02 2016 04:29 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2016 04:20 BlackCompany wrote:On June 02 2016 04:14 Djzapz wrote:On June 02 2016 04:09 BlackCompany wrote:On June 02 2016 04:00 OtherWorld wrote:On June 02 2016 03:57 KwarK wrote:On June 02 2016 03:52 OtherWorld wrote:
I don't think Sansa can become head of the Starks with Jon, Bran and the little brother whose name I just forgot still alive. Jon isn't a Stark until a king legitimizes him. Bran and Rickon come first. That's true, but in the event everyone still thinks Bran and Rickon are dead (or both die soon), I guess Jon would take precedence over Sansa? Unless he gets declared a Stark he cant inherit Winterfell / the Stark name & everything. It's as if he did not exist for inheriting the North. So Bran should be the actual heir/lord of Winterfell (unless Starks have the rule that Sansa can inherit which i dont know) But since he is assumed dead... should be Rickon since the Boltons have him. It seems like many of the rules of conduct and hierarchy have been thrown out the window in these hard times in Westeros though. At the beginning of the show we were told loud and clear that Kinslaying is the worst thing ever, now we have Balon Greyjoy and Roose Bolton and sort of Doran Martell who have been killed by family or family-ish persons and the world hasn't stopped turning, they just kind of came to accept it. It seems plausible that the north could rally around the bastard son of Eddard Stark (or Lyanna Stark) even if he wasn't declared a Stark because the dire situation calls for it. I mean "the north remembers" and all that, the pain from getting fucked by the Boltons, Karstarks and Umbers has to be quite painful for those people. I mean what's so hard about rallying behind Ned's bastard when the highest lord in the north is a sadistic kinslaying rapist bastard... If Robb could choose to give Jon the name Stark he probably would but he was betrayed. It's not too hard to legitimize Jon as the heir of the North or Winterfell under those circumstances. That's true. I meant from a "legal" point of view in Westeros Jon could not inherit right now. But you are absolutely right. Plus he would make a better leader than some of the others that are around right now . That said it will be interesting to see if Jon even wants to rule. He always wanted to be a Stark but maybe he is fed up with everything IF he survives till the end and just lives in a lonely hut far away from everyone^^ Don't see Jon ever ruling anything. Not because it's unplausible plot wise, but because after his story arc as LC of the Night's Watch, it seems very out of character. He is one of the two strongly independent characters of the show with Arya. By the way, I am interested in how Arya will escape the faceless assassins? That seems a bit difficult if I remember previous seasons magic murderings.
Ya that has me interested as well. Assuming she will not just get murdered (since i dont think she will die), she probably has a 1on1 with the Waif coming up. I think the Jaqen-Faceless-Man thinks the Waif can handle it. Which would give her the chance to get some ground between her and the real killers after she escapes the Waif.
How they make that possible is beyond me though. I dont see any way Arya would survive a direct fight so taking a boat to Westeros is what she is going to do i guess. Would be interesting if she gets followed there
|
No matter what Arya does, there will be infinite whining about the implausibility of the story to fill a couple of pages here
|
On June 02 2016 04:14 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2016 04:09 BlackCompany wrote:On June 02 2016 04:00 OtherWorld wrote:On June 02 2016 03:57 KwarK wrote:On June 02 2016 03:52 OtherWorld wrote:
I don't think Sansa can become head of the Starks with Jon, Bran and the little brother whose name I just forgot still alive. Jon isn't a Stark until a king legitimizes him. Bran and Rickon come first. That's true, but in the event everyone still thinks Bran and Rickon are dead (or both die soon), I guess Jon would take precedence over Sansa? Unless he gets declared a Stark he cant inherit Winterfell / the Stark name & everything. It's as if he did not exist for inheriting the North. So Bran should be the actual heir/lord of Winterfell (unless Starks have the rule that Sansa can inherit which i dont know) But since he is assumed dead... should be Rickon since the Boltons have him. It seems like many of the rules of conduct and hierarchy have been thrown out the window in these hard times in Westeros though. At the beginning of the show we were told loud and clear that Kinslaying is the worst thing ever, now we have Balon Greyjoy and Roose Bolton and sort of Doran Martell who have been killed by family or family-ish persons and the world hasn't stopped turning, they just kind of came to accept it. It seems plausible that the north could rally around the bastard son of Eddard Stark (or Lyanna Stark) even if he wasn't declared a Stark because the dire situation calls for it. I mean "the north remembers" and all that, the pain from getting fucked by the Boltons, Karstarks and Umbers has to be quite painful for those people. I mean what's so hard about rallying behind Ned's bastard when the highest lord in the north is a sadistic kinslaying rapist bastard... If Robb could choose to give Jon the name Stark he probably would but he was betrayed. It's not too hard to legitimize Jon as the heir of the North or Winterfell under those circumstances.
I think the rules of conduct and hierarchy were followed when the show closely adhered to the books in the beginning. Clearly, the showrunners forgot a lot of the rules when they had to make shit up on their own.
|
On June 02 2016 05:23 andrewlt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2016 04:14 Djzapz wrote:On June 02 2016 04:09 BlackCompany wrote:On June 02 2016 04:00 OtherWorld wrote:On June 02 2016 03:57 KwarK wrote:On June 02 2016 03:52 OtherWorld wrote:
I don't think Sansa can become head of the Starks with Jon, Bran and the little brother whose name I just forgot still alive. Jon isn't a Stark until a king legitimizes him. Bran and Rickon come first. That's true, but in the event everyone still thinks Bran and Rickon are dead (or both die soon), I guess Jon would take precedence over Sansa? Unless he gets declared a Stark he cant inherit Winterfell / the Stark name & everything. It's as if he did not exist for inheriting the North. So Bran should be the actual heir/lord of Winterfell (unless Starks have the rule that Sansa can inherit which i dont know) But since he is assumed dead... should be Rickon since the Boltons have him. It seems like many of the rules of conduct and hierarchy have been thrown out the window in these hard times in Westeros though. At the beginning of the show we were told loud and clear that Kinslaying is the worst thing ever, now we have Balon Greyjoy and Roose Bolton and sort of Doran Martell who have been killed by family or family-ish persons and the world hasn't stopped turning, they just kind of came to accept it. It seems plausible that the north could rally around the bastard son of Eddard Stark (or Lyanna Stark) even if he wasn't declared a Stark because the dire situation calls for it. I mean "the north remembers" and all that, the pain from getting fucked by the Boltons, Karstarks and Umbers has to be quite painful for those people. I mean what's so hard about rallying behind Ned's bastard when the highest lord in the north is a sadistic kinslaying rapist bastard... If Robb could choose to give Jon the name Stark he probably would but he was betrayed. It's not too hard to legitimize Jon as the heir of the North or Winterfell under those circumstances. I think the rules of conduct and hierarchy were followed when the show closely adhered to the books in the beginning. Clearly, the showrunners forgot a lot of the rules when they had to make shit up on their own.
To be fair, the rules of succession in medieval Europe were an absolute clusterfuck.
If you look at the succession of Phillipe Le Bel in France, it's just amazing how the strongest takes all and how obvious rules are being interpreted by different parties in the way that suits them.
After the death of Louis Le Hutin, his wife Clémence de Hongrie was supposed to be queen. But she wasn't because she didn't have any support anywhere. Then when Phillipe Le Long and Charles IV Le Bel died, it should have been their sister, Isabelle de France who was married to Edward II of England who should have inherited and united the two kingdoms, but the lords decided that actually, women couldn't inherit kingdoms according to a law that was about 500 years old and didn't apply anywhere else in the Kingdom (if an other noble died without heir and only had sisters, the oldest sister would inherit the title. Why it suddenly didn't apply to the king made no sense whatsoever, and the case had never occurred before). So Phillipe de Valois became king and Edward the III of England, the son of Isabelle got so pissed off that he started the 100 years war.
So basically all the laws and rules applied if you were strong and influent enough. Otherwise, it was just a giant big mess.
It was such common practice that it didn't shock anyone at all. If you think about Shakespeare's Hamlet (and we are centuries later), Hamlet is the legitimate heir of the kingdom of Denmark but Claudius has taken the crown and nobody seems to have any problem with it. It's just that Hamlet is young and that his uncle has prepared his stuff well enough (and Hamlet is actually very resentful - in several monologues, he actually refers to the fact that his uncle not only killed his dad and married his mum, but also stole him the crown).
All in all, I am not shocked that no one understands what's going on in Westeros regarding the succession rules. Considering it's 7 kingdoms with probably slightly different customs, you can expect the whole system to just implode every single time the legitimate heir is not strong enough to make his case.
|
I was talking more about the rules against kinslaying and the sort. I think most of Westeros is supposed to follow England's primogeniture rules. It is pretty much a clusterfuck in practice, I agree.
|
On June 02 2016 03:58 opisska wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2016 03:57 KwarK wrote:On June 02 2016 03:52 OtherWorld wrote:
I don't think Sansa can become head of the Starks with Jon, Bran and the little brother whose name I just forgot still alive. Jon isn't a Stark until a king legitimizes him. Bran and Rickon come first. Rising from the dead might "legitimize" him in the eyes of many. Dany isn't exactly a Khal either and look ...
Sure, but might=right is a pretty explicit rule in Dothraki culture to a level it isn't in Westerosi culture.
On June 03 2016 03:16 Biff The Understudy wrote:
It was such common practice that it didn't shock anyone at all. If you think about Shakespeare's Hamlet (and we are centuries later), Hamlet is the legitimate heir of the kingdom of Denmark but Claudius has taken the crown and nobody seems to have any problem with it. It's just that Hamlet is young and that his uncle has prepared his stuff well enough (and Hamlet is actually very resentful - in several monologues, he actually refers to the fact that his uncle not only killed his dad and married his mum, but also stole him the crown).
While I take your general point about power, Denmark in Hamlet isn't your "classic" primogeniture system. It's an elective Viking-style deal like the Iron Islanders. Hamlet wasn't king because he lost the election to Claudius.
On June 01 2016 12:40 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2016 10:15 Yoav wrote:On June 01 2016 02:57 KwarK wrote:On June 01 2016 02:50 Plansix wrote:On June 01 2016 02:32 KwarK wrote:
I don't think the Dothraki really play nice. If they show up it'll be fires and rapes and load up with as many horses as they can and then go back to the Dothraki sea. Like what can Dany actually offer them in Westeros? They're a nomadic herding people. They can sack the place but they'd be sacking her kingdom. Land if they want to settle an farm, money/riches if they want to leave and go home? It would not be the first time that a warlord/general offered that to get people to fight for them. If the Dothraki wanted to settle down they'd have settled down. They don't. She's bringing a horde that are motivated chiefly by the desire to burn shit down, rape the women, kill the men and take anything not nailed down. Now maybe she'll tell them that they're not allowed to do that but then what the hell are they even coming along for? The logical outcome would be for her to ship them all back home after she won but even then they'd be taking captive women, gold and other riches with them. It's not the best invasion plan. It'll work out the way this tended to work out in history: the Mongols/Arabs/Goths will rape and plunder, then decide that it's more fun to rule over a court with a well supplied harem than to continue fighting for scraps in the mud. Except the Dothraki have been raping and plundering for thousands of years. They show up to the cities and if it's been a while since a good sacking then they attack them and either sack the place or die trying and if they've worked all that out of their system already then they get paid to attack someone else. If they wanted to settle down they'd have settled down after any of the times they conquered somewhere. Maybe some of them do but the continued existence of the horde is evidence that they haven't settled yet.
All the examples I gave (and many more through history: Turks, Vikings, etc.) had been doing their thing for thousands of years. Then they gained charismatic leaders who got them to get their shit together and/or the neighboring great empire became weak enough to be conquerable. So instead of just having to do hit and run raids, they were able to seize real territory. Which is a lot of fun. And so they did, gradually losing their nomadic identity.
|
On June 02 2016 04:29 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2016 04:20 BlackCompany wrote:On June 02 2016 04:14 Djzapz wrote:On June 02 2016 04:09 BlackCompany wrote:On June 02 2016 04:00 OtherWorld wrote:On June 02 2016 03:57 KwarK wrote:On June 02 2016 03:52 OtherWorld wrote:
I don't think Sansa can become head of the Starks with Jon, Bran and the little brother whose name I just forgot still alive. Jon isn't a Stark until a king legitimizes him. Bran and Rickon come first. That's true, but in the event everyone still thinks Bran and Rickon are dead (or both die soon), I guess Jon would take precedence over Sansa? Unless he gets declared a Stark he cant inherit Winterfell / the Stark name & everything. It's as if he did not exist for inheriting the North. So Bran should be the actual heir/lord of Winterfell (unless Starks have the rule that Sansa can inherit which i dont know) But since he is assumed dead... should be Rickon since the Boltons have him. It seems like many of the rules of conduct and hierarchy have been thrown out the window in these hard times in Westeros though. At the beginning of the show we were told loud and clear that Kinslaying is the worst thing ever, now we have Balon Greyjoy and Roose Bolton and sort of Doran Martell who have been killed by family or family-ish persons and the world hasn't stopped turning, they just kind of came to accept it. It seems plausible that the north could rally around the bastard son of Eddard Stark (or Lyanna Stark) even if he wasn't declared a Stark because the dire situation calls for it. I mean "the north remembers" and all that, the pain from getting fucked by the Boltons, Karstarks and Umbers has to be quite painful for those people. I mean what's so hard about rallying behind Ned's bastard when the highest lord in the north is a sadistic kinslaying rapist bastard... If Robb could choose to give Jon the name Stark he probably would but he was betrayed. It's not too hard to legitimize Jon as the heir of the North or Winterfell under those circumstances. That's true. I meant from a "legal" point of view in Westeros Jon could not inherit right now. But you are absolutely right. Plus he would make a better leader than some of the others that are around right now . That said it will be interesting to see if Jon even wants to rule. He always wanted to be a Stark but maybe he is fed up with everything IF he survives till the end and just lives in a lonely hut far away from everyone^^ Don't see Jon ever ruling anything. Not because it's unplausible plot wise, but because after his story arc as LC of the Night's Watch, it seems very out of character. He is one of the two strongly independent characters of the show with Arya. By the way, I am interested in how Arya will escape the faceless assassins? That seems a bit difficult if I remember previous seasons magic murderings.
I don't know if Jon won't ever rule anything, but his tenure as LC does show that he probably won't ever be a particularly great ruler.
|
how come? i admire how he makes hard decisions, despite unpopular as long as its the right one.
|
He is like Ned, Ned is a pretty good leader and follower, just did some shitty decisions in KL and did not anticipate the Lannisters
|
Jon would be a fine ruler if he had people behind him cover his ass. That was his and Neds problem, that they both did the thing that was best, but failed to cover their back when they made the push to the do the right thing. You put people like Jon and Dany on a throne with Tyrion watching out for them, they will be fine.
But to be honest, Jon would be a better commander and enforcer of the crown’s laws than policy maker. If we get the fan fic ending of him and Dany joining forces, she would be a better policy maker and diplomat while Jon would deal with the problems of the people. Which is how governments, even ones run by Kings and Queens, end up working out.
|
And Jon is in the 18-21 year old range... maybe 21-24 on the show.
Ned was 40+ish and had been fighting alongside Robert, or keeping the North together for the last 20 years before his death.
Jon Snow is like that NFL 1st round quarterback that goes to a 2-14 team (Nights Watch). He holds a clipboard and headset for Jeor Mormont for a season while he learns the offense...and then gets killed his 2nd season as the starter (literally). Now he's got two seasons as a pro under his belt and it's his time to produce. He's got to win now...or there is no big contract extension.
Kind of like Aaron Rodgers backing up Brett Favre for 2-3 years.. then Rodgers breaks his leg misses a season, then comes back, does well gets a fat contract, and then wins a Superbowl a couple years later.
|
Kinda hard to understand what comparisons u are talking about if somebody do not know what Superbowl is.
The thing is, we got only 3 episodes left  that makes me sad a bit
|
On June 04 2016 20:54 cSc.Dav1oN wrote:Kinda hard to understand what comparisons u are talking about if somebody do not know what Superbowl is. The thing is, we got only 3 episodes left that makes me sad a bit
Actually there are 4 epsides left this season..?
|
On June 04 2016 22:17 Mafe wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2016 20:54 cSc.Dav1oN wrote:Kinda hard to understand what comparisons u are talking about if somebody do not know what Superbowl is. The thing is, we got only 3 episodes left that makes me sad a bit Actually there are 4 epsides left this season..?
oh yea, thought we already had 7 episodes so far, glad was wrong, too bad it sill feels not enough volume overall by season
|
On June 02 2016 04:40 BlackCompany wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2016 04:29 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 02 2016 04:20 BlackCompany wrote:On June 02 2016 04:14 Djzapz wrote:On June 02 2016 04:09 BlackCompany wrote:On June 02 2016 04:00 OtherWorld wrote:On June 02 2016 03:57 KwarK wrote:On June 02 2016 03:52 OtherWorld wrote:
I don't think Sansa can become head of the Starks with Jon, Bran and the little brother whose name I just forgot still alive. Jon isn't a Stark until a king legitimizes him. Bran and Rickon come first. That's true, but in the event everyone still thinks Bran and Rickon are dead (or both die soon), I guess Jon would take precedence over Sansa? Unless he gets declared a Stark he cant inherit Winterfell / the Stark name & everything. It's as if he did not exist for inheriting the North. So Bran should be the actual heir/lord of Winterfell (unless Starks have the rule that Sansa can inherit which i dont know) But since he is assumed dead... should be Rickon since the Boltons have him. It seems like many of the rules of conduct and hierarchy have been thrown out the window in these hard times in Westeros though. At the beginning of the show we were told loud and clear that Kinslaying is the worst thing ever, now we have Balon Greyjoy and Roose Bolton and sort of Doran Martell who have been killed by family or family-ish persons and the world hasn't stopped turning, they just kind of came to accept it. It seems plausible that the north could rally around the bastard son of Eddard Stark (or Lyanna Stark) even if he wasn't declared a Stark because the dire situation calls for it. I mean "the north remembers" and all that, the pain from getting fucked by the Boltons, Karstarks and Umbers has to be quite painful for those people. I mean what's so hard about rallying behind Ned's bastard when the highest lord in the north is a sadistic kinslaying rapist bastard... If Robb could choose to give Jon the name Stark he probably would but he was betrayed. It's not too hard to legitimize Jon as the heir of the North or Winterfell under those circumstances. That's true. I meant from a "legal" point of view in Westeros Jon could not inherit right now. But you are absolutely right. Plus he would make a better leader than some of the others that are around right now . That said it will be interesting to see if Jon even wants to rule. He always wanted to be a Stark but maybe he is fed up with everything IF he survives till the end and just lives in a lonely hut far away from everyone^^ Don't see Jon ever ruling anything. Not because it's unplausible plot wise, but because after his story arc as LC of the Night's Watch, it seems very out of character. He is one of the two strongly independent characters of the show with Arya. By the way, I am interested in how Arya will escape the faceless assassins? That seems a bit difficult if I remember previous seasons magic murderings. Ya that has me interested as well. Assuming she will not just get murdered (since i dont think she will die), she probably has a 1on1 with the Waif coming up. I think the Jaqen-Faceless-Man thinks the Waif can handle it. Which would give her the chance to get some ground between her and the real killers after she escapes the Waif. How they make that possible is beyond me though. I dont see any way Arya would survive a direct fight so taking a boat to Westeros is what she is going to do i guess. Would be interesting if she gets followed there
She's been losing their combats on purpose to give a false sense of security! I hope so, anyway. I want to see her win their fight convincingly.
|
On June 05 2016 01:22 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2016 04:40 BlackCompany wrote:On June 02 2016 04:29 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 02 2016 04:20 BlackCompany wrote:On June 02 2016 04:14 Djzapz wrote:On June 02 2016 04:09 BlackCompany wrote:On June 02 2016 04:00 OtherWorld wrote:On June 02 2016 03:57 KwarK wrote:On June 02 2016 03:52 OtherWorld wrote:
I don't think Sansa can become head of the Starks with Jon, Bran and the little brother whose name I just forgot still alive. Jon isn't a Stark until a king legitimizes him. Bran and Rickon come first. That's true, but in the event everyone still thinks Bran and Rickon are dead (or both die soon), I guess Jon would take precedence over Sansa? Unless he gets declared a Stark he cant inherit Winterfell / the Stark name & everything. It's as if he did not exist for inheriting the North. So Bran should be the actual heir/lord of Winterfell (unless Starks have the rule that Sansa can inherit which i dont know) But since he is assumed dead... should be Rickon since the Boltons have him. It seems like many of the rules of conduct and hierarchy have been thrown out the window in these hard times in Westeros though. At the beginning of the show we were told loud and clear that Kinslaying is the worst thing ever, now we have Balon Greyjoy and Roose Bolton and sort of Doran Martell who have been killed by family or family-ish persons and the world hasn't stopped turning, they just kind of came to accept it. It seems plausible that the north could rally around the bastard son of Eddard Stark (or Lyanna Stark) even if he wasn't declared a Stark because the dire situation calls for it. I mean "the north remembers" and all that, the pain from getting fucked by the Boltons, Karstarks and Umbers has to be quite painful for those people. I mean what's so hard about rallying behind Ned's bastard when the highest lord in the north is a sadistic kinslaying rapist bastard... If Robb could choose to give Jon the name Stark he probably would but he was betrayed. It's not too hard to legitimize Jon as the heir of the North or Winterfell under those circumstances. That's true. I meant from a "legal" point of view in Westeros Jon could not inherit right now. But you are absolutely right. Plus he would make a better leader than some of the others that are around right now . That said it will be interesting to see if Jon even wants to rule. He always wanted to be a Stark but maybe he is fed up with everything IF he survives till the end and just lives in a lonely hut far away from everyone^^ Don't see Jon ever ruling anything. Not because it's unplausible plot wise, but because after his story arc as LC of the Night's Watch, it seems very out of character. He is one of the two strongly independent characters of the show with Arya. By the way, I am interested in how Arya will escape the faceless assassins? That seems a bit difficult if I remember previous seasons magic murderings. Ya that has me interested as well. Assuming she will not just get murdered (since i dont think she will die), she probably has a 1on1 with the Waif coming up. I think the Jaqen-Faceless-Man thinks the Waif can handle it. Which would give her the chance to get some ground between her and the real killers after she escapes the Waif. How they make that possible is beyond me though. I dont see any way Arya would survive a direct fight so taking a boat to Westeros is what she is going to do i guess. Would be interesting if she gets followed there She's been losing their combats on purpose to give a false sense of security! I hope so, anyway. I want to see her win their fight convincingly.
She's been fighting the waif at her own game with the sticks and is inferior at it. However, I haven't seen any water dancing. I haven't seen any hound-esque brutal fighting. Arya has at least two other styles to use and mix in that the waif is unprepared for and I expect a dead waif in the next two episodes.
My question is whether or not Jaqen will be angry that the waif is dead. I think he may actually approve and the waif was really another one in training and only one trainee can make it out alive.
|
I'm lost, who or what is the "waif"?
|
On June 05 2016 08:15 RenSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2016 01:22 bardtown wrote:On June 02 2016 04:40 BlackCompany wrote:On June 02 2016 04:29 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 02 2016 04:20 BlackCompany wrote:On June 02 2016 04:14 Djzapz wrote:On June 02 2016 04:09 BlackCompany wrote:On June 02 2016 04:00 OtherWorld wrote:On June 02 2016 03:57 KwarK wrote:On June 02 2016 03:52 OtherWorld wrote:
I don't think Sansa can become head of the Starks with Jon, Bran and the little brother whose name I just forgot still alive. Jon isn't a Stark until a king legitimizes him. Bran and Rickon come first. That's true, but in the event everyone still thinks Bran and Rickon are dead (or both die soon), I guess Jon would take precedence over Sansa? Unless he gets declared a Stark he cant inherit Winterfell / the Stark name & everything. It's as if he did not exist for inheriting the North. So Bran should be the actual heir/lord of Winterfell (unless Starks have the rule that Sansa can inherit which i dont know) But since he is assumed dead... should be Rickon since the Boltons have him. It seems like many of the rules of conduct and hierarchy have been thrown out the window in these hard times in Westeros though. At the beginning of the show we were told loud and clear that Kinslaying is the worst thing ever, now we have Balon Greyjoy and Roose Bolton and sort of Doran Martell who have been killed by family or family-ish persons and the world hasn't stopped turning, they just kind of came to accept it. It seems plausible that the north could rally around the bastard son of Eddard Stark (or Lyanna Stark) even if he wasn't declared a Stark because the dire situation calls for it. I mean "the north remembers" and all that, the pain from getting fucked by the Boltons, Karstarks and Umbers has to be quite painful for those people. I mean what's so hard about rallying behind Ned's bastard when the highest lord in the north is a sadistic kinslaying rapist bastard... If Robb could choose to give Jon the name Stark he probably would but he was betrayed. It's not too hard to legitimize Jon as the heir of the North or Winterfell under those circumstances. That's true. I meant from a "legal" point of view in Westeros Jon could not inherit right now. But you are absolutely right. Plus he would make a better leader than some of the others that are around right now . That said it will be interesting to see if Jon even wants to rule. He always wanted to be a Stark but maybe he is fed up with everything IF he survives till the end and just lives in a lonely hut far away from everyone^^ Don't see Jon ever ruling anything. Not because it's unplausible plot wise, but because after his story arc as LC of the Night's Watch, it seems very out of character. He is one of the two strongly independent characters of the show with Arya. By the way, I am interested in how Arya will escape the faceless assassins? That seems a bit difficult if I remember previous seasons magic murderings. Ya that has me interested as well. Assuming she will not just get murdered (since i dont think she will die), she probably has a 1on1 with the Waif coming up. I think the Jaqen-Faceless-Man thinks the Waif can handle it. Which would give her the chance to get some ground between her and the real killers after she escapes the Waif. How they make that possible is beyond me though. I dont see any way Arya would survive a direct fight so taking a boat to Westeros is what she is going to do i guess. Would be interesting if she gets followed there She's been losing their combats on purpose to give a false sense of security! I hope so, anyway. I want to see her win their fight convincingly. She's been fighting the waif at her own game with the sticks and is inferior at it. However, I haven't seen any water dancing. I haven't seen any hound-esque brutal fighting. Arya has at least two other styles to use and mix in that the waif is unprepared for and I expect a dead waif in the next two episodes. My question is whether or not Jaqen will be angry that the waif is dead. I think he may actually approve and the waif was really another one in training and only one trainee can make it out alive.
Did she ever actually get good at waterdancing?
The impression I got from that was she had a couple of lessons, didn't learn shit, then he got killed and she ran away. Did we ever see her demonstrate any actual ability with her sword?
Also I thought we'd already see the waif turn into jaqen, or jaqen into the waif, at some point. Which I understood as the waif just being one of the faces the faceless can wear.
We really don't know much about them though, do they even have distinct personalities? Or do they just take on the personality of the face they wear at any given time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
