Headscratchers / Game Of Thrones Season Five Onwards

• Game of Thrones — For Series Wide Headscratchers
• Game Of Thrones Pre Season Five — For Pre-Season Five
• Game Of Thrones Season Eight

Why would Sansa ever forgive Theon?

• Aside from my general hatred for the plot, logically it makes zero sense whatsoever for Sansa to forgive Theon for any of his actions right up to Episode 8. Merging Sansa and Jeyne into a single storyline creates some really incoherent and illogical development. What reason has Theon given to Sansa that he is remotely remorseful or apologetic? Being tortured doesn't equal redemption or apology (as Book Theon's far better written arc in the books makes clear). Theon has done nothing so far to show that he's redeeming himself unlike Jaime with Brienne. Theon betrayed Robb Stark and even if he didn't kill Bran and Rickon Stark, by faking their deaths he provided a major morale defeat and paved the road for Roose to betray him. Moreover, as soon as Sansa arrived in Winterfell, Theon did nothing. He did not warn her, he stood by in the side watching while Ramsay raped her, doing nothing to stop it and then willingly betrayed her only ally. Why the hell does Sansa not kill that pathetic meat sack the next time she gets him? Why should she believe him when he says he didn't kill Bran and Rickon and he's sorry if he's not doing anything at all. In the books it worked, because Theon has no personal connection to Jeyne and indeed disliked her in the pre-war days, seeing her as silly. Him going out of his way to help a girl who he knows is powerless and whose rescue will not give him any reward aside from doing the right thing is far more heroic than saving Sansa after she gets raped, beaten and her only ally killed. Even if he helps Sansa escape Winterfell, there's no way it will be sane if Sansa lets him off the hook.
  • Was there any indication that she forgave him? She said she would gladly torture him the way Ramsay did. She doesn't kill him because it wouldn't benefit her in any way, while surely incurring Ramsay's wrath. As to why she believes he didn't kill Rickon and Brann, if she indeed does, perhaps it's because she wants her brothers to be alive, just to have some modicum of hope and comfort in her miserable life.
  • For one thing, despite all the terrible things he's done he's still a known quantity and someone she grew up with. Surrounded by enemies, he's the one person she could even CONSIDER trusting. She doesn't of course, and she clearly hates him, but given how he's kinda in the same situation as she, she must be able to see the benefits of at least trying to recruit him to her side.
  • However, Reek saving Sansa from Myranda's sadism seems to have earned him some forgiveness points.
  • Remember also that Sansa likely knows everything Theon's been through: rejected by his family, betrayed by his men, tortured and emasculated by Ramsay, forced to serve the man who cut off his penis, etc... It's the last two that probably get to her because Ramsay is torturing her too. It's hard to despise something so incredibly sad and pathetic as Reek.
  • She also doesn't reach out to him until after she's been married to and raped by Ramsay. So she's pretty much in hell and wants to do her best to appeal to Theon as a sister. And if your two options were being locked in a room and being raped every day or trying your luck with someone you hate but could be a potential ally, it's safe to say the second option is preferable.

Jorah's second banishment

• While I do understand and agree with Tyrion's reasoning and support Dany's decision to remove Jorah from her side, couldn't the same effect be achieved by demoting him and having him serve her among the Second Sons? I don't think either of them expected an actual betrayal from Jorah, and with Barristan dead and Grey Worm in recovery he was the best fighter they had. It's just wasteful.
  • I agree. They obviously wanted Jorah to be in the Fighting Pits but logically it's contrived. She could have easily offered him a second chance to serve beneath Grey Guard and sleep in common quarters so that he can earn and prove her loyalty to her again.
  • That is likely what Tyrion had in mind. Dany's doesn't always have the best judgement however, and it's even worse when she feels she's been personally betrayed. She clearly wants him nowhere near her, not even seeing him in her army.
  • The benefit of having one more random guy in her army did not outweigh all the negatives of keeping Jorah around: 1: She already banished him publicly. 2: As Tyrion points out, he can't be trusted, so he'd never get any responsibility anyway. 3: He brings emotional baggage and distraction with him, like an ex-lover living down the hall from your apartment. Better that he just go away. However, "The Dance of Dragons" will apparently make this moot.
  • There is the emotional aspect, as well. Dany is still stung at Jorah's betrayal, and doesn't want to see him PERIOD. Banishing him from Meereen was the simplest way to ensure that.
  • Remember also, that Tyrion's greatest skill is evaluating and manipulating people. He knew within moments on meeting her, that Dany would not take Jorah back quickly. So he used a second banishment to cement his own position with her. However, he likely recognized that Dany secretly (even to herself perhaps) WANTED Jorah back, so he made sure to play up as many of his good sides as possible. This allowed for an immediate win for himself, and set the wheels for a future win for Jorah (and, Dany as well in both regards).

Could Sansa have said 'no'?

• Could Sansa have simply refused to marry Ramsay? The books mention that it is illegal for anyone to marry against their will, and Sansa surely has enough political standing to justifiably refuse. Granted, things wouldn't have been easy for her immediately afterward, but it's not like marriage to Ramsay would be a picnic, either. So could she simply have said no? The long pause after Roose asked her made me think that that was exactly what was going to happen.
  • Littlefinger gave Sansa to Roose Bolton as a gesture of good faith, so a legitimate Stark could rally the North. If Littlefinger's gift proved herself uncooperative, the Bolton/Vale alliance would be off, and Littlefinger limited in his options. He might no longer be in a position to get Sansa out of the Boltons' hands before Stannis and the Boltons clash. Sansa's willingness to go along with her marriage to Ramsay is proportionate to her trust in Petyr Baelish. And so far, Littlefinger has always managed to rescue Sansa and kill her worst enemies while doing so.
  • Even in the books, the ability to say "no" is pretty limited. Sansa was forced to marry Tyrion in the books and she got no warning there (as opposed to the Show). If she said "no", the Lannisters would have killed her. Jeyne Poole likewise didn't have much options but to say "yes". However, Sansa-Jeyne in the Show (they are not really the same characters as the books anymore) was stupid in that she had the support of House Royce of Runestone. She could have stayed there in the Vale, especially since she had leverage over Littlefinger. She is the only reason why the Vale Lords support Baelish, they see him as Protector of Sansa and she becomes his trump card and only alibi. It's incredibly dumb and stupid for her to give up that advantage and suddenly go back to being under his thumb. The whole plot of Season Five is so poorly written and contrived as to beggar disbelief.
  • How is it poorly written? To date everyone Sansa has trusted has either betrayed her or gotten themselves killed or imprisoned awaiting execution. She was stuck with the choice of putting her trust in House Royce (whom she has had very little interaction with) and risking yet another betrayal or sticking with Littlefinger who at least has been consistent with his dealings with her. Better the devil you know than the one you don't.
  • And if he thinks Stannis is going to defeat the Boltons why would he have given Sansa to them? Why couldn't he have sent Sansa to Stannis, making it certain they would win?
  • He doesn't know anything about Ramsay? Who has a terrifying reputation throughout the North? Isn't Littlefinger supposed to be one of the best spymasters in the realm, who would find out all he can about the people involved in his plans?
    • Surprisingly Realistic Outcome? Littlefinger's intelligence gathering service rivals Varys, but that's in King's Landing. He's a businessman after all — he'll concentrate his money where it's cost effective. So he has spies in the centers of power — King's Landing, Casterley Rock, Highgarden, the Vale, and the cities he trades with across the Narrow Sea. He might have a few spies up North in White Harbour and Winterfell; but what were the Boltons to Littlefinger, when he set up this spy network before the war? Ramsay is notorious in the novels, but TV Ramsay is portrayed as being more cunning, and Theon had no idea who he is, so presumably he's a bit more discreet. Sure Littlefinger would have tried to gather more information, but how easy is that in the aftermath of a civil war when communications are in chaos?
  • Theon didn't know Ramsay in the face, which was plausible if the two had never met. But I bet even he was aware of the family's reputation. Besides, his intelligence was virtually non-existent in comparison to LF's (in all senses of the word). And Baelish is most definitely not just a businessman - he has aspiration for the Iron Throne, and he plans to take it through intrigue and subterfuge. If anyone had ample reasons to know about everyone of any importance, that would be him. And Boltons are not nobodies - they're one of the major Northern houses.
  • Why does Lord Bolton accept this offer? He knows the Queen wants Sansa dead. Why risk alienating his allies? The Lannisters may not come North to help the Boltons but Cersei will certainly send troops to get at them for helping Sansa. This plot was TERRIBLE!
  • Well, his "allies" are collapsing. Even if Roose doesn't know for sure that Lannisters are broke (and facts like Mace Tyrell leaving to negotiate with the Iron Bank hint at that), he likely surmises, that with Tywin dead and Jaime crippled, Cersei's military capacities are severely limited, and her reign is tenuous and undermined by the Tyrells. Just as he betrayed Robb the second he realized the King in the North is unlikely to succeed, he apparently decided it's time to abandon his Southern patron as well.
  • Marrying Ramsay and Sansa made sense for both Bolton and Littlefinger. Bolton was more worried about resistance from the North than alienating the Lannisters in the South, due to the above mentioned reasons (they're broke, Tywin is dead and they're not reliable allies). He specifically mentions the Lannister's have never sent an army as far as Winterfell - so knew they wouldn't be backing him up or attacking him. The Northern lords were a bigger issue and due to their Undying Loyalty to the Starks, having Sansa as his daughter in law was huge. On Littlefinger's end the marriage was part of a bigger ploy to play the Boltons and Lannisters against each other, even if he knew what a sadist Ramsay was he may not have cared. (Which may explain why he left so early, ensuring Sansa was without options).
  • However, the real headscratcher is why Sansa went along with the marriage after Littlefinger confided his alleged plan to have side with Stannis over the Boltons and become Wardeness of the North. Yes Littlefinger was persuasive with his initial "take back your home" speech but when he told her the "wait until Stannis takes Winterfell and then you can rule" plot, why didn't she say "ok then, let's go straight to Stannis, offer to support him, strengthen his position with the Northern lords, and make him promise to make me Wardeness." Sansa would have realized Littlefinger's plan had two unfounded assumptions: a) That she'd survive Stannis attacking Winterfell and b) Stannis would automatically ally with her afterwards. Sansa must have realized she'd be in a better position beside Stannis, rallying her family's loyal bannermen to his side, rather than marrying into the most hated family in the North and risking seeming that she was supporting them. Not to mention the other very obvious reasons she wouldn't want to marry a guy she now suspected of being a Joffrey-level monster: That she barely escaped being married to one sadistic psychopath and that the Boltons helped murder her family. She could have at least called Littlefinger's bluff that he wasn't "forcing" her to do this and she wanted out, and used the leverage she had against him. Maybe he would have made her go through with it, but at least Sansa would look more intelligent in not making herself prisoner of another crazy family.
  • Basically the show runners boxed themselves into a corner by choosing to merge Jeyne Poole with Sansa. In the books, Ramsay is marrying an impostor who's pretending to be Arya. They obviously wanted to keep Sansa involved in the plot as in the books' continuity she's still in The Vale. So they gave her plots belonging to Jeyne and Alys Karstark, who were never more than bit characters in the show. As such it stretches belief what Sansa thought she could gain from willingly marrying into the Bolton family.

Use Fire You Morons!

• Why is it, that in the entirety of the battle with the wights, the only person who thinks to use fire is Wun Wun?! Heck the Wildlings definitely know that the wights are weak to fire, but not ONE of them think to use torches, flaming arrows, etc. against the wights. They wouldn't have won, but the body count could have been astronomically lower!
  • Lack of fire and lack of time, presumably. The White Walker army came very fast, and people just flipped their shit.
  • Have you considered that maybe Wun Wun is actually a Genius Bruiser?
  • Sorry, I was going off of the books where the giants seem to be barely sentient. It might be different in the show, I'll admit. Also why wouldn't the Wildlings be prepared to fight wights? They do it all the time. They're usually burn bodies and do other things to protect against wights. Why not this time?
  • Their weakness to fire seems kind of relative. The wight that Jon slew in the first season, didn't drop fully until it was entirely engulfed in fire; for a while it just combined all the worst parts of being a zombie and on fire. Unless a target is made of tinder, it's not that easy to get a good fire going and most of the wights have likely been slogging through wet snow for weeks now. The wights might not like being hit by flaming arrows or torches, but it's not a guarantee that they would be much more vulnerable than they are to conventional weapons. It is well-established that burning bodies prevents them from coming back, though whether this is a result of the bodies being reduced beyond usage or that the burning leaves them untouchable to White Walker magic is unclear. Regardless this isn't very helpful mid-battle. From a more logistical standpoint, the Wildling assault on the Wall involved setting up massive fires, presumably as a means of warding off wights and White Walkers during the siege. They may very well have, literally, burned through a great deal of their supply of oil and suitable wood then. It also pays to mention that the Wildlings are poorly organized at the best of times, and only barely tolerate one another. Between surprise, mass panic, and the fact that they were midway through an evacuation it's not that surprising they couldn't bring much fire to bear.
  • They don't seem to be barely sentient in the books, as far as I recall. Just hard to understand.
  • Arrows on Fire take time to set up — you'd need to heat up oil or pitch for starters, and there wasn't any time. They still should have had people grabbing a burning brand from the fire or something.

The Insurance Man

• The first time Arya meets him, he has a conversation with some other man. The man gives the IM some papers and some money, so I guess he wishes to insure his ship/cargo, saying the he has a good past record (I'm guessing, that part was not clear to me). And the IM refuses him anyway. Ok, first of all, why? What exactly was that he "Couldn't do"? Second, even if he does refuse to insure him, why is it treated like something underhanded? It's not like he cheated the man or his relatives out of the payout, like "Ja'qen" says - he just refused to do business with him, as is his right. And why was the bloke so desperate? Was that the only insurance broker in all the Braavos?
  • The point is that the man's family is suffering and this Insurance Agent is using a loophole to not pay them back. He's bringing suffering on a poor family just for the sake of Greed. That supplicant comes to the Many-Faced God's Temple, hence Arya's first Assassination mission.
  • But the man was bringing the IM money, not demanding money! He was saying "take it" and that he returned from some past travels without a scratch, which is why I assume he wanted to insure his goods. It didn't look like he was there for his payout. What was the loophole?
  • OP: I've heard a suggestion that the sailor's next trip was to Slaver's Bay (according to the map he showed to IM), and that's why the old man refused to insure him, because it's a very dangerous place nowadays. Normally, that would just increase the size of the insurance premium, but nevertheless, it's his right to decide it's bad business and refuse to do it.
  • Completely correct! And then there are risks that any conscientious insurer will refuse to take no matter how high the premium, because it's rotten. And it's the fact that he refuses to accept the premium that actually validates him, because he's refusing to take the risk of actually paying out. If refusing to pay out claims is what he's guilty of, then wouldn't he be all too glad to take sailor's money, knowing that he wouldn't pay out no matter what the outcome? The whole "insurance man" setup seems to be playing on this preconceived notion of "nefarious insurance guys" and not knowing how insurance actually works.
  • The itinerary showed the voyage going through the Smoking Sea, which was a bigger deal than Slaver's Bay, I'm sure. The potential customer freaked out because he was denied coverage on a dangerous journey that he presumably still has to go on, insured or not. Jaqen was implying, however, that the insurance broker would routinely not pay on his policies, which was the real issue.
  • If the "routinely not paying out" is the issue, then why was this dude going to Jaqen? He's not in a position to be cheated out of a payout, since Mr. Broker doesn't even want his business. Why would you order a hit on someone just for not wanting to insure you? And from the desperation in the dude's voice (you have to take it! I have a wife and kids! etc) it's pretty clear he knew he wasn't going to make it out alive, which is unethical on his part to try to get insured. Furthermore, if Mr. Broker was (infamous) for not paying his claims, then why was the dude so desperate to do business with him anyway? His wife and kids would starve regardless!
  • I think there's a major misconception at fault here. The supplicant Arya sees being denied is only to Show, Don't Tell that the thin man is an insurance broker, while the man Jaqen speaks of is an entirely different Posthumous Character whose family was cheated after he died at sea, showing that the thin man is a dishonest insurance broker someone wants dead.
  • Alternatively, The IM not actually being shady may have been the whole point. In the same season, we see Meryn Trant in the process of choosing a child to sleep with, but when Arya kills him, it's bad. Why? Because it was an Arya vengeance? Maybe, sure. Or, maybe cause nobody had taken out a hit on Trant. The Faceless Men seem to be more in it for the money than to do good in the world. For all their talk about the Many Faced God, they only ever seem to kill when they are paid in some way. So, maybe the IM wasn't shady. Maybe the point was to show the Faceless Men as shady.

Dragonglass Daggers

• Why was Jon so determined to retrieve the daggers, when two episodes ago Samwell revealed dragonglass is actually Obsidian, which is apparently common enough knowledge, and is common in Dragonstone. Now Jon wasn't there for that, but it stands to reason that Jon would be aware that there was obsidian/dragonglass laying around in the world, so why not cut their losses as soon as possible and resolve to have the watch produce obsidian arrow heads?
  • Obsidian isn't just lying around everywhere. Dragonstone and other volcanic areas are full of it, but Dragonstone is thousands of miles away. Jon can't count on them being able to secure a source of obsidian and getting it to the wall for weapon's production before the army of the dead launches an assault on the wall itself.
  • Jon's also very shaken at that point and wasn't really thinking clearly. Edd even gives him a 'really?' look when Jon insists they go back for them.
  • There is the fact that, until Jon discovers Longclaw's effectiveness in desperation, as far as anyone knows those daggers are the only weapon they have against the White Walkers. Jon may have been thinking they were in trouble should a walker come after them (as indeed the lieutenant does) before they get everyone on the boats. Could also be that while we now know Valyrian steel works too, that stuff isn't common and can't really be relied upon on any wide scale - they can't make new Valyrian steel and there doesn't seem to be more than a few Ancestral Weapons floating around - the dragon glass is all they have, and losing a whole bag full could well lead to a crippling shortage when the wall needs them.
  • The real reason is that everyone forgot about the dragon glass deposits on Dragonstone, and it had to be re-revealed much later.

What what Varys's original plan?

• When Tyrion arrives to Dany's court, he finds himself in a very precarious position, even though he's not responsible for any of her troubles. And yet Varys, who's directly responsible for them, planned to just waltz in and introduce himself? Wasn't he worried she'd execute him, in revenge if nothing else?
  • I say we wait till the end of the season but my feeling is that Varys carefully manipulated events so that Jorah and Tyrion would run into each other. Remember Varys outed Jorah on behalf of Tywin and he just happened to wheel his cart in the general direction of Jorah Mormont...too coincidental by the Spider's standards. My real concern about Varys backing Dany is simply he said in Season 2 that he hates magic and doesn't want Stannis with Melisandre on the Iron Throne? Why does he think its a good idea for Lady with 3 Dragons to take over instead?
  • Presumably Varys doesn't know that dragons are connected to the return of magic. Varys previously served a Targaryen, and the Seven Kingdoms have known dragons before without becoming overrun by wizards and spell-craft. Daenerys doesn't have any sorceresses in her employ, so as far as he knows, she's magic-free.
  • Since his actual goal of putting Aegon on the throne was cut, his, like many characters' stories in this season, is getting a bit weird. It's obvious that now that the writers have realized they can get away with these changes, they're rising into it without really paying attention to what they themselves were setting up.
  • Varys is taking the place of Illyrio in the books, whom Daenerys already knew as a supporter, so there's no official explanation. It's to be assumed that he'd either lie about who he was, never intended to meet her in the first place, or like Tyrion explain himself and hope that Daenerys doesn't make a knee-jerk decision.
  • I note that he finally shows up just as everyone else leaves. I can't help but feel he's playing some sort of game that he hasn't let anyone else in on.
  • Except the show writers enjoy saying, "This is when you hear what this character really thinks," in their supplementary material, have yet to lie in such reveals, and made just such a statement about Varys in the "Inside the Episode" for "The Wars to Come".

Did... did the Sons of the Harpy just kill The Harpy?

• Hizdahr is supposed to be the LEADER of the Sons of the Harpy, what was the purpose of having them kill him? His character has NO purpose because of this change. He's like Quentyn 2.0!
  • He's a classic Red Herring and unlike Quentyn he didn't even unleash the remaining two dragons on the civilian population.
  • There is no indication in the books that Hizdahr would be the Harpy. He's an obvious Red Herring from the start. In the books it is likely that he is in league with the Sons of the Harpy, but him being their leader just makes no sense. The actual Harpy is almost certainly the leader of the Graces who has no appeared in the series.
  • Whether or not Hizdahr turns out to be the Harpy in the books, his character in the show did serve a purpose beyond being a red herring. He demonstrates that yes, there are decent - if flawed - people among Meereen's upper class that are working to make the transition go peacefully.

Trant and Arya

• Right, while tailing Trant (and making very little effort to hide herself), there's a couple of times where Trant looks at her with what appears like recognition or suspicion. So, is it that he actually does recognize Arya to at least some degree, or is it he doesn't actually but it's tied to his later scene in the brothel (i.e. he's eyeing her up as a potential conquest)?
  • I'd say she looks vaguely familiar to him, but he cannot put his finger on it. After all, he'd probably only seen her once in his life for a few moments, and that was several years(?) ago.
  • To expand on this. Just rewatch season 1. Arya has changed noticeably in her looks. Side by side comparisons and you can tell it's the still Maisie Williams but really, only those who knew her well would likely recognize her now. Second, Arya has been missing and presumed likely dead for a while now. It would be a long stretch to bump into somebody who looks sorta like her on the wrong side of the Narrow Sea and realize that it really is her.
  • Also consider that the last time he met Arya, she had lived the cushy life of a highborn girl. The next time he meets her, she's spent some time in prison, on the run or in unfavorable conditions. So not only would she look different, her body language would be different too. And he's not expecting her to be out in public selling seafood in the street. In his mind, Arya would probably be in hiding or keeping a low profile.

The walk back to Castle Black

• So Jon and the Hardhome survivors take the Baratheon fleet back to Eastwatch... and then stay to the north of the Wall on the way back to Castle Black? How does that make more sense than going through the Gift, which is not, as far as anyone knows, crawling with ice zombies?
  • It's obviously done for storytelling reasons: to play up the drama of the Night's Watch begrudgingly letting the invaders in and using the clear demarcation line of the Wall to illustrate the crossing of the forbidden boundary. As far as an excuse, you could possibly say that Jon was being political about it. Showing up at the gate required the rest of the Night's Watch to accept them in. Sacred Hospitality and all that. Just showing up from behind would feel like a sneak attack, and the Night's Watch would have more cause to object.
  • There is also the possibility that Stannis's sailors freaked out at what they saw at Hardhome, and ditched the wildlings at the earliest opportunity.
  • Even so, it would be quicker and safer to retreat along the coast to Eastwatch (equal in latitude to Castle Black), then march the 150 miles inland to Castle Black on the south side of the Wall. (And Eastwatch has to have a gate since there is no way Stannis's army disembarked all that cavalry from "The Children" without the use of Eastwatch's deepwater port.)
  • Nevertheless, had Jon took them south of the wall, the Nightswatchmen could have interpreted it as a sneak attack or invasion, whereas if they arrive in Castle Black, the Nightswatchmen would have had to invite them in.
    • Except Jon went to Hardhome specifically to bring back the wildlings, so his return with them should be anything but surprising except in the, "Wow, he actually did it," and, "Hmm, I thought there'd be more," way.
    • Even after they helped win back Winterfell with considerable losses, a northern lord still refers to their presence as a "Wildling Invasion." Jon wasn't taking any chances, especially with their sworn enemies.
    • Except the chances that the White Walkers would catch up and kill them all and that Thorne would just leave them to die beyond the Wall, right? And since, as you say, they're still considered a "wildling invasion" despite being formally allowed in, what benefit did a formal entry actually bring?

Varys Always Supporting Dany

• When Varys lays out his cards to Tyrion he makes it clear that a long time ago he decided to work for a Targaryen restoration because he decided Robert was going to be a disaster and he's hoping Daenerys will be a great queen. The problem is, why would he think that a sadistic brat like Viserys^note who would come first in the succession or a wallflower like Daenerys was before the show's first season would be at all ideal replacements, let alone worth the violent cost that a Targaryen restoration would require compared to helping some proven figure actually in Westeros onto the throne?
  • Perhaps Varys saw them initially as potential puppet rulers for him to manipulate. His scene with Oberyn in season 4 suggests his designs are on the throne and power, but he knows that he can never personally sit on the throne. But he can have a greater amount of influence on the person who does than he currently possesses.
  • The Doylist explanation is that the writers decided to make Varys much more heroic by giving him a populist motive, even if that didn't match previous characterization. In the first season (as in the books), Varys and Illyrio clearly are supporting Viserys regardless of his competence.
  • Varys would naturally paint his own motives as pure and populist to Tyrion. There's also always the possibility that the idea was that Viserys could have fallen down some stairs at some point, and they always intended the much more pliable Daenerys to be a puppet ruler.
    • If Varys originally wanted Dany as a pliable puppet why does he still support her after she grows into one of the most autocratic leaders (a populist autocrat, sure, but her whole system still centers on her deciding what's best for everyone) in the whole setting?. Plus, Robert's main flaw as a ruler was that he largely let his council (including Varys) do as they pleased with the kingdom, so what benefit would an adamant anti-anarchist like Varys see in staging another bloody and chaotic regime change just to change puppets?
    • It's most likely Varys just committed a error in judgement of character regarding Viserys's competence and lack of brutality, imagining he'd grow out of it once properly advised.

Ramsay and Twenty Good Men attack Stannis's food supply and horses

• An awfully convenient move for the writers, who can now realistically pressure Stannis into burning his own daughter alive. But is the attack itself very realistic, or incredibly random and plot-serving?
  • That was Ramsay. not the Wildlings. But yes, random and plot-serving.
  • I don't see how a scene foreshadowed in the previous episode is in any way "random". Poorly portrayed maybe, but that sort of tactic has been widely used throughout ages by guerrillas used to a hostile environment taking on a larger force who don't know the lay of the land. To me, personally, this reminded me of the Finnish Winter War, where Finnish soldiers would do exactly what Ramsay did to the Russian supply lines, and more. It's amazing how a small group on skis can run circles around a large army stuck in the snow undetected. I just wish the show had shown us how they did it.
  • Also, Ramsay is a Bolton, and the Boltons are still a Northern house. They are more familiar with the terrain and weather than Stannis's southern soldiers and foreign sellswords.
  • The cold would undoubtedly dull the sentries wits, and Ramsay is an expert and stealth and misdirection.
  • He's sneaking into a camp of thousands, locating and burning all their food and siege engines plus dozens of tents and killing hundreds of horses. Then he and his men get out with apparently no one even seeing them. There's stealth, and then there's Solid Snake.
  • The thing is, they were sneaking in at night in the middle of a huge blizzard. The vast majority of those thousands of men would be sleeping, and the remaining sentries would have to deal with extremely poor visibility and the cold hampering their senses. It also appeared that Stannis stored all his supplies in one central location, which just made it easier to destroy them all.
  • Which just adds to the contrived feeling to me. I've seen real blizzards where visibility and snow accumulation are both measured in feet. A whiteout is not a subjective thing. If the sentries are physically incapable of seeing you, how can you identify your targets, track and avoid the sentries, avoid startling any horse when messing around the stables (unless they're Automaton Horses), get your fires started (simultaneously!), then escape completely unseen and unscathed. This doesn't even touch on the idiocy of storing all your supplies in one place for your enemies to target and the lack of a strong guard around the food in a camp of starving men.
  • Maybe they set the horses on fire and had them, in their panic, run through Stannis's camp and handle the rest.
  • How would the horses target the food and weapons? This was one of the worst pieces of writing in the show.
  • The Battle of Guan Du is a poor but recognizable example of this exact thing happening. A smaller unit is sent in in disguise to wipe out an enemies food supply. No food == poor morale == much weaker opponents. Attacking an opponents stores was a common tactic.
  • The real reason? The writers wanted to force Stannis into a desperate situation where he could sacrifice his daughter. Or Ramsay rode through a plot hole.
• This Headscratcher is basically the epitome of Reality Is Unrealistic. There have been countless battles and sieges in history where the decisive tipping point was a small band of men sneaking behind enemy lines undetected and sabotaging their targets.
  • There's also been countless times where such attacks were an utter fiasco. For instance, the decisive moment of the Battle of Quebec in 1775 came when Richard Montgomery and his 50-man vanguard were surprised and cut down by half that many militia while infiltrating the outer palisades during a snowstorm. Point being, even if Ramsay's raid is possible, it's far from a sure thing yet the show does nothing to explain how he actually did it. Contrast this with, say, Daenerys' conquest of Meereen, which is depicted somewhat simplistically but at least establishes they infiltrated via the sewers and enabled a slave uprising. Not to mention that Yara and fifty of her "best killers" weren't enough to overcome Ramsay and his dogs in Season 4.
    • The number of times it's a fiasco has no relevance. You're basically saying "But it was possible for them to fail, and I wanted them to fail, so they should have failed."
    • The number of times it was a fiasco is just as relevant as the number of times it succeeded since it helps contextualize the odds of success or failure, and it's a good storyteller's responsibility to Show, Don't Tell how they succeeded. Anything less is just Diabolus ex Machina.

Why keep Ellaria around?

• Seriously, what reason could Doran have for keeping Ellaria at the Water Gardens after her rebellion? She's already proven she's not above murdering the heir to the Iron Throne to start a war. Why not send her back to the Ullers, or at least keep her confined until Jaime and Myrcella leave?
  • I'd assume that both she and Myrcella are under heavier guard than they previously were. Ellaria isn't a fighter; while she could probably overpower and kill Myrcella if she tried, she wouldn't be able to do the same to any of Doran's mooks, let alone Areo Hotah. She could, in theory, use poison, but I'd again assume she's not being allowed anywhere where she could poison the princess' food or drink. It's worth noting that the Sand Snakes, despite actually being Doran's blood relations, unlike Ellaria, are being kept locked up, probably precisely because they are capable fighters - their actresses' poor displays not withstanding.
  • Problem now is that's pretty much exactly what happened. Ellaria was able to poison Myrcella with her lipstick because Doran did not have any kind of restrictions on her movements, she wasn't being held or kept back at all. No one even batted an eye at the fact that she was going to try and kiss a little girl she had just earlier tried to murder in cold blood..... WTH is Doran thinking?!
  • If that wasn't bad enough, she later very deliberately and conspicuously drinks an antidote, and again, apparently not a single witness around!
  • Because it's been shown that Doran is the type of person who is willing to give somebody the benefit of the doubt. As he has explicitly said before, he believes in second chances, and he at least owes Oberyn in making sure his widow is well taken care of.
  • This, essentially. They kissed the ring, pledged loyalty. Doran is willing to take them at that, and wants them to make some amends. As soon as that boat comes back, though, there will be hell to pay.
  • It's one thing to accept a (very reluctant and strained, mind you) oath of fealty and allow someone a second chance, but to let them completely off the hook and let your guard down around them is another. It's not just Doran - Areo, Jaime, Bronn, Tristan, Myrcella herself - they all knew how hell-bent Ellaria was on hurting Myrcella, and how poison was that family's schtick, and yet not one of them though it might be a good idea to keep her away from the departing Westerosi. Yes, the benefit of hindsight, sure, but come on. Who didn't guess instantly that the kiss was going to be lethal?
  • I guess he wanted to show Jaime he is still in charge of his house and showing the Sands submitting to him and apologizing would prove it. Would be funny that the tiniest amount of pride he had left ends up killing the Extreme Doormat.
  • It does.
  • Maybe the infamous Fight Scene Failure was seen as that in universe? Perhaps Doran thought that since Ellaria's first attempt on Myrcella's life was so badly thought out, he saw her as utterly incompetent and therefore not a threat. Maybe to be charitable, the Sand Snakes kept the poison secret and he had no reason to suspect it.

Why are Jorah and Daario riding alone?

• They are going to search for their queen, with their only pointer being "to the north", likely in the hostile lands. Why in the seven hells are they riding alone? What's stopping them from taking a few dozen men with them? Why aren't they sending several search parties to cover more ground? It's not like they can keep Dany's disappearance a secret, since tons of people likely saw her flying away, and surely they can spare those several dozen out of the ten thousand they have.
  • Perhaps an argument could be made that they're trying to keep every soldier they have available, though you'd think they could send at least some more out to look for literally the most important woman in the region plus keeping their experienced mercenary captain to lead his men.
  • Real Life explanation: Plot convenience. The writers want another buddy road show and don't want to have to pay for a bunch of extras to accompany them, and want to be able to put them into situations where there being only two of them either leads to them being more easily captured or to show them to be that much more badass by handling it with just the two of them. In universe explanation; they're just not that bright.
  • Two is a lot less conspicuous than a whole unit of men. Two men riding alone can likely take care of themselves and can't have much of value, a unit of men is protecting something important enough to assign guards.
  • But they're not just trying to inconspicuously slip from point A to point B. They're a search "party". It isn't a stealth mission. Besides, they are two most recognizable people from Dany's entourage. If there're So H's sympathizers outside, and why wouldn't there be, they're going to need those guards.
  • It's must faster and more efficient for just two men to move around rather than having to drag an entire army with them. The fact that Jorah and Daario tend to be lone wolves anyways also contributes.
  • Again, if they were scouts or messengers then sure, but they're searchers! Besides, nobody said anything about an army - just a squad(s).
  • The less men they send, the less attention they'd attract. Even just one squad (which would either be very conspicuous Unsullied or potentially rowdy Second Sons) would raise questions of who they're working for. Jorah and Daario being alone means they're just a couple of sell swords not worth paying attention. A dozen men traveling together is a lot harder to just glance over.
    • Except the Dothraki behavior when they find Daenerys proves it doesn't matter how few or inconspicuous you are, they're not going to just glance over you, they're (apparently) going to ride the whole khalasar in circles around you and enslave you, so why not be a bit more imposing (Unsullied are renowned for curb-stomping Dothraki in battle) and able to scout for yourself? Or spread the risk across multiple small parties? And what about using Dany's own small khalasar? Presumably they're still around but apparently not doing much, and would probably be rather useful if you need to, say, infiltrate a place like Vaes Dothraki. And, in all honesty, Jorah talks of the Western Market of Vaes Dothrak, so clearly merchants are able to travel through the Dothraki Sea without being unduly harassed, so the very idea that a couple dozen searchers coming out of the major port of Meereen would be resisted at all is itself rather far-fetched.

Why was it wrong for Arya to kill Trant?

• "Jaq'en" scolds Arya for killing Meryn Trant and... then all that craziness follows, but wait, didn't he(?) tell Arya when they were leaving Harrenhal "The girl has many names on her lips... she could offer them all to the Red God, one by one"? Well, that's what she's doing, so what's his problem? Also, he offered her three deaths because she'd saved three lives, why is it suddenly that killing someone requires another death to balance it out? Of course, now I have no idea if anything he ever said made any sense or if he meant it or if it was even him who said it, but still.
  • Faceless Men, and people trying to be Faceless Men, are not supposed to just kill because they want to. They're a religious order of sorts that believes that people should only be killed when those people want death or someone has paid a lot to bring about their death. Jaqen notably refused to help Arya escape from Harrenhal even though he owed her that debt precisely because it would have meant killing more people than she was owed. So even if Arya could someday decide that Cersei would die, that probably would have to be under certain circumstances. Of course, all this is assuming that he wasn't lying just to get her to go to Braavos in the first place.
  • Arya wasn't punished because she killed the wrong person, she was punished because she lied to them about subsuming her identity and becoming "no one" and because she stole one of their 'faces' to do it.
  • Another big deal is that part of becoming "No One" is to completely separate yourself from your previous identity, including your old grudges. Arya killed Trant because that's what Arya, not "No One", would have done. Killing somebody out of personal revenge goes against everything the Faceless Men have been trying to teach her.
  • This works except for one problem. He offered her the skill to kill everybody on her list. The names on her lips, as it were. Why would he offer her that if he knew that, in accepting his offer, she wouldn't be allowed her own vengeance?
  • He lied, I guess?
  • Another thought that came to me is that the first statement was made in Westeros, but Arya killed Trant in Braavos. It's possible that, since the Faceless Men are a known order with a highly visible headquarters, they may have to play by the rules (only paid contracts, etc) when they are home in Braavos at risk of being flushed out. When they are in Westeros, they are guided only by their creed.
  • Another distinct possibility: the wording of Jaqen's original proposition is a little bit vague, but he doesn't actually offer her Faceless Man training, though Arya expresses the desire to learn. What he offers her is the chance to offer up the names on her list; so, it's possible that Jaqen wasn't offering her employment, but a contract - she goes to Braavos and gives her little hit list to the Faceless Men in exchange for an unmentioned payment. Of course, if the Waif's story has even the vaguest element of the truth to it, it's possible that said payment might very well be Arya's indentured servitude as a Faceless Man.
    • Makes sense. Then when she showed up and just asked to be a Faceless Man without wanting any additional payment for herself, a man shrugged, decided a girl just had no idea how to haggle, and saved himself the effort.
  • Maybe it's not the Jaqen she met at Harrenhal? I mean recruiters can lie to enlist people and you can kill the people you want is a ice incentive, plus Harrenhal Jaqen was not into killing himself which is odd given Braavos Jaqen poison himself and appears to be everyone.
  • I think that despite everything, the Faceless Men really did want to kill Trant. He was escorting Mace Tyrell who was on a diplomatic mission to the Iron Bank. The faith of the Many-Faced God and Iron Bank all have interests in Braavos, with the Iron Throne's debt a major commodity at stake here. The Faceless Men know Arya had every reason to kill Meryn Trant, and that she is impulsive enough to do so without their prodding, because she might question why they are so eager to feed her this morsel. Once the dirty deed is done, they act all disapproving because that is honestly what Arya suspects will be their reaction. They temporarily blind her, up the difficulty of her training to prepare her for future assassinations, then goad her until she is determined to return to Westeros, where she will continue killing the people on her list, unwittingly serving the nefarious goals of the Faceless Men with their skills, but without knowing it.

How do the Faceless Men have Arya's face "on file"?

• The enrollment of faces in the Hall of Faces appears to be related to Arya's duties in preparing corpses when she first entered the House of Black and White. How, then, did the Faceless Men get Arya's face to teach her a lesson when she is (presumably) not dead?
  • Listen to what "Jaqen" says about how using faces without knowing what they do can be like "poison". The scene where Arya removes all those multiple face-within-face shouldn't be taken literally. It's a hallucination and finally triggers blindness.

Dany's Ring

• So. Word of God says that Dany dropped her ring in the middle of the field before the Dothraki presumably captured her, so that anyone looking for her (I forget if they mentioned anyone specific, but it's probably Jorah, Tyrion, et al.) would be able to find her. Except... it's a pretty freakin' huge field, and a very small ring. How does she know that they would know or think to look in THAT particular field (which was probably miles away from the fighting pits)? Or that they'd even think to look for the ring? What are the chances that someone (not necessarily looking for Dany) would just randomly come across the ring and know what it symbolized?
  • It's the best she could do, and it's better than nothing.
  • Agree that it was pretty much her only move at the moment. As to how her trackers could us it to find her, we'll have to wait and see. I imagine that they'll be able to get a general location by finding Drogon, either seeing him in the sky or finding his roasted prey. From there, it would be pretty easy to notice the fresh khalasar tracks, which lead to the huge circle they ran around Dany, at the center of which is her ring. That will tell them that the khalasar took her, so they should keep following the khalasar.
  • If people are out looking for her, then they're bound to be looking everywhere for any sign that she might have passed through there. Perhaps she was hoping that Drogon would leave more clues that a dragon was in the area, and thus help them narrow the search to the field.

Regarding Jaime and the Dorne plot

• This boggles me because last season, Ser Gregor admitted while killing Oberyn that he killed Elia and her children in front of the whole court. In the books, Tywin wants Pycelle to heal the Mountain so he can send him to Dorne so Doran can execute him or deliver his head to him because Tywin doesn't want to anger the Martells again. In the show, this wasn't brought up and in Season 5 when Cersei received Myrcella's necklace which is a threat to her family for killing Elia and Oberyn, Jaime and Bronn went to Dorne to take Myrcella under Doran's nose. Now here's the problem: Cersei and Jaime are present in the trial by combat and heard the Mountain's confession of killing Elia and her children. How come this never came into their minds that the actual reason why the Martells hate the Lannisters is because they have the Mountain in custody who admitted in front of the court for killing their family member during Robert's Rebellion? Or did they just have amnesia? Sure, Cersei is dumb enough to notice it. But Jaime? Come on, the guy was at the Red Keep during the Sack on King's Landing where he killed the Mad King and Elia was there too until the Mountain killed her. It would have been a great Redemption Quest where Jaime would have apologize to Doran for not protecting Elia and her children at that time considering that in the books, Rhaegar's ghost haunted in him in his dream on why he didn't protect his wife and children. And in turn, Doran would have made an agreement to Jaime to bring Ser Gregor or his head to him because he admitted killing his sister in exchange of bringing Myrcella back to King's Landing with Trystane filling his uncle's post in the small council. Also, Ellaria wouldn't gone great lengths to poison Myrcella if Doran and Jaime would have made an agreement of having the Mountain, Oberyn's killer, executed for his atrocity in the past.
  • It's not really about the Mountain. Gregor was just the trigger man. (It's unlikely that anybody outside the Red Keep knows Gregor is still alive, either. In the books, at least, the Martells knew full well that Oberyn was using poison and nobody was counting on Cersei having a Mad Scientist on the payroll.) Tywin was always the arch-villain in the Martells' minds. Now he's dead, and Ellaria, in her not-quite-rational state of mind, has settled on exacting her vengeance on Tywin's family, regardless of their actual involvement in Oberyn's death, or those of Elia and her children.
  • To be fair bringing Gregor's head does nothing in the books to appease the Martells (come to think of it why Tywin thought it was gonna change anything? Here is the guy who killed your siblings on my order after he is worthless to me, we cool?) so sneaking was a better idea than offering something of little to no value to Doran.

Bolton's Cavalry

• Would the Northerners really be able to muster such a huge mounted army? Horses need food, a lot of it. It seems weird that the harsh and cold lands could support such a great number of them. What are they feeding them with? Are these Stannis's deserters?
  • From the books at least, Robb takes three to four thousand cavalry with him when he marches south, so it isn't impossible that the Boltons could rally any survivors as well as any forces that hadn't marched south. It's certainly possible that the deserters would decide to go over to the side that might give them some hope of not freezing to death. Also it's not clear if it was just human limitations or deliberate, but the Bolton force that marched against Stannis is estimated to be just a couple thousand strong total.
  • It is very likely that the sellswords joined up with the Boltons after deserting Stannis. After all, the Boltons are a rich noble family and are in need of troops, and the sellswords are in a sudden need of a new boss. It's the perfect setup.

Sons of the Harpy Quantity & Anonymity

• Where exactly are the Sons of the Harpy getting so many members willing to fight until death against the occupiers, even a dragon does not scare them, yet somehow their identities remain secret despite plenty of bodies who if members of nobility would be easily recognized by locals?
  • While the leaders of the Sons of Harpy are nobility, they don't make up the bulk of their rank and file. There wouldn't be nearly enough of them and they wouldn't have the required fighting skills. No, the fighters are people who lost their livelihood when Dany took over — slavers, guards, soldiers, that sort of folk. The nobles are smart enough to realize that if one of them was found conspiring with the Harpies, then Dany would take revenge on the rest of their house.
  • Well "Oathbreaker" says that they are backed by the three nations that were pressuring Dany separately in the book. So they probably have professionals on their payroll which make it heterogeneous and hard to know who is the real leader or if he is even in Meereen since some of them might be slave soldier from Yunkai or sellswords from Volantis.

Escape of Team Meereen

• Seriously, how did Jorah, Tyrion, Grey Worm and Missandei escape the Sons of the Harpy? Did Dany flying off mean the Sons just decided to leave without killing members of the regime they hate, even though Jorah had killed some of them?
  • Drogon did fry lots of Sons of the Harpy before flying away. Apparently, the remaining number of them was not enough to overpower Jorah, Grey Worm and the Unsullied. So they either fled or were killed.

S 6 Trystane

• Just where exactly does Trystane's assassination take place? On the boat, I guess? But then, how in the Seven Hells did the Sand Snakes get there? They stayed in Dorne! Are these some different Snakes? But in the departure scene none of them were shown boarding the ship? Did they somehow sneak aboard and then stayed hidden until the ship arrived to King's Landing?
• Also, some minor boggles, like: Why was Trystane even there? Why isn't his cabin guarded? Were all guards in on the coup? Why doesn't he call for help? What did he expect to happen when he turned his back to a spear wielding assassin?
  • The shot shows Trystane's ships anchored at harbor. He was traveling separately from Myrcella with his own retinue. That's why the Sand Snakes were able to sneak on board and whack him.
  • But both the departing shot in "Mother's Mercy" and the arriving one here showed only one ship, and Cersei's handmaid mentioned "a Dornish ship" as well. And why would Trystane even travel separately from his beloved bride? Neither does it answer the question why he instead stayed aboard there of landing with Jaime to, at the very least, express his condolences to the grieving mother, or why would his retinue include Sand Snakes in the first place, and how can they be there when they stayed in Dorne, and how is it possible that he clearly knows about Myrcella's death but those bitches are still alive.
  • In Jaime's letter to Doran, he's sending Trystane in that same ship that brought them to King's Landing back to Dorne because he knew that Cersei would hurt him (we know what kind of person Cersei is, all right?) regardless if Jaime told her that Ellaria and the Sand Snakes are responsible. He probably wouldn't want Trystane to come because Cersei might took him hostage on spot. As for those two Sand Snakes, they probably rode a boat and sneak into the ship unnoticed when it's en route to King's Landing. Though it's never explained why Jaime or Bronn never noticed if they're on the ship. Or they're probably too busy mourning for Myrcella.
  • Would he have that much love for the boy at that point and that much care for his well-being? Wouldn't he also want to have Trystane as a hostage, to ensure Doran's cooperation, or as a leverage, should it come to war anyway? As for the Sand Snakes, Jaime had a huge head start. They'd have needed a motorboat to catch up with him. I guess the ship's crew could have slowed it down, if they were in cahoots with the Snakes, but without any of the passengers noticing? Yes, Jaime and Trystane were probably dumbstruck with grief, but Bronn certainly wouldn't be - he should've been, on the contrary, on high alert for any further mischief.
  • The letter above showed that Jaime is level-headed than Cersei. We already saw his Character Development when his hand got cut off and how he treated Brienne and requested her to guard Sansa afterwards despite a few holes (such as that infamous rape scene in Season 4). He's more into doing the right thing than doing for the sake of family name. But of course, No Good Deed Goes Unpunished. Likewise, Ellaria is going to kill Doran anyway and she wouldn't care if Trystane is held hostage which is why those two bastards were sent to kill him.
• I don't know, his talk to Cersei was quite (understandably) bloodthirsty: "We'll take it all from them" and such. And I'm not saying he should've executed the boy or let Cersei do that but send him back? Likewise, he didn't know about Doran's death until much later (hence the letter), and if he knew or suspected, then sending Trystane there is tantamount to killing him, so it makes even less sense.
  • Jaime thought Doran is a powerful lord as demonstrated when he ordered Areo to apprehend Ellaria and the Sand Snakes in Season 5's "Unbent, Unbowed, Unbroken". When he sent that letter to him, he expected that Doran's going to punish them upon receiving the news of Myrcella's death. But he didn't know that Doran is really a weak leader until in "Oathbreaker" where he warned his uncle Kevan about Ellaria and the Sand Snakes overthrowing the Martells and taking over Dorne.

S 6 Jaime

• No, seriously, why doesn't Jaime turn back? He has to know who did it - there was literally one suspect. He has to know Doran wasn't in on it, otherwise they'd all been already dead, so it's safe to return and demand Ellaria's head. Just... why.
  • Logically speaking, he came to Dorne without an army, one-armed and only Bronn for company, and they barely escaped alive. If he goes back to Dorne he can't possibly be effective, nor warn Cersei and Tommen. Likewise, Jaime probably assumed that for the Sand Snakes to whack Myrcella, either Doran had to be in it, or that the Sand Snakes are confident in their power to subvert him or make him useless.
  • But they didn't "barely escape alive". They left with comfort, having forged an alliance with the Dornish ruler. It makes no sense for Doran to be in on it, and if Snakes were that powerful then one thinks their coup wouldn't have been so pathetic and so easily quelled.
  • You would think that but then their second coup worked! Call it a sixth sense or reading the script but if Jaime came back he would have get killed with Doran while no soldiers bat an eye so he didn't.
  • He already know who did it, judging by his letter to Doran. Also, he has to bring Myrcella's body back to King's landing as soon as possible before he call his army. When he heard that the Martells are overthrown by Ellaria and the Sand Snakes, he knows this is serious which why he tried to explain it to his uncle Kevan before he got shunned.

S 6 Hounds

• What happens to the hounds when Brienne comes to Sansa's aid? One moment they're there, next - poof, they're gone. What, were they not allowed to show poor doggies being killed?
  • Most likely they ran away scared when Brienne and Pod intervened. They are used to chasing unarmed people on foot, not armed ones on horseback.
  • They're dogs. They can't be smart enough to understand what a "hostile armed rider" is, and they should be accustomed to being around horses in general so even the commotion shouldn't spook them. Keep their distance and wait for an opening, maybe, but run away completely from people who haven't even attacked them yet? No way.
  • Maybe they were confused as to who the new people on horseback were, mistaking them for other masters, and as soon as their own masters were killed they ran away, as the leader of their pack had just been killed?
  • There is a distinction between tracking hounds and attack hounds. Tracking hounds not only are bred to have a good nose, but also must be small and fast to keep up with horses and prey, and typically are not meant to actually fight. Attack dogs at generally larger and stronger breeds, with less emphasis on heightened senses to track targets.
    • In real life, yes, but Ramsay also used his hunting hounds as attack dogs to run off Yara and her heavily-armed squad, and these are Ramsay's hounds since Theon just told Sansa, "I've seen what these hounds can do to a person" (i.e. Ramsay's hunt in "Two Swords"). If they were enough to run off "the 50 best killers in the Iron Islands" is it so unreasonable to except them to be a slight problem for Brienne and Pod?
  • There were six Bolton men, but Brienne and Co killed only five, So, the sixth one probably fled with the dogs as soon as he saw the "hostile armed rider".

S 6 Boltons

• Does Roose Bolton have a death wish or something? Why does he keep reminding his amoral monster of a son, that the latter's about to outlive his usefulness?
  • Ramsay is very much a "Well Done, Son" Guy and Roose is a master manipulator: He always gave Ramsay a way out: find Sansa, produce an heir and you'll be my good son again.
  • And if he cannot, then he has nothing to lose, and his only options are to act against either Roose or Walda, which, what a shock, is exactly what he ends up doing. That's some good master manipulation right there!
  • If Roose dies, Ramsay has nothing. Ramsay might be a crazy sadist, but he understands that.
  • Why? If Roose dies (from a natural cause, obviously), then Ramsay gets everything as his heir.
  • Why shouldn't he? Using Ramsay's bastardy against him worked for the first twenty years of his son's life. And someone who has spent their entire life being berated for something they couldn't help will happily continue to endure that abuse, even in high-stress situations where they hold all the power. Just ask Tywin Lannister.
• For that matter, why is Ramsay even so agitated? Ok, Walda is having a baby. So? Ramsay still has priority in inheritance, doesn't he? Yes, sure, Roose might decide to kill him, but even notwithstanding the logistics (obviously, the most hateful person in the North cannot be easy to kill, or someone would've already done it), if Roose kills him, then instead of an, all things considered, shrewd and effective commander, he will end up with a baby who will take years to be of any use and even then who knows how he will come out to be.
  • Well if Roose was to die to his enemies then Ramsay would likely expect loyalty from the Boltons yes. But if there's even a hint that he's in some way involved, the word 'bastard' will start getting thrown around quite a bit and efforts will be made for accidental falls from the ramparts. Ramsay is a very effective Psycho for Hire, but he's too young and blatant to build a reliable power base within the house. And Roose's threats of disinheritance are clearly motivational bluster, designed to drive Ramsay towards 1. Being a bit more sensible. 2. Fixing this mess. I don't doubt You Have Outlived Your Usefulness might come into play if Ramsay gets 'really' out of control, but as you said that would be a considerable waste.
  • Because it still doesn't change the fact that he's a bastard. Sure, he been "legitimized", but the only thing backing that up is essentially a piece of paper written by a dead king from a house they're planning to declare war against. Plus this is a status that Roose as a lord can revoke at any time he chooses. Blood is a very serious subject in Westeros, and by that measure Ramsay will always be considered a bastard. This means Roose's "legitimate" son with Walda will always have a potentially superior claim over Ramsay.
  • Fair enough, but this again means only that Roose is forcing Ramsay's hand. "if Roose was to die to his enemies" - funny that you say this...
  • Even if his legitimization isn't revoked, the rules of succession get really muddled when legitimized bastards enter the equation. One of the larger civil wars in the Seven Kingdoms happened exactly because a king legitimized all his bastards on his deathbed, leading the older bastard of the bunch to declare war against the younger heir. If the results of this war are used as precedent, then the younger kid who was born legitimate should be the one succeeding.

S 6 Mereenese Fleet

• How in the Seven Hells do you burn 93 ships, apparently in the broad day, without any struggle or alarm?! One or two I could understand, but all of them? Did the Harpies hire Ramsay and Sir Twenty for the job?
  • First, all the ships were very densely docked; second Meereen is a desert city and third, this is the most important, the Sons of the Harpy was mentioned to be extremely well-organized by Tyrion in the PREVIOUS scene.
  • There's also the other option: the city's public order is so broken down that no-one even tried to put out the ships in time to matter; it wasn't necessarily even sabotage. Entire cities have burned down in the past - Chicago, Rome, and London to name a few - because they were built of easily flammable materials and they lacked a good firefighting service.
  • Have you seen the Sons of Harpy? Even Ramsay's 20 good men couldn't pull out half their shit (mass slaughtering Unsullied, killing a named character, sneaking a hundred men inside an arena, fighting a dragon without hesitation, etc.)

S 6 Night Watch mutineers

• Why would the mutineers leave Jon's body outside? Regardless of whether they expected Davos and the others to take it away, wouldn't they want to immediately burn it, just so that he doesn't turn into a wight? What, were they so shocked by their deed that they just forgot about it and needed some time to regain their composure?
  • More likely "let's leave it here and go deal with our brother inside first". Second, some of the culprit was clearly ashamed of their actions: the two guys sat next to Thorne can barely lift their face, in fact only Olly and Thorne seem smug with themselves so likely no one volunteer to clean up the body of the man they just betray. Third, dispose of Jon's body isn't really a priority for them: Thorne had nothing to hide, he freely admit he kills Jon.
  • In addition, it sends a message, since he was killed and left under a very conspicuous sign labeled "TRAITOR".
  • At the very least, it prevents him from rising as a wight. Also, it prevents his supporters from finding the body and doing something unthinkable, like sending a runner to the Wildling army Thorne oh so cunningly let inside. Oh, what a shock, that's exactly what ends up happening. You'd think he'd at least put the castle on lock down until he can consolidate his reign and deal with the rest of Snow's supporters.
• Speaking of which, if Thorne was adamantly objected to letting the Wildlings in... why in the Seven Hells did he let them in?! Yes, they were led by the NW Lord Commander, but it doesn't mean you can't have some deliberations about it. There was no emergency, it wasn't like the White Walkers would've fallen upon them that very instant. Just have them set up a camp outside while you're making up your mind, if it's such a huge deal. All of Jon's supporters were there outside with him. So if Thorne'd said: "Ok, I'll open the gates, but only for our... brothers. The rest will stay there until we talk with Snow and decide on this." I don't think there'd be any objections. And if Snow keeps insisting on letting them in, THEN he could've given his speech about how it's against everything the Watch stands for, which, as we've seen was quite enough to turn the remaining Watch to his side. This way Snow either concedes or is forced to resign or, well... valar morgulis, but the important thing is that the Wildlings stay safely behind the wall.
  • Simply put, as long as Jon lives, Thorne can't fulfill his purpose, be it becoming the Lord commander or rooting out the corruption if the Night Watch. Jon is charismatic, respected by most of the Watch and much better educated. Let Jon talk and he will convince most of his brother that what he's doing is righteous. In fact, that's exactly what he did in the book, let the Wilding in, let Stannis's army stay and eat the Watch's stock for the Winter, he got away with all of them. It took an act of downright treason for the old guard of the Watch to finally act. Back to the show, knowing that he like couldn't out-talk his Lord Commander, Thorne did the next best thing: play along and gather his supporter and assassinate Jon in the dark.
  • Thorne would not have been able to get away with publicly defying the Lord Commander in the open like that, especially if Jon still had loyalists on the Wall. This is exactly why he murdered Jon in middle of the night and only told the other Night's Watchmen after the fact, as at that point even if they were still loyal to Jon there really wasn't anything they could do about it.
  • "Thorne would not have been able to get away" Why not? If Lord Commander is at the head of a 5000-strong Wildling force, then it stands to reason that he either turned, is not right in the head, or is held hostage. LC is not an absolute monarch, he's an elected official and is bound by the rules of the Watch, which Jon is clearly violating. Thorne would've been completely in the right - he's obeying his LC's orders to open the gate but he's also obeying his vows to NOT let the Wildling is. It's Jon's order that would be a conflicting one. As for the prospect of Jon convincing his brothers anyway, yes, it's a possibility, but not a certainty at all. Jon's been remarkably unconvincing, when it came to the Wildling problem. I don't think he used his "If we don't let them in, the White Walkers will turn them into undead, you idiots" trump card even once. Also, it's clear that his supporters were in absolute minority, because otherwise yes, there was "something they could've done about it", namely, shove a blade up Thorne's ass. But they weren't, and Thorne obviously knew that. Meaning Jon would've probably failed to convince them and it would've been quite easy for Thorne to at least depose him, if not overthrow by force. All the while, I'd like to remind, the five thousand Wildlings would've remained safely beyond the Wall.
  • Actually, Jon repeatedly argued that the Wildlings would join the Army of the Dead if they weren't allowed through. That was his main selling point all along. But to Thorne the White Walkers were still just something that troubled the north of the Wall, not an issue that would threaten the south, and in his mind the Wildlings are still the biggest threat that the Watch can face.
  • I don't recall him stressing it enough to the Watch specifically, but whatever. As I said, yes, it was a possibility, but not a certainty. Meaning that, unless I'm missing something, letting Jon in alone and have him try to convince the Watch to let the Wildlings in was still a much better option than just letting them all in. Hell, maybe the remaining watchmen would've unanimously argued that letting 5K wildlings in is ok, as long as it's Lord Commander's order, I don't know, but would it harm to at least raise that point?
    • Jon had previously executed Janos Slynt for disobeying orders. He would have a reputation as a Lord Commander who does no tolerate backtalk from cowards and rule hagglers. Thorne had not raised objections to Slynt's execution (probably because he would have done the same thing) and was rewarded richly with command of the rangers. For him to suddenly start negotiating on orders is not only against Thorne's own authoritarian views, he would also appear ungrateful. Also, I think the general mood at Castle Black must still have favored Jon, even with his most staunch supporters outside the wall, because Thorne is not someone who allows others' opinions to easily sway him. These brothers make their vows to obey orders on the Seven and on heartwood trees. Disloyalty is not just treason, to some it must feel more like damning their souls.
  • An order to take command of a decrepit castle is not exactly the same as to violate the core principles of the Watch (which, accidentally, is what their Vows actually are about) is it? Also, Jon appointed Thorne the First Ranger before his confrontation with Slynt, so, logically, wouldn't Thorne want to make it most definitely not look like a bribe, by, say, following Jon's much more questionable orders without at least a discussion?
• It's simple — Thorne can't afford to rebel while King Stannis is still alive. Stannis would just hang the mutineers and force the Night's Watch to reopen the gate.
  • Right. Which is why he murders his Lord Commander. Clearly Stannis will be A'ok with that, it will most definitely not be seen as being an ungrateful rule haggling coward. Also, Stannis would care about those wildlings... why now?

Did Varys send a memo about his junk?

• Why does even the slavers knows he is an eunuch? He told Tyrion's story about how he became one but does he told this story to everyone?
  • He has the stereotypical appearance of a eunuch: he's plump, bald and wears effeminate clothing — the two first are the result of hormonal changes that the loss of testicles brings, while the latter part fits with cultural expectations. And the slavers most certainly know what a eunuch is supposed to look like.
  • Slavers make Unsullied out of eunuchs why do they have the bald and plump stereotype when the shaved and athletic Grey Worm is their usual eunuchs?
  • The Unsullied are not remotely the standard of eunuchs, they are very specialized war slaves of a single city. Also, in the books they too are prone of being slightly overweight in spite of their strict training regimen.
  • A single city known for selling the best infantry made of eunuchs to every kingdom on the continent with the right price, Varys was some boy who got castrated for blood magic, how come that is the most popular portray of a eunuchs and even if we go by his clothes most of Essos aristocracy got him beat in the effeminate wardrobe department. The Yunkai emissary has eyeliner.
  • Also, Tyrion openly makes comments about him being eunuch, so that's not that much of a secret.
  • Yes but not in front of the slavers ambassador and for all they know he is just making fun of Varys the same way Umbers called Karstark a boyfucker.
  • Or maybe it's simply because the slavers already know who Varys is. He is after all a native of Essos and is very well associated with powerful people there.
  • Varys is fairly well-known both in Westeros and Essos. This knowledge is what got him hired by Aerys in the first place. Him being a eunnch might be known as well.
  • It is known could be the actual answer here.

Bran's idiocy

• Notwithstanding that the trip was unauthorized, why did Bran think it was a good idea to go for a walk through the horde of wights? He already knew that his trips were more than mere flashbacks, that they were at least somewhat interactive (such as his young father probably hearing him). I'm not saying he should've predicted what was going to happen, but what was he doing there?
  • Inside the episode reveal he was drifting, he didn't want to see the White Walkers but since the raven did not upload his knowledge yet not only does Bran not know how to navigate in dream but he can't even get out of here if it'S the wrong place.
  • So far, Bran had not been able to directly physically interact with anything in his visions, so what reason did he have to believe that the Night's King could literally reach out and touch him?
• Immediate afterwards, Bran learned that the enemy was coming for him, and that their hideout was compromised. And knowing that he... went into another flashback? And now Raven was with him, so he was ok with that?! What?! Why didn't they leg it immediately? It's not like some crucial last-minute piece of information was revealed there, it was just another Slice of Life they enjoyed together, like they were still completely safe. Yes, Stable Time Loop and all, but as I argued elsewhere there has to be a good present reason why the universe decided to shape itself this way.
  • Word of God says that the Raven was trying to "download" all of his knowledge to Bran through the vision. However, this wasn't made particularly clear in the show.
  • He told Bran it was time to become him before entering his mind.
• Speaking of, since Raven wasn't surprised in the slightest and immediately knew what the Night King's touch meant, shouldn't he have warned Bran beforehand to stay away from all possible things Walker? He knew the boy was attracted to the flashbacks and was likely to undertake them, guided or not.
  • It's very likely the Raven foresaw what would happen and just rolled with it, just like how Jojen willingly marched to his prophesied death.

Euron's idiocy

• Why didn't Euron order Yara and Theon imprisoned or killed once he swayed the Ironborn to his side? He just confessed to killing their father, I doubt anyone would object too much.
  • Because he wasn't officially the king yet. He had no authority to order anything until the coronation ceremony was complete.
  • Well first he has to survive a drowning before ordering people around.
  • Fine, suggest to have them imprisoned. Alternatively, he clearly has his own loyal men, well order them do it and see if anyone else objects.
  • Aeron would have shut him down. He's extremely particular when it comes to the Kingsmoot. Remember how he put Yara in her place when she said she would execute Balon's killer?
• Also, shouldn't have the ships been guarded? What is up with these people and horrible naval security that lets tiny forces burn or highjack entire fleets?
  • Because Yara is a highly respected Ironborn captain who has been running the Iron Fleet since she was a child. It's not too much of a stretch to assume that most of the Iron Fleet is loyal to her, or are least were Balon loyalists who know they'll be on the chopping block once Euron is king. Also, with the speed at which they carried out the hijacking, Yara and Theon most likely planned it ahead of time in the event Yara couldn't secure the salt throne.
  • Also Euron cutting out his sailors' tongues is canon to the show so it must be easy to convince the best ship's captains it's time to bail before the crazy king throw up seawater.
• Also, since Yara only had what looked a few dozen people with her, if that, surely they could've only stolen a few ships, even if the best ones? Why doesn't Euron instantly mount a chase?
  • As said before, Yara was practically running the Iron Fleet long before Euron ever came back. Who said she only had a few dozen followers? Plus, with the most of the Iron Fleet gone, what ships could Euron chase them with?
    • But if Yara commands the loyalty of such a powerful force why does she feel the need to flee into exile at all instead of immediately staging The Coup against Euron, which she immediate starts plotting in Volantis. And before you say, "Because the kingsmoot is sacred," remember that the show does zilch to establish that fact, indeed, everyone's fine with Euron saying, "Where are my niece and nephew? Let's go murder them," and Yara even promises the same to him during the kingsmoot.

Sansa's logic

• I can actually understand Sansa's reluctance to reveal her source, since Jon has all reasons to hate Baelish and little reasons to trust anything he said. But I don't understand her argument for not sending a raven to Riverrun. "Ramsay may intercept it"? What? HOW?! It's one thing to shoot ravens sent by a castle you've surrounded, but how in Seven Hells would Ramsay know that somewhere in the vastness of North there's a specific raven flying to a specific location, yet alone be able to intercept it? Yes, Ramsay'd been able to pull some credibility-defying stunts but this is ridiculous. For that matter, how is sending a lone rider any safer, when roads are indeed something Ramsay can easily cordon, not to mention how much slower would it be?
  • Maybe she just used a convenient excuse to separate the now trigger-happy Brienne from Davos and Melisandre? Given how Brienne seemed to develop a taste for blood after Stannis, this might be a good idea.
  • Except Ramsay knows Sansa is holed up at Castle Black. He can just have his own men or the Karstarks and Umbers intercept any ravens they see headed south. At least with Brienne, she can do a better job evading patrols. She managed to journey her way north virtually undetected, after all.
  • Well Ramsay might still be friends with the Frey and I doubt Blackfish retook all of Riverlands so the raven might be out of table. And how bad do you think it's gonna be if the Frey can prove to the Bolton to assist in killing the Blackfish.
• While I also understand her unwillingness to have anything to do Littlefinger, wouldn't it be smarter to take him prisoner? If he indeed has a loyal army, very well, send a raven to them and tell them to come, while Baelish is... being a guest at Castle Black. I didn't get an impression that Sansa was in a position to throw entire armies away just because she doesn't like people who bring them.
  • Because the Lords of the Vale aren't exactly stupid. Plus, they'd love nothing more than an excuse to get rid of Littlefinger, so that course of action would very likely backfire on Sansa, and she of all people know that the Lord of the Vale hate Littlefinger.
• Technically she does not need Littlefinger (wherever he is) to have those armies - Lords of the Vale know her identity and they already said they would help her. But this raises another question - why doesn't she try to contact them directly as well, at least to ensure they remain on her side? Which can change any moment now, because Littlefinger controls armies of the Vale through Robin, and seeing Starks restored to the North, instead of just Sansa who is supposed to feel indebted and grateful to uncle Petyr for all his help, is the last thing he wants... no, really, what didn't she tell Brienne to whack this guy right then and there?
  • Robin won't show up if his cousin killed his favorite uncle and the Vale lords don't like leaving their mountains Stark or no Stark (where was Royce's help when Sansa was given to the Boltons? He said he knew about it yet no troops were mobilized). Although even with that Sansa should know that Littlefinger is too dangerous to keep alive no matter how bad a move it is short term. Long term is Petyr is dead which is the best future.
  • What can the Lords of the Vale possibly do? Littlefinger demonstrated in the previous episode that he has Robin in the palm of his hand. Littlefinger also most likely has spies managing the ravens, too, so trying to contact the Lords of the Vale directly would be very dangerous.

Sword-stealing

• Why did Sam steal his father's sword? Not only was that monumentally stupid, since, obviously, Lord Tarly will "bloody try" to get it back, and I don't see how Sam expects to get away with it (even if Tarly's men don't catch up with him right away, he knows where Sam is going to), but what exactly was that supposed to achieve? Yes, a Valyrian steel sword is a valuable anti-Walker asset, but it's not worth dying for, at least not in this fashion, and besides, the sword wasn't going anywhere. Or was it just a "Fuck you, dad" gesture? Because that is an even less death-worthy cause.
  • With Randyll's disdain for the intellectuals he can try asking the Maesters to give him his son when that means they have to find someone else dumb enough to go to the Wall as new Maester. Yoren told kingsmen that the Watch is above their jurisdiction so lords probably have an even weaker say in this. Worst case the people of Old Town asks Sam to hand over the sword and Randyll is still humiliated for having the son he mistreated for being a wimp stealing his family heirloom.
  • Actually, no, worst (and most likely) case scenario is them either outright accusing Sam of theft, since as noted below, he forfeited his claim to the sword, or ambushing him and maiming/killing him.
  • I find it very likely that Sam deliberately stole the sword to goad his father into chasing after him and Gilly. He is not stupid, and he knows both the sword's value and the fact that it's next to impossible for anyone halfway informed to not recognize it for what it is. I wouldn't put it past Sam at this point for having outright murderous intents for his father, at this point, and at the very least he's planning to humiliate Randyll by besting him with his wits and newfound courage, rather than quietly back off, like he's always done in the past.
  • Besting him how? Yeah, sure, D&D have pretty much abandoned any pretense of plausibility or logic by this point, so Sam somehow reaches Oldtown without his father catching up to him, but it's not like he could rely on it, could he?
  • It could just be something simple as Sam getting a in a little revenge against his father. After all, technically, the sword is rightfully his. Taking it means he's reasserting his claim over it as well as getting back at Lord Tarly for disparaging Gilly.
    • The sword isn't rightfully Sam's by any measure. Its the family sword, so it belongs to the Head of the House, which is Randyll. And Sam has joined the Night's Watch, so he has lost any right he had to the sword.
    • Yes, joined the Night's Watch after basically being threatened with a tragic hunting "accident" if he didn't. I'd be surprised if Sam didn't want to get back at his father by hitting him where it would hurt the most: the family legacy.
    • That still doesn't change the fact that he'd forfeited his claims to it and therefore has stolen it.
    • More to the point, even if Sam was set to inherit the sword, it still isn't his now. Just because your parents pledge you something in their will doesn't make it yours right now. Even Dickon doing what Sam did would legally be theft, even by today's standards.
  • I don't think it's at all obvious that Lord Tarly will try to get it back. I mean, he may try, but Sam may know that his efforts won't amount to much. Lord Tarly's position isn't exactly a secure one as it is... he's apparently never been a particularly powerful or well-liked lord and it's not like he's going to rally his army and go chasing after his fat son over a sword, even an heirloom one (which would also force him to admit to the world at large that his fat son had the balls to take his fucking sword and escape in the night). Even if he sent one or two trusted men or sellswords after Sam, he can't exactly do that now without his wife asking him about how he got the sword back when it just turns up again one day. Tarly would be pissed as all get-out but his options for actually doing anything about it that wouldn't fuck himself over even worse are limited, which Sam probably knew.
    • Actually, at least in the books he's supposed to be one of the best warlords in Westeros, if I'm not mistaken. And yeah, obviously he wouldn't need to send an army - just a few men, probably leading them himself, since it's personal. What would the problem with doing that? What do you mean "admit to the world"? Who would even need to know or care? What's Lady Tarly got to do with it? Are you implying she would defend her son, after he had stolen the family heirloom? Even if so, again, how would it actually preclude Randyll from doing it?

Is Bran the true Night's King?

• Think about it, when Bran confronted the Children while witnessing the creation of the first White Walker, they specifically mentioned, "'We have been fighting you... the men...'" in an extremely vague tone. Also when the Night's King 'tagged' Bran (sorta), it seemed like a big Ass Pull that the Night's King knows exactly where he is (while he's supposed to be invisible to anyone of their time), and put a precise marker in his arm, as if he knew he will be on that exact spot, impossible normally, unless he has actually lived it...
  • A magical being can see a magical observer? How surprising. This is a fine example of Epileptic Trees.
  • She said, "You. Men." You = men.

Forgetting your vow, Sam?

• Why would Sam think it's a good idea to go around telling people that Gilly's baby is his when he swore a vow not to father any children?
  • Well for starter because "it's the produce of incest between Wildlings" sounds even worse there is two other points: That vow was took under duress (on top of rarely been respected by others) and the Watch is the one that enforce those laws so if Sam's punishment is go be a Maester and find a place to have your child raised well tough but fair.
    • Yes, and apparently "her entire family was murdered by wildlings and she came running to us with her babe" is way too difficult to make up.
  • Because nobody outside of the Watch really cares about the Watch's vows, as long as they stay at the Wall. Their

only concern are deserters, since they're the equivalent of escaped convicts.

• Everyone ignores that particular part of the vow. And as Sam says in the books, fathering a bastard should at least make him seem manly to his father.

North Remembers was built up for no reason?

• The Broken Man showed that Sansa and Jon only got two or three of the smaller Northern houses support with majority either turning them down outright or ignored their ravens. It is understandable there were some who blamed the Red Wedding and loss of life on Rob not keeping his vow to the Freys and some are just pissed that Jon would late the Wildlings pass through the Wall, but if the turn out was this low I have to question what was the point of building up North Remembers story for three seasons now. Even last season Sansa was reassured that the North remembered her family and would help her when she needed it during her marriage to Ramsay. Now this season some Northerners treat her as a traitor for marrying into the Lannisters and Boltons despite being a hostage to both families and having no choice. I can get only receiving a handful of houses and their support being small, but virtually every house both small and large outright refusing why bother building up this story as if they North was waiting for the Starks to rally behind to overthrow the Boltons? Last year could have been built to show the North blame the Starks for the situation and showed Sansa being isolated or rejected by the Northern houses.
  • Keep in mind the season isn't over yet. Still plenty of time for the North to remember.
  • This is where the reality of the situation sets in. The Northerners love to set up the romanticized notion that they are more loyal and honorable than the people in the South, but as Davos has pointed out, in the end they are still human. They won't fight for what they see as a lost cause, especially since Jon and Sansa's army only consists of only a couple thousand Wildlings. Plus, both Lyanna Mormont and Lord Glover spell out why many Northern houses remain skeptical. Jon is still a bastard and Sansa technically isn't a Stark any more since she was married off twice, and neither Stark has done anything to really prove themselves. In addition, Robb's poor leadership and decisions burned a LOT of bridges, making other houses rather reluctant to take up arms.
  • Maybe it's just that the north will remember shitting their pants when the White Walkers shows up.
  • You can say the North DOES remember. They remember how badly Robb screwed up the War of Five Kings.
  • The problem with this storyline is that the North wasn't being pragmatic until the Starks were involved and only with them. Stannis had a bigger army than the Boltons when he came North. He asked the other Northern houses for support they all said no because of their loyalty to the Starks. That is why Stannis wanted to excuse Jon from his oath to the Night's Watch and legitimize him as a Stark. The North wasn't pragmatic then when it arguably made more sense to side with Stannis than Roose Bolton. Even if you make the argument they wanted to wait to see how it played out it seems unlikely that there would be no Northern houses side with him in hopes of getting rewarded on the chance he succeeds, which was the same logic that compelled people to follow people like Stannis or Renly in the first place in the War of Five Kings in the first place (with no guarantee they could win). It is hard to believe the Umbers who had the next lawful heir of Winterfell wouldn't have seen this as a opportunity to put their family in power. It would pretty easy to marry Rickon off to one of the women in their family, go to Stannis to officially support him, use Rickon to rally the rest of the North behind them, and overthrow the Boltons, and suddenly Umbers have even more power in the North and their bloodline ruling them. It doesn't make sense to me.

No one cares that Jon has deserted the Night's Watch?

• The brothers at the wall - who saw Jon dead - I can sort of understand, although I find it odd that none of them took issue with the Loophole Abuse he pulled to leave the Watch. What is more odd is that none of the Northern houses Jon goes to visit on his recruitment drive seem at all fazed by the fact that the Lord Commander of the Night's Watch has apparently left. They didn't see him die; as far as they know he merely survived an assassination attempt and has deserted the Night's Watch, something Northerners take very seriously and indeed execute people for. Why did neither Lyanna Mormont nor Robett Glover think to ask "Hey, why are you away from the Wall and getting involved in an external conflict? Isn't that breaking your vows?"
  • Guest right has been broken, alliances have been broken and unlike most of the deserters Jon volunteered to go to the Wall, so all the pragmatic reason for why they behead deserter isn't there. I mean if they really gave a shit about the Night's Watch vow they would have closed Mole Town's brothel. It has always been clear that what should be differ greatly from what is, Maester can lay with whores, Kingsguard will break their code on orders and you can send a letter saying you'll assault the Wall and have your former liege's son executed to be the new liege. Would be kind of hypocrite of them to uphold those laws when Ramsay is a kinslayer bastard of dubious legitimization (Tommen is not only a bastard himself but Cersei cut all ties with the Boltons when she learned about Sansa, possibly voiding the legitimization) that gets away scott free.
  • Considering all of the chaos that's been plaguing Westeros recently, I doubt very many people are particularly concerned about the status of the Night's Watch.
  • Pretty much this. As far as the most recent season, there are pretty much no actual rules left anymore for anybody.

Catch- 22

• Has High Sparrow finally outsmarted himself? Let's see, he had Tommen abolish the Trial by Combat, so as to successfully carry out the trial and find Cersei guilty of her husband's murder and fornication with her brother... which resulted in her illegitimate son Tommen, the king,... who's claim to the throne is therefore void... and so are all his orders... including the one about the abolishment of Trial by Combat... which Cersei can now demand... ... ... Not to mention that the formation of Faith Militant itself was probably authorized by Tommen's decree (or at least formally). If he's not the true king, well... Am I missing something in this cunning plan? Or are they going to drop that particular charge? But then what is left, bedding Lancel?
  • If I remember correctly, I think the only charge actually brought against her was the Lancel shenanigans - as Lancel had admitted it, it's the only thing that can be proven, though even then it's more or less her word vs his. If it actually goes as far as Cersei having her trial, she could admit Tommen is illegitimate though, one final hurrah. It's debatable whether the HS actually knows/believes the rumors about Tommen's heritage though, because his current course ends in proving it, essentially, which is surely something that won't help him.
  • Ok Tommen is illegitimate, who replaces him? The only strong house remaining are the Tyrell and HS has Loras as leverage. I mean if the king is not the law anymore only guy people will follow in King's landing is the High Sparrow. Really Tommen being outed as illegitimate would be the best thing since he cuts the middle man and take power himself. I mean the High Sparrow's power doesn't come from the King but by saying he is doing the work of the Gods, he can simply legitimate Tommen at this point because people care more about the Seven than the Targaryen's lawful succession.
  • Assuming the High Sparrow is content with his power ending at the walls of King's Landing, or that the other houses would allow that to stand for longer than it takes their forces to reach and sack the city and put his head on a pike. The Tyrell's could claim the through by virtue of Margery's marriage to Renly, or the Florents could by virtue of Selyse's marriage to Stannis. Or Littlefinger'll claim it by virtue of having the strongest army left in the kingdom when he brings the might of the Vale to bare. Make no mistake the other high lords will slaughter the faith militant and the smallfolk of King's Landing if there isn't someone sitting on the throne who doesn't have some way to claim legitimacy over it; the Tyrells backed down once because they could no longer claim that the Faith was in defiance of the Crown, but that doesn't mean they would for one moment allow the Faith to try and take the place of the Crown. As for the idea of the High Sparrow legitimizing Tommen, incest is still a major sin and the children of incest are seen as cursed abominations. He'd lose a lot of face with his followers if he didn't condemn Tommen for the monster they'd all consider him to be if they knew the truth.
  • The Florents were burned by Melisandre a while ago, the Tyrells will lose their heir and Margaery if they try sacking the place and Littlefinger was going to sack King's Landing with or without Tommen being rightful. There is no high lords anymore since they spent five seasons killing each other or seceding into their own kingdom and as HS explained to Olenna it's not just the smallfolk of King's Landing that will join the Sparrows but also every commoners in Westeros fed up with Succession Crisis. Plus it's not the first time he considers a sinner atone by his/her act so he'll just have bigger indulgences from Tommen to apologize for being a fruit of incest and Sparrows won't care much since Lancel practice incest too and was forgiven.
  • You're right about the Florents, I had forgotten about that. As for the rest, well. HS is probably overstating just how much the Smallfolk are fed up with this whole business, really. The fighting's taken place primarily in the Riverlands, Crownlands, Westerlands, and the North. The Vale, The Reach, and Dorne have all been largely untouched by the fighting so you don't have the same kind of resentment and unrest festering there. If anything I'd imagine the Reach, at least, is fairly satisfied given the prices they're able to charge for their food to those lands who are struck by the war. I'm not expecting the established power base to simply roll over an accept the authority of, as Olenna put it, a 'bare-foot peasant'. If there isn't a point where the Tyrells can be pushed so far that they'll decide "You know what, much as we love Marge and Loras, Mace can still have some more kids" and cut their losses, then a point will come where someone else, maybe the Tarlys for example, decide there's blood in the water and that if the Tyrells won't act, they will. This is, of course, a moot point, because you're right, Littlefinger's going to make his move eventually, anyway, and Dany and the Dothraki don't give a shit what the Faith or the Smallfolk think. But for the sake of argument, assuming those two players weren't a factor in this, it's naive to think that the powers that be would be toppled by the Faith without a fight. Also, from a purely narrative point of view, it strikes me as more interesting and satisfying that the High Sparrow's downfall come from his own hubris in over playing his hand here and underestimating how insane Cersei is that she would destroy herself and her son to spite him for usurping control over said son, than it would be for him to be overthrown by Littlefinger or Dany coming in with a bigger army and ousting him by brute force.
  • Well Olenna brought up how much the Reach paid for the war but it is less that the High Sparrow is gonna topple all the nobility and more why would they want to seize King's Landing when the kingdom is in that state? To me the Reach is better do like the North and secede (Also I think that's what the Sands did with Dorne). The Iron Throne doesn't feel rewarding anymore.
  • The entire matter is a non-issue because Cersei is only on trial for her incest with Lancel and her possible role in Robert Baratheon's death. Tommen's true parentage and legitimacy is not even an issue in this case. The only way it could be exposed is if Cersei willingly admits it, which is highly unlikely considering it would basically guarantee Tommen's death.
  • Remember that Cersei threatened Tywin with doing just that when she saw Tywin's influence over Tommen just starting to overshadow her own. The Sparrow's influence over Tommen has completely eclipsed hers.
  • Yes but by that point it would be easy to ignore Cersei's outburst I mean the Sparrows seems misogynistic enough and it wouldn't be the first time Cersei lied to make things harder for her enemies.

Sansa's not a fugitive?

• Shouldn't Sansa be a wanted criminal throughout the Seven Kingdoms since everyone thinks she helped Tyrion murder Joffrey? How is she able to openly go about her business in the North and the Vale without consequence?
  • For what it's worth, Roose Bolton seemed to be anticipating that allowing Ramsay to marry Sansa would effectively be breaking the alliance with the Lannisters, but reasoned that with Tywin dead and the house in chaos, they would have little ability to retaliate (the Boltons presumably also know about the current matter of the Faith occupying King's Landing). The North and the Vale are both notoriously difficult to invade, so even if she's discovered, they're relatively safe from reprisal. Also, the North and the Vale are quite insular at the best of times, and are unlikely to be friendly enough towards the Crown to betray Ned Stark's daughter to them. Basically, it seems that while not everyone is helping Sansa, they're all at least agreeing to keep their mouths shut about her being there.
  • The various houses are hardly united. Most of the Northern houses would probably congratulate Sansa if they thought she really did kill Joffrey. Meanwhile, Sansa is tied by blood to the Arryns and Tullys, so it's not likely that she'll face much resistance in the Vale and Riverlands. Really, the only person who genuinely believes Sansa may have had a part in murdering Joffrey is Cersei, and she's hardly in a position to pursue her.
  • The North lost Ned to the Crown and the Vale lost Jon Arryn, they will rather protect Sansa than deliver her to the people they hate, especially when both are pushing for secession again.

Wait, why is Edmure still alive?

• It's been a while, but as I recall, Edmure is only still alive by the time of the Siege of Riverrun in the books specifically because he hasn't sired a son yet; Roslin's pregnant, but they don't know if it's a son or a daughter, and she's sure that if it is a boy, Walder will have Edmure killed, because his only value is in producing a Tully heir so he can claim Riverrun. In the show, with the kid already born and apparently only a year old at this point, why bother keeping Edmure as a prisoner? Sure, he did end up coming in handy but Walder Frey is the kind of spiteful, short sighted man who wouldn't hang onto a pawn this long just in case.
  • technically he was supposed to be among those killed in the Red Wedding but had nipped outside to answer the call of nature right before it occurred.
  • Child dying in his first years when winter is coming is common so I guess Walder waits until the kid is old enough to have a name. I mean there's gotta be a tenure for those succession like grow up to have the Tully nose or something that proves the dead baby was Edmure's son. It's not like the Freys expect to have their words taken for it now.
  • Walder isn't a nice guy by any means, but he isn't explicitly psychopathic. Ramsay might have enjoyed chopping pieces off his prisoners, but Walder would be content to have them powerless and humiliated. It's not like Edmure's dangerous, like Robb or the Blackfish, and neither has he ever hurt him personally, like Talisa had.
  • Walder states that he won't kill Edmure now because killing a relative would be bad for his reputation.

A couple strange things about the battle of Winterfell

• Can someone think of any good reasons why Sansa kept silent about the knights if the Vale? Seeing how they arrived just a few in-universe hours late at worst, you can't even argue that they couldn't have waited for them. The only reason I can think of is that Sansa wanted Ramsay to commit all his forces into the fray for the Arryns to slay them, but damn, that's cold, on par with Ramsay's own decision to rain arrows onto the melee.
  • Jon excluded Sansa from the war council and didn't want to listen to her advice, so she decided to work her own plan without his help. Cold, yes, but she's not in a very trusting state of mind, even towards her own half-brother.
  • Did he? As far as I recall, Sansa was right there, and I highly doubt Jon would've shut her up, had she anything useful to say. But she hadn't. "Don't fall for provocations" is not exactly insightful.
  • Sansa was included in war council, she choose to frown rather than speak at every opportunity then whine that she should have been "asked" for her advice despite Davos & Tormund offering their opinions without being asked. You can't play the wall-flower then complain when everyone ignores you. Then she & Jon literally have this exchange: "Of course he [wants me to make a mistake]! What should I do differently?" "I don't know! [...] just don't do what he wants you to do."
  • Convincing Ramsay to commit his forces to the field is a critical point: If he doesn't see the numbers dramatically in his favor, he simply packs up in Winterfell and starves them. And Sansa doesn't quite trust Jon yet because, as he demonstrated in this episode specifically, he doesn't think with his head.
  • What was there not to trust Jon with? How could his knowledge of the reinforcements possibly harm Sansa? As for luring Ramsay in, well, had they known about reinforcements, they could've maybe devised some plan that would allow to do that without sacrificing so many people. And besides, the original plan was to acquire reinforcements from other Houses and from Blackfish. How would it be any different?
  • I noticed the writing has been inconsistent with Jon and Sansa's story. In the episode when they were gathering troops when Sansa criticized Jon for listening to Davos about going out with the 2000 they had Sansa wanted Jon to wait and go to more Northern houses (implying that they hadn't gone to all of them yet), but Jon says no they have no more time and gets ready to fight. This made Sansa's letter to Little Finger a desperate act and fear her brother would either not wait for Vale or Sansa was short on time and knew Little Finger was still there to help Jon who was low on numbers. However, in this episode Jon says they went to all the Northern houses and Sansa's letter and not telling Jon comes off as more pragmatic move in that she is using Jon's forces to distract Ramsay's then use the Vale to attack them from behind. I chalk it up to the writers trying to make both Starks sympathetic and not stupid, but failing to do it and in the process made a inconsistent story where both look bad.
  • Sansa literally says, "If you had asked for my advice earlier I would have told you not to attack Winterfell until we had a larger force!" and when Jon asks the logical follow-up, "When will we have a larger force?" she opts to shout, "It's not enough!" and go on about how it's Better to Die than Be Killed rather than tell him. So, no, she was not keeping Jon in the dark to trick Ramsay, she felt Jon was already pulling a Leeroy Jenkins but refused to offer him a viable alternative because the writers pitched her the Conflict Ball to keep their "surprise" of Littlefinger's The Cavalry from the audience.
  • Yes because saying the guy who betrayed our father and sold me to Ramsay will bring his large army is such an easy thing to explain, Sansa is probably aware she just traded one problem to another and doesn't feel particularly proud enough to explain the situation to Jon.
  • You have to remember that Littlefinger basically sold out their father Ned and practically sold Sansa to the Boltons. It's very plausible that Jon would have refused Littlefinger's assistance on principle, even if he was willing to commit the knights of the Vale.
  • This what I thought as well. If Sansa told Jon everything about how she survived she would had to have told Jon that Little Finger killed her aunt and was part off Joff's death, and gave her to the Boltons. As pragmatic as Jon has become at this point I doubt he would have allied or trusted Little Finger enough to use the Knights of the Vale. I believe that is what Sansa was thinking, but as the writers have been rushing plots along and writing has become more choppy that wasn't conveyed in the show, which has the adverse effect of making Sansa less sympathetic than Jon, but again the show does tend to make Sansa less sympathetic by making her more bitchy.
  • Actually yes, it is very easy to explain, watch. "The knights of the Vale are coming to our aid." What's Jon going to do about it? Fight them? Forbid them from joining the battle? On the other hand, I imagine, Jon is going to confront Baelish about wedding Sansa to Ramsay anyway if he survives, so not much difference here, and I don't recall Jon having any knowledge about Baelish's betrayal any more than Sansa herself, and why would he, since the only person who could inform him was Janos Slynt, and he certainly didn't.
  • Except they are not coming to their aid they are coming because Littlefinger (the guy who was standing next to Ned when his head got cut off and that Sansa knows wanted to bang their mom so it's not a big surprise she knows he was behind the treason) has been moving his chess pieces again, plus she'll have to explain Petyr sneaked in the Wall. The big difference now is that Jon can't confront Littlefinger as much as accept it because he has the bigger army and saved his ass nor can he blame Sansa for it now while if she told him before he would have either refused and get killed or confront Littlefinger and get killed there too because Littlefinger has an habit of killing allies he doesn't care for. Seriously if they had replanned stuff with Baelish Jon's drinks would suddenly have a bitter taste from then on.
  • Also, there was no indication in the show that Littlefinger sent back a reply by raven or messenger to confirm to Sansa he would be coming back with his knights. It could be very possible that Sansa didn't tell Jon because she herself wasn't 100% sure at the time that Littlefinger would come through.
  • Even the knowledge of potential reinforcements is invaluable for battle plans. Especially since it would be quite easy to confirm by sending a runner its way. Mounted armies are not subtle or stealthy.
  • When asked this question, Sophie Turner said Sansa withheld the information because she wanted the credit for the victory. But this doesn't make sense because Littlefinger, the Knights themselves, and the lords of the Vale will get far more credit, if Sansa would get any at all considering withholding the information got countless men killed, nearly killed Jon, and possibly killed Rickon.
  • This must be the prime contender against "Dany kinda forgot about the Iron Fleet" for the biggest Voodoo Shark of this show...
• Why was Jon's army ''so' woefully under-equipped? Nothing fancy, sure, but wildlings couldn't have even made simple wooden shields? Wun-Wun couldn't have fashioned himself a club out of some tree to whack all the fools (seriously, him waving arms at spear-wielding foes was just embarrassing)? Finally, neither the Night Watch, nor any of the allied Houses could've donated a single suite of armor for their commander, even light one?
  • The Wildlings weren't used to fighting with shields, and a weapon you don't know how to use is more dangerous to you than the enemy. In any case, a shield that's small enough to be wielded by a charging warrior is too small to be effective against a proper volley of arrows. As for Jon Snow's lack of armor, it looks like an extension of Helmets Are Hardly Heroic — Ramsay wasn't wearing any, either.
  • Most of Jon's allies are poor as dirt or lesser houses and swinging a big unwieldy club is a good way to accidentally hurt your friends. The best equipment are either left in Riverrun after the Red Wedding or under the strongest houses.
  • I don't know. In Hardhome he seemed quite agile with a huge club.
  • Jon was not unarmored, though he was not wearing a helmet. The Starks are shown wearing what is called a coat of plates, metal plates sewn or bolted into sheets of cloth or leather. That's why all Northern armors have those characteristic rectangles with bolts underneath the leather.
  • Haha. These are all pretty good in universe justification but it's actually and out of universe reason the Wildlings don't have shields. I was an extra on set for the Battle of the Bastards and some shields were provided for the wildlings, however no one particularly wanted to carry one because they were heavy and awkward and you were spending about twelve hours a day standing around and waiting. You'll still see some if you look hard enough though.
  • Seriously? They guys responsible for Jon's Valyrian Rubber Sword wouldn't make styrofoam shields?
  • Yeah, it's weird. Some of the axes were made of rubber too but most of the weapons were genuine metal (though obviously blunt).
  • Shields made out of material light enough to carry around for 12 hours without tiring aren't going to look great and will likely break on camera the first time they take a hit, which could ruin a shot.
• Where did the piles of bodies come from and so fast? They appear out of nowhere despite not as many people were killed as necessary to create it in time for it to become a barrier.
  • Considering all of the fighting was being focused in one specific area, it wouldn't be surprising that the corpses of thousands of men and horses would start piling up.

The Sons of the Harpy at Meereen Gate

• Why did the Sons of the Harpy appear at the open gates of Meereen killing random people instead of the Unsullied? The Masters hadn't even landed any infantry yet nor are we informed of any plan for them to open the Gate. It appears a very random event in order for Daario and the Dothraki to rush in and cut them down.
  • Because Grey Worm had already pulled all of the Unsullied back to the Great Pyramid, which was the most defensible area in the city. That mean basically sacrificing the defense of the rest of the city. The Sons of the Harpy probably took the chance to start clearing the way for the eventual invasion by the Masters' troops, as well as slaughtering Daenerys' supporters in the process.
  • They were killing people trying to flee the besieged city. No one will escape the wrath of Masters, and all that. Also, outside is also the safest place in the city under bombardment, unless, of course, there's a horde of Stealth Dothraki riding in.

Why does not Melisandre try to resurrect other people?

• Why doesn't Melisandre resurrect Rickon? Or the whole Stark army for that matter? The Stark male line is now going to die out as all male heirs are dead or unable to procreate – Bran is the last hope, but after his injury, he was mentioned to be unable to father children, and Jon is likely a Stark offspring in the female line. And titles and lands are not inherited in the female line in Westeros. But more importantly, why doesn't anybody suggest that she revive other people? This is huge! What greater help could there be in the upcoming war with the Night's King, White Walkers and their animated corpses? Seriously, how come nobody asks her?
  • Magic is a crapshoot, even Melisandre doesn't really know how this works and Thoros did it by accident. I mean they pretty much covered it with the Brotherhood Without Banners so why losing time going over the same argument again?
  • Also in the books it's shown that Thoros can only resurrect one person at a time. He had to let Beric die permanently in order to resurrect Catelyn.
    • In the books, Thoros refuses to resurrect Catelyn and Beric passes his life force to her instead.
  • It is not up to her to decide whom to resurrect, but the Lord of Light, and He'd hardly regard Rickon worthy of His attention, or care about the Stark line. Also, the resurrection robs people of themselves at least somewhat, so it's understandable why people would be reluctant to resort to it. And seeing what a long and arduous a process it is compared to Night King's reanimation spell that can instantly raise thousands fallen, alas, it will not be a valuable tactic in the war.
  • Could she even resurrect Rickon if she wanted to? She didn't think she could do it for Jon and was surprised that it even worked. Thoros is pretty much the same: neither he nor Beric knows why their resurrection keeps working.

Jaime not knowing about the Kingsguard

• Why didn't Jaime know about Tommen allying with the Faith Militant? Even if the High Sparrow told Tommen not to tell him about it, the rest of the kingsguard must have known and could have told him. Likewise, Jaime should have known that his men were being fitted for new armor.
  • Well in the show it's pretty clear Jaime has been neglecting his job what with his daughter dying and all. Plus I'm pretty sure no one in the Kingsguard like Jaime so they won't talk to him unless asked, he didn't call them a bunch of worthless assholes like in the books but he is still the kingslayer that maintains his position despite being no longer fit for it.
• Maybe they just didn't have the chance? The whole thing could have been a spur-of-the-moment decision by Tommen, because he's tired of being a Puppet King.

Tyrion's "failures"

• The consensus seems to be that Tyrion has utterly failed at his attempts of ruling Meereen, both in-universe and among the audience. His negotiations with the Masters were met with furious contempt, and later Grey Worm even puts blame for the Masters' invasion on him! "Your words brought this." Everywhere it is said that his actions were "naive" and steaming from ignorance, that they "backfired spectacularly in his face", that Masters "used him". Am I missing something? The Masters had already reinstated slavery in Yunkai and Astapor without any connivance from Tyrion, and the Unsullied/Second Sons had failed to hold or retake the cities. In Meereen the Sons of Harpy had already been running unchecked, "infiltrating" the royal attendance with a small army and burning dozens of ships in broad daylight, and our stern military commander backed up by our cunning Spymaster failed to root them out. All things considered, this is coming dangerously close to the Surrounded by Idiots situation for Tyrion!
  Yes, his policy was appeasement. So? How is it wrong to appease a strong enemy, thus buying yourself time to recuperate and master your own strength? If we set aside emotions (generally advised in politics), what was so wrong about his proposition? Most importantly, what would've worked out differently, had Tyrion not done it? As far as I can see, the outcome would've been exactly the same, except probably even earlier, so without Dany's timely intervention. I've read an opinion that it was his fault the city was unprepared for the attack. But it's a military/intelligence concern, meaning, again, it was Gray Worm's and Varys's responsibility, so, unless Tyrion cut their budgets or obstructed them in some other undisclosed way, I once again fail to see how anyone but Tyrion has any right to complain.
  • Because he didn't buy any time and build any strength, the Masters are the one who recuperated and had time to build a navy instead of financing guerrilla group because they had a cease-fire agreement with Meereen so they didn't need to worry about a counter-attack. Worm and Missandei proposition was to attack the cities since Yunkai and Astapor are really easy to conquer (they buy sellswords since they lack manpower and were sacked not long ago) and after that have Volantis backing down after they see their friends head on top of the pyramids. The episode proved that Tyrion sincerely believed that the Masters would have accepted this term instead of simply using the opportunity to gather strength and have a real army. And his peace was fake the Sons of Harpy were shown stabbing people outside of the city because they never stopped their attack they were just bidding their time and lull the foreigner into thinking his appeasement worked, making the Unsullied too busy supervising the commerce and red priestess preaching. Tyrion set an ambush to his own team by calling off the attack on the cities they could take again because he thought he could save soldiers lives.
  • Was there ever a plan to attack Astapor and Yunkai? Even in discussion? If there was and Tyrion cut it down, then you're right, of course, but I don't recall anything to that sound. Also, the news about Masters retaking those cities came even before Dany left, what was stopping her from enacting those plans right then? Also also, Yunkai at least was not easy to conquer, Dany's war council acknowledged that it'd be able to withstand a prolonged siege and bleed the Unsullied out, so they had to resort to subterfuge which would've hardly worked again, especially with Jorah and Dario away. "...making the Unsullied too busy..." you kidding me? 8000 Terminators (and 2000 more hardened cutthroats) were up to their necks supervising merchants and preachers? Again, was that ever mentioned anywhere? I don't recall Gray Worm offering any legitimate concerns except how dare Tyrion negotiate with those slaver scum.
  • Jorah stopped her from sacking the cities, that's why she sent Hizdahr negotiate a peace that lead to the Sons of Harpy attacking at the coliseum and Missandei conclusion that there is only language the masters understood implying they must kill them all and go back to the attack plan Dany planned two seasons ago. And yes why do you think a bunch of cutthroats and former slaves know how to do street circulation or settle civil dispute? This isn't the Goldcloak this is a bunch of military doing things they have zero experience in. Worm and Missandei kept telling Tyrion slavers will use them since this is what they do and all Tyrion can counter with is no it's me who use them. But what he doesn't seem to get was that it took one Unsullied to take Mereen and 3 men to open Yunkai's gate since Daenerys has one of the strongest in Slaver's Bay thanks to the slavers preferring buying armies and throwing money at their problem. Giving them a break to get more money was a big mistake as the fleet shows.
  • The problem is not as simple as how Grey Worm and Missandei present it. Sure, the Unsullied are great soldiers, but remember that Daenerys did not seize Astapor and Yunkai in a straight up battle, but through surprise and subterfuge. In Astapor, the Unsullied were already inside the city walls when she turned them against the Masters, and in Yunkai, Daario, Grey Worm, and Jorah snuck in and were only barely able to open the gates from the inside. In addition, if the Masters were able to retake Astapor and Yunkai, then that logically means they already have sufficiently large armies to take and hold the cities. Finally, if Tyrion were to send the Unsullied out to attack the other cities, who is going to protect Meereen from Sons of the Harpy attacks? Grey Worm and Missandei do raise good points about not trusting the masters, but their long term strategic thinking is extremely limited.
  • They put a lowborn pit fight owner in charge of Astapor I doubt they have that much resources and the unsullied have siege weapon after Meereen.
  • Yezzan is NOT the leader of Astapor, he's merely their ambassador, and that is ZERO indication of Astapor's military strength. And even if the Unsullied do have siege weaponry, how do they expect to invade two foreign cities while still suppressing the Sons of the Harpy?
  • Well since it's confirmed those cities are the one financing the Sons of the Harpy maybe cutting the supply run by force is a good start to suppress them? Maybe better than doing nothing but give them time to rest as Tyrion did? Especially since one city had all the Masters and soldiers killed three years ago and was under Cleon's rule. Yunkai might have done better but they still got their city taken not that long ago. And yes he is merely the ambassador dealing with the biggest enemy Slaver's bay had in years truly that's where strong organized nation send chump to do the job, I'm sure he will have the right reply for when the enemy says we will send two dragons to your home and your home only if you keep allying with the other Masters. It wouldn't even had needed that many men to intimidate cities into stopping their support and making the Sons easy picking.
  • Considering the Sons have been able to operate with impunity, even WITH the Unsullied on full alert, the only way to cut them off from their benefactors for good is to stop ALL trade with the outside, which is only going to make things in the city worse. Also, it may not have been communicated well in the show, but YEARS have passed since the first season, so the other cities would have had plenty of time to recover from Daenerys' attacks, especially since she didn't completely destroy or cripple either city. And why would the Masters take the threat of Daenerys's dragons seriously when they haven't been seen in months and Daenerys has just upped and disappeared?

Varys the teleporter

• How did Varys end up in the deck of Dany's ship near the end of "The Winds of Winter" so fast when he just went to Dorne to make a deal with Olenna and Ellaria?
  • It's not unreasonable to think that there were days to weeks passing between some scenes. That would permit time enough for things like Jaime to ride back South, Varys and Arya to make their own journeys, and more mundane things like the cleaning up of Winterfell after the Battle of the Bastards.
  • Bryan Cogman's defense is that just because events are shown in a certain order does not mean they are chronologically near each other, or even in the right order to begin with. So the real question is working out the chronology. Perhaps Arya's time in Braavos took place in the same time it took for Sansa to travel to Castle Black, and that she's been at the Twins ever since Riverrun was retaken by the Tullys, which would explain why Brienne is still sailing. Likewise, Cersei might have bombed the Sept before Jon faced Ramsay.
  • This still doesn't explain Varys, since that scene takes place after the Wildfire blast...so maybe the Fleet leaving from Meereen is a Distant Finale taking place a month later.
  • If you look carefully at the fleet, there are Martell and Tyrell sigils on some of the sails, confirming that it is indeed set some time forward. It's likely that Varys simply just sailed back with reinforcements from their new allies.
  • It does beg the question of why Varys, after arriving in Westeros to meet with their allies, proceeded to leave Westerns to meet back up with Daenerys, who was heading there anyway. Why not just stay where he is and meet up with Daenerys when she arrives?

Why would the Knights of the Vale declare Jon King?

• He's not related to them, he failed in his only battle and needed them to rescue him, the Vale has never been ruled by the Starks before, they're probably contributing the most soldiers, they're Andal, they worship the Seven and they were expressly sent to help Sansa. Jon has no connection to the Arryns. It makes no sense.
  • Because the Vale have traditionally been extremely close allies with the Starks, and are also connected through Catelyn and Sansa. The only reason the Vale didn't come to assist Robb was due to Lysa holding back her forces because of her rampant paranoia. Plus, considering that all of the Knights of the Vale do believe the Lannisters are responsible for Jon Arryn's death, they have little incentive to follow the Lannister-controlled Iron Throne.
  • They aren't but what say do they have in this? They aren't from the North and no Northmen will give two shit about who they want to put on their throne. They're lucky no one call them the late lords knight what with them only making a move after six years of war and now they want to boss the North around about who they get to claim king?
  • I never said that they should have the right to tell the North who's King, although they should. They're the only reason the battle was won. When Robb saved the Riverlands from the Lannisters, he became King. My point is they have no connection to Jon Snow. He's First Man, he worships the Old Gods, they've never been ruled by the Starks, he's not related to the Arryns in any way and he lost his only battle.
  • In the Vale's defense they didn't enter the war because they were obeying their Lady. The North doesn't have any moral superiority after they all but left Jon and Sansa to fend for themselves with two of the great houses even giving Rickon to the Boltons and even obeyed Ramsay, despite being a kinslayer.
  • He lost a battle (not his only Mance attack on the Wall is documented and his application to Lord Commander underline that he is responsible for holding the line until Stannis showed up) against outnumbered odds and because the Vale didn't thought of sending a confirmation raven addressed to the general, Royce doesn't get to say well we told Sansa and Littlefinger said it was cool he knows what Littlefinger is doing. Either they accept the Northmen choosing their king or they pose as another Southron invasion who wants a puppet government, which won't bode well since the neutral houses like Manderly are numerous to kick them off if they want to force them to take Sansa. And finally Jon is still way better ally than Littlefinger.
  • That's the only battle they knew about. The only battle they know about is the won they rescued him from. The North doesn't have the strength to force them out, they saved the North and Littlefinger isn't their Lord. Robin Arryns their Lord and he only sent them North to help Sansa, because she his first cousin. I doubt he even knows who Jon Snow is.
  • Maybe they're just riling for a fight and don't much care who they're fighting for. They're pretty much the only army on the entire continent who hasn't seen some action this decade.
  • That's reasonable. The problem is, they can stay with for the fight without swearing fealty to Jon. The speech Lady Mormont gave was a good speech about the Norths history, culture and ties to the Starks. It was a good speech... for Northmen. At no point did she mention the Vale. It's like when the Freys demanded Harrenhall and Edmure objected. Robb yells at him that Harrenhall is irrelevant because they're fighting for the North even though Edmure is a Riverman and rules the Riverlands. It just didn't seem to make sense to me.
  • I think it goes back to Sansa. The Vale wanted to help Sansa and they were there to help her. Had Sansa publicly objected to Jon's crowning the Vale would probably have supported and argued for Sansa's case. The Vale is known to be honorable just like the North and technically since no one knows Bran is alive Sansa should be next up in line. Since Sansa didn't object the Vale probably gave their support. This will probably change next season. Little Finger wasn't happy and he controls Robyn, so we will most likely see North and Vale tension.
  • The problem with that is that, Sansa's not their Lord. Robin Arryn is. The only reason they were sent North was to help his cousin, Sansa. If the North chooses Jon as King and Sansa supports him, that's fine. However, it doesn't mean that the Vale has any reason to swear fealty to Jon. Jon isn't related to Lord Arryn.
  • Perhaps I'm in the minority here, but I didn't read the scene as the Vale declaring Jon their king so much as the Vale (or at least Yohn Royce and his bannermen) supporting Jon's ascension as allies.
  • Either it's as the above user said and they're just being supportive allies, or out of the choices of monarch available they prefer Jon to Tommen/Cersei.
  • In a later episode, Littlefinger states that he (and by extension, the Vale) has "declared for House Stark".
    • It's still nonsensical. They have their own history.
  • The North and the Vale have long been allies (having been the first to support Robert’s rebellion) and as the late matriarchs of both houses were sisters, plus Sweetrobin is technically still a child whereas Sansa and Jon are full grown adults, on top of that as Bran is handicap (which in feudal society was seen as a liability even among nobility) and the Vale’s last female leader’s tendency to use the moon door to dispose of people at a whim (a deranged Lysa) plus as Sweetrobin lacked battle experience Jon was the natural choice. At least in the TV show it’s not known how its going to go in the books.

The rest of Stannis's forces

• In the show's canon Stannis lost to the Boltons because half his army abandoned him over the whole Shireen thing. So where the hell is that half an army? They can't exactly waltz home with like five different hostile armies standing between them and Dragon Stone. And while it'd make logical sense for them to head on back to Castle Black we get absolutely no reference to them joining Jon or the Night's Watch (both of which are pretty goddamn desperate at the start of Season 6 so getting a force of that size would certainly be noteworthy). Seems they just march right into a plot hole.
  • The bulk of Stannis's force that abandoned him were sellswords who didn't hold to the Lord of Light like the rest of his forces did. My take away was always that they joined up with the Boltons and formed the main force that road out against Stannis's smaller army and crushed him. After that, most of them probably went back to Essos.

How loyal is the South?

• Olenna seems to still command the Reach even though the Tyrells name is gone and she can't have children, that the Tyrells soldiers follow her is a great deal of respect but the whole Reach seems behind her. Likewise the Tully followed Edmure's orders even though he made them surrendered and the Sands has no apparent opposition to their ruling. Was the North really the only place were bannermen refused to help their liege when things go sour?
  • The difference is the South didn't suffer the extreme inner turmoil the North was suffering. By the time the Boltons overthrew the Starks, many of the Northern houses were exhausted from the campaign against the Lannisters, and the Red Wedding practically decapitated their leadership and destroyed the bulk of their armies. The Northerners simply didn't have the will or strength to oppose the Boltons, and didn't have enough confidence in Jon to follow him blindly. In contrast, Olenna has basically been running House Tyrell in all but name, and even though she's now heirless, she's still a Tyrell and is still eligible to be the legitimate head of the house. In addition, the Reach has prospered under Olenna's rule so there's no reason for them not to follow her. In Dorne, there was already massive negative public opinion against Doran for his perceived inaction against the Lannisters so nobody objected to Ellaria overthrowing him, which would tend to show their DISloyalty if they were willing to let their king be openly assassinated like that.
  • The war of the Five Kings wasn't exactly sunshine and rainbows for the Reach: the Tyrell made them kneel to Renly then turn their coat for Joffrey, they spent the most resources than any other region and now they lost every Tyrell by birth in an explosion (and that's after they saw the Sparrows manhandling them like they were nothing, shouldn't that make some houses willing to seize the power), a huge part of the war effort problem for Rob was that guys like Bolton sacked Winterfell behind Robb's back on the first opportunity and Karstark went mad with grief, shouldn't there be houses like this in the South? Is ambition not a thing there .And the only reason the Dornish hate the Lannisters is because of what they did to Oberyn and Elia, so they are willing to let people with no birthright rule ad overthrow Doran just to avenge their prince who died in a duel. Even the Greyjoy went uncontested during the kingsmoot, it's like only the good guys have schemers and greedy houses in their rank.
  • It is not so much that the North were disloyal assholes just looking for an excuse to rebel and the South are all super loyal who would never think of going against their lords, but that each region experienced their own hardships under their respective rulers that led to their decisions to stay loyal or not. A lot of terrible things happened during Robb's rule, some by his own doing and others that was just bad timing. For example the Iron Islands' invasion happened after Robb sent Theon to talk to his dad into giving the North their support. To Northern houses this looks like a major blunder on Robb's part, since Ned having Theon as a ward as to act as a hostage to keep Balon from doing something just like that. The Ironborn invasion hit the North hard, causing a lot of Northern lords to lose family and homes. There is Catelyn let Jaime go, Robb breaking his marriage pack with the Freys, Reach joining with Lannisters to double their manpower and resources, Karstark execution, and of course the Red Wedding, all together which devastated the North and gave Roose Bolton a chance to gain control of the North. A region like the Reach hasn't experienced half of that. There was no known battles fought on the Reach's soil, none of the lords lost their homes or suffered heavy losses, the resources aren't being overtaxed, and things are prospering in the Reach. The brief look at Sam's family life is probably how a lot of the Tyrell's banner men are living. People are content under the Tyrell rule. Content people are more likely to be loyal. The Tyrells losing their head, heir, and favorite daughter probably inspired more outrage from the people in the Reach then scheming to overthrow them. To use another North comparison its probably how the Mad King killing Ned's dad and older brother rallied the North around Ned rather than them selling him to the crown to win the Mad King's favor. I have no idea about Dorne situation. Even if the people were unhappy with the Martells that wouldn't automatically mean the other houses in Dorne would follow a Martell bastard daughters and his mistress.
  • For the Reach, I think the fallout of the Tyrell's losses has not been shown yet in the meagre amount of time we've had with them since the Sept of Baelor exploded. In all likelihood, the major players are already whispering, making deals and thinking of what they're going to do with their newfound freedom now that House Tyrell is on the verge of death. But most of them are too smart to provoke the Queen of Thorns as long as she lives. Perhaps the way the pieces currently stand on the board, powerful men like Randyll Tarly can afford to be patient and wait until Olenna dies of old age. Conventional wisdom says Cersei will not hold the Iron Throne against Daenerys for long. By the time a new order is established, those who have bided their time and waited for the Tyrell line to die out normally will be much more likely to be offered the title Lord of the Reach than some house that recklessly made a power grab. They're not loyal, they are just not engaged in overtly treasonous behavior.

Benjen

• Benjen said that he can't go south because the Wall is also magical protection to keep the undead like him, the wights and White Walkers from going to the south. If that's the case, how on earth did the corpse which some Night's Watchmen brought to Castle Black got up as a wight and nearly killed Jon Snow before Ghost killed it back in Season 1? Is the magic on the wall waning which Benjen didn't know?
  • Those wights were carried in by Night's Watchmen, and they didn't wake until after they were safely carried past the wall.
  • So they can just carry Benjen over there? Does the Night King can simply raise people beyond the wall at his whim or he has like a timer for some undead and he is really good at guessing when people will drag the corpses in? That just open more questions.
  • Maybe the magic of the Wall is not instant, and those wights would've collapsed in a few minutes or hours by themselves.
  • It takes time for the corpses to become Wights (the Night's King raising them was a special circumstance). They could be carried through when they were just normal corpses, but something would have probably happened if they were transported through after being animated. There probably wasn't any special plan concerning the Wights that happened to get carried into the Castle Black, it was just a coincidence that they took advantage of.
  • He wasn't turned into a wight because the Children found him, and stopped the Walker's magic by using a shard of dragonglass plunged into his heart, the way they made the Walkers in the first place. He's part-Walker, not part-wight.
• So is it possible for him to die? Is he really dead-dead as opposed to half un-dead at the end of "Beyond the Wall?"
• How is his horse still alive? When he rescues Meera and Bran, it's not quite winter, so maybe there was enough to browse, but by the time he rescues Jon, he should have starved to death long before now. Let alone had the strength to gallop for that long.

Late Ser Jaime

• Jaime should've certainly known when Cersei's trial was to happen (or at least could've easily found out), and yet he only arrived when the trial should have already been under way, if not over. Wouldn't he want to be there for Cersei? The siege had been long over by that time, why the hell was he still sitting there struggling with the desire to strangle Walder Frey, instead of killing horses riding home? It's clear he has no respect for his "ally" and wouldn't give two shits about insulting him by leaving early.
  • Well I'm pretty sure he knows that Riverrun to King's Landing would have made him late regardless and before leaving the trial was by combat so he probably didn't feel like being there when Strong crush a Sparrow's head.
  • Why? Earlier, he'd been positively giddy about the prospect. And unlike the book, there's no estrangement between the two birds. "would have made him late regardless" - idk, he arrives, what, several hours later (I know, timeline is wonky there, but still)?
    • If you think about it, the fact that he arrived mere hours after the supposed trial means that he was actually trying to be there. It is possible that he left the Twins early enough so he would have returned to King's Landing in time, but something delayed him on the way.
  • No he wanted to set things up himself, not watch a one sided trial by combat, also on what Earth does laying a siege takes longer than setting up a trial? Just getting his men there and setting camp takes a few days add that Cersei's trial only date we had was soon not next month. The High Sparrow probably told Tommen to give this job to Jaime exactly for that reason.
  • Here◊ is a map of Westeros. You'll notice that the distance between The Twins and King's Landing is about equal to the distance between King's Landing and Dorne, i.e., very far away. Jaime had to march an army all the way up to Riverrun, set up a siege, march at least a portion of that army all the way up from Riverrun to the Twins, and then march that army all the way back down to King's Landing. We've seen characters take an entire season to travel less distance without the burden of an army slowing them down. Now, if the real question is, why did Jaime go to the Twins in the first place instead of heading back to King's Landing immediately after the situation in Riverrun was settled? Well, I'm not sure on that. It's possible he had further orders from Tommen to go up to the Twins after taking the castle, likely as a specific delaying tactic by the Sparrow.
    • Those orders would've been impossible to justify.
    • Frey or not it's still a party their honor, while Jaime want to be somewhere else his whole army might want to rest a bit before heading home and I don't think Jaime is a Mean Boss enough to refuse it.
• Jaime WAS trying to get back in time. It's why he decided on a full on assault of Riverrun that very night. In general, sieges can take a very long time and an assault on a castle is a dangerous and costly thing in any case. They even state that Riverrun would lose hundreds but the Lannister/Frey army would lose THOUSANDS. Jaime knew this but was willing to go though with it anyway. He wanted to get it over with quickly so he could be back quickly. It just turned out he came up with a better idea and then had to play the part of conquering hero for a bit before he could hurry back, something he would have had to do regardless of how he had won.
  • Weird, he was all about how he doesn't give a shit about anything or anyone but Cersei, and the next thing he is suddenly all about appearences and image. That doesn't compute. Have the army party, fine, but it's not like he was required to personally lead them back home, right?

Wildfire

• So, any reasons why Jaime never thought to deal with Mad King's stashes or told anyone (his father at least) about them? It didn't seem like they were hidden especially well or deep.
  • Probably for the same reason he never cared to tell everyone why he killed Aerys: the thought no one would believe the "Kingslayer's" excuses. And he kind of killed everyone who knew about the location of the stashes, so the information couldn't be easily retrieved. Yeah, it's kind of stupid, but in line with the character's mentality.
  • Tywin certainly would. "couldn't be easily retrieved" - sure, but they had 17 years and nigh-unlimited resources. They could've turned that city upside-down if they wanted. Also, Jaime killed ONE pyromancer. The guild itself survived.
  • No Jaime killed the three pyromancers who knew about it in the show there was only one in the know and he killed him too, The remaining of the order were a bunch of acolytes who didn't know anything or even how you destroy those caches. And I'm pretty sure daddy who just had my protectorate raped and killed with her kids wasn't the first person Jaime wanted to open to.
  • Fine, still, 17 years*Lannisters' wealth - no way they wouldn't have found them. "how you destroy those caches..." You bring it out into wilderness, or better yet, on water, and then you detonate it and enjoy the fireworks. "..daddy who just had my protectorate raped and killed..." I didn't get an impression of Jaime as that of a prissy, and also it's a Sevendamn nuke under the capital, where Jaime resided most of the time!
  • Simple answer; Jaime isn't that bright. Was a bad decision and not one that was particularly well thought out, and there's your answer. Also, as an aside, it's established in the books that the best way to quench wildfire is by smothering it; all the store rooms in the Alchemist Guild are rigged to have vast quantities of sand collapse in on them in case of accidental detonation.
• So, any reasons why Cersei/the boy thought to lure Lancel directly to the trigger? It seems a rather precarious stunt, since Lancel nearly managed to put out the candles, and that was after he was stabbed (which by itself was not guaranteed).
  • Mostly likely just a way to spite Lancel for ratting her out to the Sparrows. Remember, Cersei is one of the most petty, spiteful characters in the show so it's completely in character for her to make Lancel sweat a bit before he dies.
  • Except that it requires that it's Lancel who goes there, and the kid manages to stab him enough, and he fails to put out the candles anyway (which he did). A pretty big risk to the plan for some petty gloating, even for Cersei.
  • This is the same woman who armed a bunch of religious fanatics just to get a shot in at Margaery because she was jealous about her being more popular than she was. Cersei would definitely go through an unnecessarily convoluted and shortsighted plan just to screw over someone she doesn't like.
• Why keep it so long? Sure, a candle is not exactly a precise countdown mechanism, but they had ample time to prepare, and Qyburn is a smart bastard, certainly he could've timed it to detonate right after the trial begins, so that nobody gets the chance to realize something is wrong. Alternatively, use Tyrion's method from Blackwater - make a trail of wildfire throughout the catacombs and out of the blast zone, then ignite it at your own leisure. Boom. Done.
  • Spotting the trail is easy especially since the jar were already there so you see kid spreading a trail under the enemy headquarters (especially since the blast zone is above ground two blocks further from the Sept). Jaime didn't know where all the cache were it was only a rumor and given the High Sparrow spent a lot of time digging around the Sept yes they were pretty well hidden the only access we saw was a hole that a small child could crawl under. And being a smart bastard doesn't mean you just know when an explosive you never played with is gonna be triggered especially when wildfire is unstable. They don't have practice or much movement on this it's just yes we found out the Sept is under a gigantic bomb a week ago maybe.
• Spotted by whom? It'd be in the catacombs, there's no one there. "Jaime didn't know where all the cache", yes, this is why he should've told his father, so they could search for them. "doesn't mean you just know when an explosive you never played with is gonna be triggered" - It's a candle. It is very easy to measure when it's going to burn down - candles were even used as primitive clocks in the past. Aa week is more than enough to make the necessary preparations.
  • The Sparrows will spot it it's their home. Half of the High Sparrow screen time is playing in the basement think he is gonna let spies in the catacomb spraying stuff all on the floor (which is ridiculously bad plan because unlike Tyrion leaking the jars through a boat and let it float on water it's take a mop and pierce the jars individually)? Candle clocks weren't that good especially when you put it in an environment without protection and Tywin already sacked King's Landing and Robert is gonna let him profane a tomb because of kingslayer's hunch?
  • Uhm, no, they don't live in the catacombs. If they did, they would've most likely found the caches themselves.
    • How? The only access to the cache is a small hole, H.S wouldn't be able to crawl there. The catacombs are clearly Sparrow's territories what why it even work to begin with.
  • Even if Tywin knew, what was he going to do with it? Wildfire is EXTREMELY unstable and it would probably be MORE dangerous to try and remove it than just leaving it down there where no one would find it. Hell, maybe Tywin DID know and deliberately suppressed the knowledge to prevent a panic or letting his enemies find out.
  • How? It's not even nitroglycerin or Fulminated mercury that detonates from impact. Obviously it can be carried around. With care, sure, but no reason why that can't be provided.
  • Why would Jaime tell Tywin about a cache of Wildfire he killed his king to explicitly prevent being lit? We're talking about a man who helped arranged the most infamous slaughter and breach of etiquette and customs in Westeros, the Red Wedding. Jaime knows better than most people what sort of man Tywin is, and likely came to the conclusion that his father isn't the most trustworthy person to divulge the presence a secret weapon to.
  • Because, and I can't believe I have to spell it out, Tywin Lannister was absolutely nothing like Aerys Targaryen. He was ruthless, yes, but he was smart, collected and pragmatic. I don't see a single solid reason why Jaime (who, btw, was not a "good guy" himself and definitely not a prissy) would hesitate to tell him, even if Red Wedding hadn't been scheduled for 20 years later and thus completely irrelevant at that time. Not that it was even that special. Rains of Castamere, anyone? This sort of things just happens there. Jaime shouldn't be fazed by it in any way.
    • Oh yes Rain of Castamere, a song about how Tywin sunk and condemn a silver mine to prove a point. Think blowing up buildings is above him? Tywin is as petty as Aerys he just hides it better.
    • Still I can't in all honesty see him doing something like blowing up the city, and as for using the Wildfire in general, why would Jaime object? He wasn't a good guy at all back then, and he was loyal to his family and to his father (which was the second half the reason he turned on Aerys, if you recall). Ok, maybe he would have some reservations immediately, but Jaime Lannister we've seen at the beginning of the series (which was clearly what he'd been like for quite some time)? Wouldn't bat an eye.
    • Blowing up the city no, blowing part of it on fire or setting Tyrion's second love on fire (because Tywin is brutal when it comes to that). Jaime was loyal to his family but that doesn't mean he shared his feelings or secret to his dad, he joined the Kingsguard against Tywin's wish after all.
    • **Sigh** So he was content with sitting atop a nuke for 20 years instead. Sure, why not. Of course, organizing the search by himself, or maybe involving Tyrion or Kevan or anyone else was also completely out of the question, sure.
    • The Red Wedding was anything but smart, collected, and pragmatic. The violation of guest right and betrayal of a king did more to destroy and destabilize Westeros than anything else in the series. Like in the days of the Greek, Roman, and Arabian empires, guest right was held to be absolutely inviolable - to the point that in Dante's Inferno, the second lowest circle of Hell is reserved for those who betray their guests. In-universe, the story of the Rat Cook shows that violation of guest right is a worse crime than murder or even making a father eat his son. And so the gods punish him by transforming him into a giant rat. The only worse crime is kinslaying. There's a reason it's also called "sacred hospitality". And what did it eventually cause? The extinction of Houses Frey and Bolton, the near extinction of House Stark, the North in absolute chaos, everyone despising the people involved, and a general lack in the importance of the right.

Who has the Iron debt now?

• Cersei is not gonna be able to pay back the debt even if she cared, the Iron Bank is probably done with lending money to a contender to the crown only for the guy to die in the North and the Tyrell's wealth is shattered not only because they will soon go extinct but winter is coming and their wheat are not gonna grow for a while. Is the bank gonna force Daenerys to pay for it or they will just call their losses and let Westeros sort this out and never lend to them anymore.
  • At this point the Bank will most likely back either Jon or Daenerys (or both) to topple the Lannisters. They'd probably still have to eventually pay off the debt but the Iron Bank could give them more favorable terms.
  • Yes but what if they don't want the aid. Jon simply wants the North and even then it's to fight the White Walkers (which seems like a huge liability for a loan) and Daenerys might be forced by Tyrion and Olenna but most of her army seems to do it pro bono and she doesn't like compromise.
  • It is probably considered impolite to refuse the aid of the Iron Bank, especially when your country is already tens of millions in debt.
  • It's also a possibility they may choose to back somebody in an effort to extract the debt non-financially. Tyrion hinted they may be willing to go to such lengths back when he inherited the Master of Coin position and noticed just how deep they were to the Iron Bank. Basically, if they won't pay with their coin, they'll pay with their lives.
  • considering just how contorted things are and how badly their last gamble paid off the Iron Bank’s probably taking a back seat right now.

Sam's "plan"

• Entering the Citadel in Oldtown, Sam is told by the front desk clerk that women and children are not allowed to enter the Citadel proper. Then Sam just shrugs and goes in without a word. What about Gilly and Sam 2.0? How is he planning to find them permanent accommodations? It is established that he knew and expected that they won't be allowed to stay with him, yet he still insisted on bringing them with him. Also, isn't he worried that Lord Randyll Tarly will come back for the sword he took? He knows where he is! Is he even allowed to keep Heartsbane in the Citadel as an acolyte? It's a family heirloom, that is inherited by the Lord's heir, which he is not. What are the chances of this whole thing not ending in some kind of disaster? Sam really didn't think this through.
  • Most likely Sam was going to try and convince whoever was in charge to let Gilly and Sam Jr. stay in the Citadel.
    • And what's his plan after they refuse?
    • Come up with a new plan? It's not like they're going to burst into flame and die if he leaves them sitting in the lobby for an hour or two before coming back out to talk to them.
  • Maybe Sam will convince the Archmaesters to give Gilly a job either to clean up and work in the kitchens. Don't know who's going to take care of Sam Jr. Anyway, the Citadel is sort of like Hogwarts of Westeros so probably Gilly will work as a house-elf.

Dragonstone and the Stormlands

• Does anyone have an idea on who currently holds Dragonstone and the Stormlands? Renly and Stannis are gone and there wasn't a word on what side the Storm lords are in since the Baratheons are all dead and there's no mention about the Tyrells capturing Storm's End or Dragonstone since Loras' book storyline is completely changed. Unless, there's Gendry who had never made an appearance ever since he row that boat...
  • By elimination of named characters that have been in Stannis arc: Salladhor Saan. I would be totally ok with that turn of event the Stormpirate of Dragonstone would make a nice song.
  • The same question can be asked of Casterly Rock. The few live Lannisters we know are based on King's Landing, so who's actually ruling their homeland?
    • Some of those nephews of Tywin whose names Jaime can't even remember.
    • The Season 7 trailer revealed that according to Cersei, "We are the last Lannisters. The last that counts." She might include Tyrion on that count and since the other Lannister relatives are Adapted Out (Daven Lannister and Genna Frey nee Lannister) or dead (Kevan and Lancel), it might explain how the Unsullied took over Casterly Rock as seen in the trailer.
  • The Stormlands were most likely given to a lesser house with blood ties to the Baratheons, or Tywin could have used his position as Hand to appoint a Lannister loyalist to run the region until a suitable heir could be found.
  • How could that happen? Stannis was still ruling Dragonstone when Tywin was alive and then left to the North, Tywin had a lot more on his hand to deal with after the Purple wedding.
    • Stannis had no power over the Stormlands when last he was in Dragonstone; the Storm Lords had abandoned his cause at that point after their forces were decimated at the Blackwater. In the books, Stannis kept a garrison at Storm's End that remains in open rebellion -besieged by Tyrell forces - but outside of that the other Stormlands houses keep to the King's Peace. As it stands, none of the Stormlands Houses have been named Lord Paramount in replacement of the Baratheons; Tywin was probably keeping that position open for someone else who proved their worth. Remember, the Lannisters didn't wait for Robb to be defeated before naming Littlefinger Lord Paramount of the Riverlands, and Littlefinger didn't actually have any ties to the Riverlands beyond fostering with the Tullys. Tywin probably saw the Stormlands as another bargaining chip to be given away when convenient, and he simply died before that happened. Meanwhile, no one who's been in power after him has given the matter any thought because they've simply had more pressing and immediate issues to deal with.
    • Yes but in the show he also made a deal with the Iron bank before being in the North so I'm not sure why he couldn't use the sellswords to take back the Stormlands before leaving to fight the Wildlings.
    • Stannis's priority at that point was heading to the Wall to prepare the North to defend itself against the Army of the Dead. He had spent too much time on Dragonstone being idle to waste forces regaining control of the Stormlands when that gave him no immediate benefit to his immediate goal. At best it might have bolstered his forces if he could have done it quickly and efficiently, but it's just as likely that it would have drained his forces and bogged him down in a prolonged conflict. Also worth noting that Stannis has no patience for traitors and fair-weather friends; the fact that the Storm Lords had abandoned his cause not once, but twice - first to Renly in supporting his blatant power grab and then to the Crown after suffering a single defeat, means that Stannis is done with them. They're as unreliable, if not more so, than sellswords in his mind, and not worth a place by his side. If anything he likely intended to have them all deposed and replaced once he gained the Throne, but that was a distant consideration.
  • How come the answer to that from season seven was: no one? No one wanted a fortress? The door wasn't even locked!
    • To be fair, Dragonstone is an inherently shitty place to live. Very little grows there, the only thing that can be mined there is dragonglass which everyone outside of the North considers to be worthless, and the Northerners only just realized its value. Dragonstone has precious few houses sworn to it and those houses aren't particularly wealthy and that's assuming any of them are left after siding with Stannis. It's a defensible position but not a sustainable one without any room to grow crops. It's only real value is as a staging point for an invasion and there's only one person currently launching a naval invasion of Westeros. Presumably someone has taken residence in Storm's End.
  • No one even ransacked the place, the pieces and chairs are still there.

High Sparrow was arrogant or Margery was clairvoyant?

• Margery's outburst against the HS is apparently supposed to be her Dying Moment of Awesome, and his reluctance to heed her warning supposedly indicates his pig-headedness which makes what comes next kinda karmic. Except... why would he realistically listen to her? Yes, it's clear that Cersei has decided to skip her trial. But wouldn't the most rational explanation for it be that she fled the city to her brother? So rational in fact, that it should also be the first thought Margery herself would come to, because Cersei may be stupid, but certainly not that colossally stupid, right? Actually would've been a nice moment for HS, if instead of just standing there like a dumbass, he would've at least retorted with something akin to: "Well, she must've run off to her toy-boy of a brother then. Otherwise what do you think she'll do? Blow up the sept?"
  • Margaery knows exactly how stupid Cersei is since she armed the Sparrows, she is a lunatic who is ready to throw away everything she has if her enemies suffer and would rather die than admit defeat. For all Margaery knew Cersei was loading a catapult aimed at the Sept or something like that. Won't kill everyone but stupid violence can be as harmful as planned violence sometimes.
  • Margaery knows something's about to happen because Tommen is absent. At this point, Tommen's a true believer, and he fully intended to show up. The fact that he didn't was a massive hint that something sinister was going on. By contrast, the High Sparrow is only thinking about Cersei; he don't seem to notice the king's absence at all, and therefore fails to connect the dots.
  • A friend pointed out to me that Margaery, noticing Cersei and Tommen missing, probably expected something more akin to the Red Wedding to happen; i.e. arrows and bolts from the Sept's upper gallery and masqueraded assassins, rather than a fiery explosion of doom.

Jon's reputation as a swordsman

Ramsay refuses combat by champion because Jon has a great rep as a swordsman. But how come? The only ones to witness his combat prowess are the wildlings, who wouldn't be talking to anyone, and the few members of the Night's Watch at Castle Black. Now the crows might proclaim him a great swordsman, but with most of their ranks being misfits and criminals, who'd they be talking to outside the watch? And what would any of them have to compare with?

• Spies. Also if any non-witness knows about Jon's talents and believe them it's Ramsay. Because Locke was at the Wall and it's not impossible he sent a letter before the expedition to give a sit-rep that includes how the Stark's bastard doubles as the watch's master of arms.
• Not to mention, he is a Stark, who are all generally considered to be capable warriors. In addition, he's the son of Eddard Stark and the brother of Robb Stark, who are both renowned warriors in their own rights. Coupled with the fact that Jon volunteered to the join the Night's Watch and ended up becoming the Lord Commander, it's easy to put two and two together in an Asskicking Leads to Leadership society.
• It's also implied there's a certain amount of exaggeration going on, like with all rumors. Ramsay just figures there's no point in taking the chance, as he's going to win the battle by force of numbers anyhow.

The Dothraki under Dany's command

What exactly happened to them after Qarth? They just suddenly disappeared after Dany bought the Unsullied. I thought of this when they brought back the Dothraki that aren't affiliated with her.

• They were presumably still with her, we just haven't seen them because they've had no role in the story and it saves the showrunners having to hire more extras. Similarly, we've never seen any of the Second Sons with Daenerys, but we know they're present because they're following Daario.

Sansa feeling entitled to praise

• According to Word of God Sansa feels slighted for getting no credit while Jon is crowned as king, but putting aside that the Vale army was readily offered to her as opposed to something she had to work for, their involvement was kept secret from Jon and the other Northerners. From the perspective of the other Northern lords, it looks like Sansa used them, and her brother, as bait. So is she Unintentionally Unsympathetic or what?
  • I would say yes they put her Unintentionally Unsympathetic territory. Looking at six season it is clear the writing for Sansa and the North was a mess in general. They were so focused on getting to Battle of the Bastards between Ramsay and Jon that the area Sansa could have been vital in (rallying Northern Houses to Jon's cause rather than having Davos do it) was brushed over for the most part. They assumed Sansa getting Little Finger and the Vale to help and hiding it from Jon would be enough, but as many people were bothered by Sansa keeping it a secret and not adding much else to the group she came off as bratty again. Long story short a lot of problems people had with the Sand Snakes were present in Sansa's storyline in the sixth season and it goes back to people's concerns that show runners have no idea on how to write for Sansa.
  • While I agree with most of the above, I would add that Jon hardly deserves applause either: first he needs Sansa to convince him to fight at all, then he needs Tormund to help him convince the wildlings and Davos to convince the Mormonts, then on the day of battle he immediately goes full Leeroy Jenkins and only survives (unlike most of his men) because Sansa accepted Littlefinger's help. Yet Jon gets acclaimed king for having "avenged the Red Wedding" even though he neither defeated the Boltons nor killed Ramsay (who, by the way, was only responsible for the Red Wedding via Guilt by Association). So it's also a question of what Jon did to get so much praise while Sansa got so little... which really just makes the writing look worse.
  • Simply put, Jon is the only viable male "Stark" at the time, Rickon is dead and anything south of Brans belly button doesn't work, Sansa while shrewd and cunning, is still basically considered at best, the recepticle for future generations of another houses children, while they do acknowledge females in Go T, Jon being a dude gives him far more power, even if Dany had the throne, the court and houses would eventually expect her to take a husband, it is a medievil fantasy world, so the whole Male domination is still in effect.

Melisandre's Punishment

• So Davos wants Jon to execute Melisandre. Melisandre counters that Jon can't afford to do that, as he'll need her to help fight the war against the White Walkers. Jon agrees, and... exiles her from the North? Why not imprison her until they need her again? She, to her credit, probably wouldn't have argued against this; she seemed completely willing to accept whatever punishment she got. Davos is not an idiot, nor is he petty enough to place personal revenge over the greater good. Surely it makes more sense to keep Melisandre around.
  • Jon probably didn't want the repetition of the Robb-Karstark situation. Just like Lord Karstark, Davos demanded not just Melisandre's execution but to do it personally. Keeping the child-murderer around the vengeful father(-figure) with an itchy trigger-finger is just asking for trouble. Maybe he'll manage to contain himself, but what if he can't? Besides, if Jon is smart, he could do something like send a runner after Mel and instruct her where to go and how to keep it touch with him should he ever have the need of her.
  • What Jon elects to do is actually very wise, considering that both sides have a point. Davos is right, Melisandre is a monster that has committed terrible crimes and deserves death. Melisandre is also right that she's too valuable to kill considering what's coming for them. A purely honorable approach would be to execute her, while a purely pragmatic approach would be to keep her and make use of her. Jon elects for a bit of both... he exiles her for her crimes, sending her out into the dangerous world without the protection of patrons like himself, but lets her live so that if she survives and the White Walkers do breach the wall, she'll likely still be around to help do something about it. It's not a perfect solution but no compromise is. (I also find it a bit headshake-worthy that Ned is so often called Lawful Stupid for his strict adherence to the laws of honor, but when Jon takes a slightly more pragmatic approach people go "But why, tho?")

Who is the legitimate heir to House Baratheon and thereby their claim to the throne?

Okay, quick recap: After Robert Baratheon's death, his crown passed to his !fake son Joffrey and upon that guy's death to Joffrey's brother. After Myrcella is already dead none of Cersei's children are still around and hence no-one can claim the throne as a "son" or "daughter" of the old king. However, brothers of kings have sometimes inherited in such cases, but oh look, Stannis killed Renley and then his own daughter before dying himself at the hands of Brienne. So if anybody were to press that the rightful heir of Robert Baratheon should sit the Iron Throne, who'd be that? I know Cersei has basically orchestrated a coup and dared anybody to say otherwise and while there may not be any (highborn) resistance in King's Landing, any noble House outside of KL could now legitimately claim the crown is in the hands of an usurper (a female one to boot!) and mobilize an army. When some people came up with the "conspiracy theory" regarding the parentage of the "Baratheon" children, it caused the war of five kings. Now there is a very clear succession crisis and whoever wants to control King's Landing has to just claim support for Person X and march on the city. Probably even the Maesters and the Faith would support the rightful heir of House Baratheon. But again: Who is that? There must be some distant cousin, right? And yeah, I know Gendry is still rowing, but bastards don't inherit unless legitimized and only a king can do that.

• The show's Watsonian answers rarely keep pace with its Doylist ones. Which is another way of saying it probably won't go that far. In an actual legal sense of course what you say makes sense, i.e. some distant cousin of Robert Baratheon can claim the throne, or some relative with blood relations to the Baratheon family and so on. In the books, Robert has one acknowledged noble bastard (i.e. a noble child whose mother was also an aristocrat), so in such a situation, you can see that family going to the Faith or some other institution and getting a few other lords to give him acclamation. Likewise, Robert's maternal family, is the Estermonts and they are an active feudal family in the Stormlands, so maybe they can make a play albeit a very iffy one since Westeros takes a rather Salic Law approach to succession. In the show that has not yet been established, as per The Law of Conservation of Detail, it's unlikely to become an issue this late in the story, coming to the final seasons. Logically, all these legal issues are moot. At the end of Season 6, the Iron Throne only has actual control of a small chunk of Capital City and environs. The Reach under the Tyrells and Dorne under the Sand Snakes have declared for Daenerys, the North and the Vale have seceded, the Riverlands has been a mess and has just lost its key leaders...so more or less there's no unified Kingdom anymore, and Cersei grabbing the Throne merely confirms that.
• The return of Gendry in Season 7 strongly sets him up as the future of House Baratheon. He will conveniently spend Season 8 hanging out with two monarchs, both of whom could legitimise him. And if he gets himself a reputation as a mini-Robert who's also a war hero of the War for the Dawn, the Storm Lords will be likelier to view him favourably.

Queen Cersei's rule

• How is Queen Cersei going to rule? Besides Qyburn (and possibly Jaime), who is going to sit at the Small Council to begin with? Also, she's facing two new rebellions, one renewed in the north and an unexpected, large one in the south. Will both sides agree to play together against the middle? Not to mention that she has no heirs, so there is no stability there.
  • She's clearly gone crazy, so there's that. This is the same woman who thought nothing of antagonizing the woman who's literally feeding her city.
  • Simply put: she won't. Not for long. She has enemies on every corner of the Seven Kingdoms, with even more beginning to sail in from the other side of the sea. Cersei was never one to plan more than two steps ahead, her sanity is diminishing, and she's rapidly running out of rope.
  • You have to understand...Cersei at this point is like Hitler in the Fuhrerbunker (like in Downfall), barely controlling more than the capital city even as she promotes up lackeys like Qyburn into high command positions and invents new titles for herself. Realistically, at this moment, she only physically controls one or two of the Seven Kingdoms anymore: the North and the Vale went to Jon Snow, the Reach and Dorne went over to Daenerys Targaryen, and Euron Greyjoy holds the Iron Islands. Meanwhile Arya just decapitated the Freys of their main leaders, and they were already barely holding onto the Riverlands without Lannister aid (given that many of the River lord armies weren't at the Red Wedding so they survived by surrendering for the moment). Technically Lannister armies also hold the Stormlands after the Baratheon armies were utterly exhausted at the Battle of the Blackwater, but Baratheon bannermen have no reason to support Robert's wife Cersei after all her children are dead, they hated her to begin with (supporting either Renly or Stannis), and now other powerful invaders are coming (there aren't many Stormlander soldiers left but they won't actively support Cersei either). So what does Cersei control? The Westerlands, the Crownlands including King's Landing, and a strip of the southern Riverlands along the Gold Road connecting the two - basically what Joffrey had when the war began. Unlike Joffrey, the Lannisters are now bankrupt from wartime spending, Robb Stark did slaughter half of their armies (and they can't regrow men in a few years), they don't control either of the two breadbasket regions of Westeros even as winter is here (remember the food riots in Season 2?), and on top of all that she's facing three new things Joffrey didn't: an aggressive and well led Iron Islands under Euron intending to conquer and hold the mainland, a Targaryen invasion force from the south with dragons, and the large surviving armies of the Vale and Dorne (not blooded in the war yet), and also the still large forces of the Tyrells.
  • She might not even have the Westerlands seeing as the lords probably aren't going to obey the person responsible for Kevan Lannister's death.
  • In short. Cersei is either completely insane, or just doesn't give a damn anymore. Life has gone to crap, might as well enjoy it while it lasts.
  • Cersei is a text book narcissist. She's always been one (her affair with Jaime is in large part due to the status as Half Identical Twin (at least in the books). She refuses to believe that she'll lose because in her mind, she can't. She literally can't conceive losing.
• All the above predictions prove false, and she only gets stronger and her enemies weaker as time goes on (until the finale, or course) because her replacement was Adapted Out and the showrunners liked Lena Headey.

House Lannister's succession crisis

• House Lannister is about to face a succession crisis as well. Cersei Lannister will be very busy reigning in King's Landing, so she won't have time to think about Casterly Rock. It was being run by her uncle Kevan, who left to assume position as Hand of the King after Tywin's death. Whoever Kevan left ruling the Westerlands provisionally (presumably also a Lannister) might be tempted to make his position permanent, as this would give him a strong(er) claim as Cersei's successor, perhaps strong enough to also oppose any attempts from Jaime to reestablish himself in Casterly Rock (as Tywin wanted).
  • They still fare better than all the other major houses in that department (can Jon even have children after coming back from death?). At least they aren't extinct yet.
  • Which might actually be worse: the Lannister family is large and there surely are several branches of equal-ish importance, which all might claim Casterly Rock and its riches... only to then discover what Tywin knew: that the gold mines are depleted. Even if House Lannister avoids internal strife and retribution from Riverrun and the North, its days of glory are about to end.
  • I don't know about you guys but Cersei mentioned in the Season 7 first trailer that "We are the last Lannisters. The ones that count". Then, you got the Unsullied invading Casterly Rock. She might say this metaphorically in a sense that she and Jaime are the last true Lannisters worthy to hold Tywin's legacy and the rest of the family are either dead (Kevan and Lancel), useless (other cousins or relatives who are not named) or with the enemy (Tyrion). Whichever Lannister who is holding Casterly Rock is going to be dead meat when the Unsullied arrived. And since the producers are cutting corners to wrap up the show, it's unlikely that they're going to introduce other Lannister relatives. Also, Jaime, being Tywin's eldest son, is supposed to be Lord of Casterly Rock ever since Tommen fired him from his position as Kingsguard unless Cersei puts him back as her Queensguard.
  • In Season 7 she announces she is pregnant, which does give her an heir. According to a deleted scene, she miscarried the child, so it makes a little more sense why she sleeps with Euron. She's hoping to get pregnant again quickly enough so she has an heir.

Varys's travel

• How did Varys get from Dorne to Mereen so fast?
  • It's not unreasonable to think that there were days to weeks passing between some scenes. That would permit time enough for things like Jaime to ride back South, Varys and Arya to make their own journeys, and more mundane things like the cleaning up of Winterfell after the Battle of the Bastards.
  • Bryan Cogman's defense is that just because events are shown in a certain order does not mean they are chronologically near each other, or even in the right order to begin with. So the real question is working out the chronology. Perhaps Arya's time in Braavos took place in the same time it took for Sansa to travel to Castle Black, and that she's been at the Twins ever since Riverrun was retaken by the Tullys, which would explain why Brienne is still sailing. Likewise, Cersei might have bombed the Sept before Jon faced Ramsay.
  • This still doesn't explain Varys, since that scene takes place after the Wildfire blast...so maybe the Fleet leaving from Meereen is a Distant Finale taking place a month later.
  • If you look carefully at the fleet, there are Martell and Tyrell sigils on some of the sails, confirming that it is indeed set some time forward. It's likely that Varys simply just sailed back with reinforcements from their new allies.

People involved in Jon's birth

• Assuming the kid is Rhaegar's where the hell was the damn maester to help her deliver a crown prince?
  • It's a bastard, not a prince.
  • Rhaegar obviously wanted to keep the place secret and a Maester who knew how to send messages by Raven and who is loyal to the Citadel was too much of a security risk. Furthermore once Rhaegar died, he left Lyanna under guard by Dayne and the Kingsguard who obviously prioritized the baby over the mother's wellbeing.
  • It's a child from an illegitimate union that ruined the kingdom, maesters are also forced to serve whoever is now in charge (as Theon told Luwin) so a maester would have told Robert.
  • Possibly legitimate. Some theorize Rhaegar and Lyanna eloped together. The Targaryens are known to have practiced polygamy before, so it's possible.
  • He's as legitimate as the Realm declares him to be; even if there was a marriage, if there are no witnesses, then the rest of the realm can say it didn't happen. If there are witnesses, then the rest of the realm can declare them liars and that the wedding didn't happen. Without it being an incredibly public, documented affair, it's entirely possible to dismiss as fiction if it's politically inconvenient, which in many respects it currently is both for everyone involved. Jon is King in the North based on being Ned Stark's son, as Lady Mormont said. Given that Sansa should go before him anyway and be queen of the North, if it's revealed that not only is he not Ned's son, but is in fact dragonspawn, he'd almost certainly get passed over for Sansa. Cersei, it's obvious that she won't consider any kind of claim by him to be legitimate - even if she was presented with undeniable proof that couldn't be covered up, she'd simply state that while Jon may be the rightful heir to House Targaryen, House Targaryen no longer have any rightful claim to the Throne as House Baratheon took it by right of conquest. And as for Dany, if Jon is Rhaegar's true born, legitimate son, then he has a better claim on the throne than she does, and I can't imagine that after all she's been through, all she's suffered, all the work she's put in and everything she's built to claim the Throne for herself, she'd be inclined to acknowledge someone who by rights should go before her. She might, might, be willing to marry Jon if that means solidifying control over the North, but she doesn't really have to acknowledge his Targaryen heritage to do that, and doing so would, if anything, simply complicate the matter of which one of them should truly be in power.
  • Which would explain the absence of maesters, Rhaegar probably didn't want them around since unlike uneducated handmaidens they know who is the pregnant woman and Robert would have smashed Jon's head if he heard of it by a maester sworn to serve the realm.
  • Well, to be perfectly fair on that point, the fact that Rhaegar didn't have a maester that put their loyalty to Rhaegar personally or to the Targaryens in general above their loyalty to the realm is really Rhaegar's own fault. In theory a maester is supposed to serve the realm, not individual lords, but Pycelle, for instance, proves that not all maesters are so above it all to let go of their own given biases and ambitions. Rhaegar was supposedly very capable of inspiring friendship and loyalty in others - enough so that the majority of the people who knew him look back on him with fond memories and sorrow at the golden age that was lost with his death, completely ignoring that his actions - for whatever reason they were carried out - are what tore the realm in half and lead to the downfall of his house. A man like that should be able to find a maester who wouldn't rat out his child after his death. Or at the very least, should have had a maester there to care for her with instructions left to Dayne and Hightower to kill him once Lyanna's condition was stable.
  • The Starks too are remembered fondly yet most of their bannermen needed to be dragged into war, delivering a secret baby from a lady officially kidnapped which started a war is not something they'll do for a guy they look up to but saying he was awesome after he died everyone can do that.
  • You also have to remember that Rhaegar had no intention of losing the war. He fully expected to defeat Robert on the Trident - he had told Jaime and Barristan that there would be "changes" in court after he returned from the battle, suggesting he may have intended a coup against his father once he put down the rebellion. With that in mind, it doesn't make a lot of sense not to leave a maester behind to care for Lyanna; if he lives, then Robert's dead so the secret getting out can't cause much more damage than his kidnapping of Lyanna has already caused. If he dies, then there's no way to predict that Lyanna being found would happen in a way where the kid would survive, anyway - it only happened because it was Ned who showed up with a small group of loyal northmen. If Robert or Stannis had been the ones to show up, that would have been all there was to it.
  • Yes it can deal even more damage if the Martells hear his plan of making Jon the legitimate heir instead of Elia's son, he would have started another war. Especially since a maester might also inform his dad about it which means he is gonna have to start his coup as soon as the raven is out.
  • I'm sorry, where, exactly, was that plan stated? There is no indication whatsoever that Rhaegar intended Jon move in front of Aegon in the line of succession. You also seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding as to how maesters work; maesters being loyal to the realm above a given lord means that if another lord conquers the castle the maester serves at, the maester transfers their service to the new lord of the castle. It does not mean that a maester is compelled to tell everyone every little secret a lord has at all times. A maester could, in theory, have sent a letter to the Martells or to Aerys, but so could Arthur Dayne or Gerold Hightower. A maester wouldn't be compelled to inform any of them about any of this.
  • Well what's the plan with the kid then? If he brings his prince that was promised yes he was going to do that and if not he still gave as much protection to his bastard than to his Martell's children and he had the gall to have the son born in Dornish ground. There is a reason why he wanted to keep the birth a secret and bringing a maester from the capital or picking one of Dorne is a big liability even if you kill them since someone might want to find out what happened to a missing maester more than a commoner.
  • Being the Prince That Was Promised has nothing to do with succession; going into WMG territory I imagine he expected his three kids would be a sibling team and lead the realm against the forces of darkness, whatever Rhaegar imagined those to be. I also imagine that he had the kid born on Dornish soil because that was about as far away from his enemies and the fighting as he could get Lyanna. I'm also having a hard time seeing how bringing a maester is a bigger liability than leaving Lyanna in untrained hands; not only did she die in child birth but it's a real possibility Jon could have, too, making the whole thing pointless.
  • How connected with reality Rhaegar is or how strong prophecies are in this universe? He wins a war that was pretty even by challenging the biggest hammer-wielding warrior in Westeros in combat, start a revolution against his father and then raise his kids to fight darkness. Because that sounds like a maester is not the biggest thing he overlooked.
  • A fan theory is that Rhaegar wanted not just a sibling team, he wanted a boy and two girls, the same way as Aegon the Conqueror, Rhaenys and Visenya - which is strengthened by the fact that his two kids with Elia Martell were named Rhaenys and Aegon: he probably expected Lyanna's kid to be another girl, which he would call Visenya. The irony here is that, in the original trio, Visenya was the eldest, followed by Aegon and Rhaenys, a dynamic that would have been inverted in this second trio.

Lannisters attending the Frey's banquet in full armor

• The Lannisters attending the Frey's banquet all do so while fully armed and armored. Although the soldiers make it look easy, armor capable of hindering a sword is extremely heavy and cumbersome, to say nothing of the swords themselves. It's not something most men would eagerly wear, especially while relaxing during a feast. But then, they are mingling with the same people who orchestrated the Red Wedding. Apparently, no one trusts the Freys anymore; not even their own allies.
  • Of course not, the Red Wedding wouldn't have worked if the Freys hadn't betrayed their closest allies.
    • Armour isn't that heavy and it's made to as comfortable as possible. The Lannisters also aren't that heavily armoured and the reason swords were so popular as weapons is *because* they are easy to carry. They are comparable to everyday carry pistols of today, if you are used to it, not a problem.
    • As possible but it's still not casual wear or appropriate. Unless expecting a fight or coming out of it the soldiers should have had change to something more formal and put their weapon away to make it look more friendly.
  • Why is it even a Headscratcher? Lannisters would be insane is they trusted Freys after what the Freys did.

Houses present at Jon Snow's coronation

• It's safe to assume almost all the houses of the North were present when Jon Snow was claimed as king... and it's also safe to assume houses Karstark and Umber were absent. It's not unreasonable for both houses to expect heavy sanctions for having sided with the Boltons (instead of remaining neutral, like the Manderlys and Glovers), but the Umbers, having given Rickon away to Ramsay Bolton, might be brutalized in retaliation.
  • House Karstark may be given some consideration, because they sided with the Boltons after Robb had Lord Karstark executed since the situation was a political catch-22; not punish someone who disobeyed a direct order and murdered those under my protection therefore undermining my authority in war or execute a valuable ally and lose troops. The Umbers have no such excuse. However both houses may be shown leniency as they have a common enemy in Cersei and the White Walkers.

After coronation, Jon Snow or Jon Stark?

• So is Jon effectively legitimized as Jon Stark? He is a Stark in all but name, but he can't be King in the North as a Snow. How would his line of succession be like?
  • Lyanna said "Fuck it, he is a Stark" and all the lords agreed. Since the North by this doesn't answer from the Crown and has never answered to the Sept I really don't see how that's not him being legitimized by acclamation.
    • Also, before he died, Robb had Jon legitimized as his heir. Though Robb and Talisa were expecting a child, they were all killed. With none knowing about Bran's survival Jon is the heir.

Qyburn's MO

• Qyburn didn't really need to lure Pycelle to his room and have him murdered there, as he would surely have attended the trial (as the rest of the small council did) and be killed in the wildfire explosion. So was it out of courtesy or pity, to give him a "less improper" (in Qyburn's mind, at least) death, or was it out of pettiness and hatred, to get to see him die before his eyes? If the latter, then his apologies are, at best, hypocritical.
  • I think Pycelle wouldn't have left without Tommen to advise him or at least lick his boots so I can see him needing to be killed differently and Qyburn's odd morality convinces him to not have the whore involved.
  • Given what we know what Qyburn can do with a corpse, he might have other plans for Pycelle.
  • Perhaps Qyburn though that Pycelle had outlived his usefulness, or it was Disproportionate Retribution for his whoremongering as Qyburn seems to dislike promiscuity.

Road to Oldtown

• Samwell's party rides in a carriage traversing a minor road until they reach a point, still in the countryside, where Oldtown can be seen a couple miles away. Oldtown is one of the most important cities in Westeros... but it doesn't have a road leading to it? Even if that particular road doesn't come close to Oldtown, it should at least reach a crossing with another one that does.
  • Did the carriage keep moving after Sam and Gilly got out? I interpreted the scene as Sam temporarily stopping the carriage so that he and Gilly could look at the pretty view the Citadel and Oldtown before getting back in and riding the rest of the way.
  • Had that been the case, Sam would not have bothered to unload their stuff. The scene implies that the carriage took them up to that point, and they then had to walk into Oldtown itself.
  • It is possible that this particular carriage wasn't heading for the Oldtown in the first place. Maybe the carriage owner was on his own way someplace else and only agreed to give Sam and Gilly a ride but wasn't going to change his route for them, so they parted ways eventually.

Midwives attending Lyanna Stark's labor and delivery

• What happened to the ladies attending Lyanna Stark in her labor and delivery? They were never mentioned in the book, and to keep Jon Snow's parentage a secret, those ladies had to disappear. Did Ned Stark really kill them or did he just trust they'd never tell a soul about a royal prince being alive?
  • One of those ladies is almost certainly Wylla. More to the point in the books when Ned is remembering he says, "they pulled him away from her." Presumably that would mean there was somebody other than Howland Reed. I guess the other woman just decided to keep the secret.
  • Seems really risky, seeing as Ned kept up the lie for 20 some years and could have easily lied partially and told Cat it was Benjen's bastard instead of his own. Just seems like a pretty large hole to trust random women.
    • Yes but it's a pretty large hole that Ned or even Reed killed two unarmed women to keep a secret.
    • Benjen never traveled that far south. He didn't fight in the Rebellion; he was the Stark in Winterfell, holding down the fort while Ned went off to war. He also couldn't pass Jon off as Brandon's bastard because Jon wasn't old enough to be Brandon's; it's probable he wasn't conceived until after Brandon's imprisonment, maybe even his death, and Brandon was spending most of his time immediately before that in Riverrun, courting Catelyn; she probably would have noticed if he had any affairs.
  • I guess, Ned indeed trusted them not to tell anyone. That might be risky, but so was warning Cersei that he knows her secret. As to why it didn't backfire on him unlike the latter case, we can assume that Rhaegar chose the most trusted and loyal women to attend to Lyanna, so they actually kept silent because they actually wanted Jon to be safe.

Lyanna's consent

• Was Lyanna a prisoner or freely with Rhaegar? Were they married? Is Jon Snow a child of love, or rape?
  • A lot of book fans believe that Lyanna was there willingly based on the idea that Lyanna was too badass to be kidnapped easily and have it go without notice. Few problems with that theory; firstly being that it was noticed, otherwise Brandon wouldn't have stormed into the Red Keep demanding Rhaegar's head. Secondly, Lyanna may well have been a badass(it's speculated that she entered into a tourney or two as a mystery knight and did fairly well), but Rhaegar was one of the finest warriors of his time, and his Kingsguard consisted of the finest warriors of his time, so she could still be taken. They also seem to be under the impression that Lyanna was taken - or fled - from Winterfell but, to my knowledge, it's never been confirmed where she was actually taken from. It seems likely that she had been in Riverrun at the time - Brandon had been spending a fair amount of time there, what with being engaged to Catelyn, and the fact that Brandon was able to get to King's Landing so far ahead of anyone suggests he was coming from the Riverlands, not the North, so it's possible Lyanna was there with him. So capturing her from there and traveling down to northern Dorne would have been a much simpler thing than doing it from Winterfell. It's also strongly suggested in the books that Rhaegar started his relationship with Lyanna - willingly or unwillingly - because he believed that he needed a third child; "The Dragon has three heads", which apparently relates to the "Prince that was Promised" prophecy; Rhaegar believed one(or all in a prophecy twist where The Chosen One turned out to be The Chosen Few )) of his children was going to be the Prince that Was Promised. He was obviously wrong with two out of three of them(in the show continuity at least), but he had also been wrong earlier in his life when he believed that he himself was the Prince. But I digress; point being, if he pursued Lyanna Stark to fulfill a save the world prophecy, then love didn't necessarily factor into it and it's entirely possible he didn't take her consent into account, but it's also possible that his declaring her the Queen of Love and Beauty after winning the Tournament at Harrenhal was a calculated move to seduce her so as to fulfill the prophecy. So, it's possible that they were just two kids in love - in which case Rhaegar is Robb Stark on steroids - or it's possible that she was willing, but love wasn't actually a part of it, at least on his part. And it's possible that she wasn't willing at all; the only thing we can say for certain after this episode is that, child of rape or no, she loved her son.
  • Well Rhaegar had Dayne and the leader of the Kingsguard keeping her so it's clear he was fond of her way above a common rapetoy but if she was okay with the union, her reaction to Ned coming to rescue her doesn't look like she would have left her family like that but it's not like spur of the moment doesn't happen. After her father and brother dying, though, I doubt he would have stayed with Rhaegar willingly.
    • It's clear he valued her beyond simply being a "rapetoy", but that doesn't necessarily equate to him being 'fond' of her. Might not be evidence of anything beyond him being possessive of her and/or his unborn child. It's entirely possible that all of this - his kidnapping/seduction of Lyanna, and maybe even his obsession with the Prince that was Promised prophecy that may have driven him to kidnap/seduce her is simply the result of Targaryen madness setting in on him; everyone who knew Rhaegar may look back on his memory with rose-tinted nostalgia goggles, but they're quick to forget how Aerys started out very promising, himself, before madness took hold. Whatever the case may be - whether he was mad or he was in love, it's pretty clear that rational thought played little to no part in the decision to take Lyanna, willingly or unwillingly, given the easily foreseeable fallout it had.
    • Yes but the show never talked about Rhaegar's prophecy. Why would they bring it up now? Just make him a yandere.
    • The show also didn't drop any serious hints about Jon not being Ned's kid until very late in the game, either. Boils down to whether or not they want to attempt to justify Rhaegar's actions or not. If they do, they'll bring it up.
  • Another leading opinion is that Rhaegar lied to her, preying on her fears of what marriage to Robert would be, probably telling her he would make her a knight or something like that, and it was only later that he revealed his true intentions of having a child with her, willingly or not.
  • Season 7 Episode 7 reveals that it was completely consensual. Explicitly, Rhaegar annulled his marriage to his current wife and then he and Lyanna eloped.
    • Which is a bit of whitewashing. Even if she went with him voluntarily and married him, she still ended up in a tower half a world away from everyone she knew, guarded by Kingsguard who tried to keep her brother from her. So a romance it may have been, but not the perfect unproblematic fairytale romance one gets the impression the show wants us to think of it as (as part of the shortcutting of all issues with the "Jon is the true heir" plot point).
  • Well the consent isn't the issue here. It's the fact that it was a marriage and not an affair. Meaning that the child born to them has a claim to the throne. And a better claim than Daenerys. At least from a blood line point of view.

Littlefinger's choice of House leader

• Did Littlefinger really think the Northern houses would support Sansa over Jon? I know they are supposed to be honorable, but the North is heavy on tradition the same as the other houses. A male, a bastard of Ned Stark who is a proven commander/warrior, seems like he would be more of a person the North would follow over Sansa who, while intelligent, is a woman who isn't shaping up to be a warrior.
  • Well, Lyanna proves that the North can be persuaded to have a woman leading the house (even the other houses respect her in the meeting) plus he probably expected Sansa to convince Jon to step down or make a claim for herself instead of sitting there and letting Jon talking about Winter's coming.
    • Sansa probably declared for Jon, partially because she doesn't want to be in the spotlight — there would be a lot of questions of whether she's Lady Stark, Lady Lannister or Lady Bolton at this stage — but also because she didn't want to give Littlefinger the satisfaction of getting closer to his confessed goal after all he had done to her.
    • OP here. I understand why in theory Sansa should have been made the next ruler and Jon shouldn't have any claim whatsoever since he is a bastard. I won't pretend to be an expert or an avid book reader (I just started reading the third one), but queen ruling without kings is still new. The Mormonts seem to be the except to the rule, not the normal. Even then it seems to imply that Lyanna and her mom weren't traditional ladies like Sansa was groomed to be and had to adapt to be more like the other male lords to be accepted. At least in the show they value warriors over non-warriors, to the point that they didn't accept Robb as Ned's successor until he proved himself by standing up to the head of the Umber house. I'm not saying they're terrible people, but that it seems more likely they would look toward Jon over Sansa if only because Jon can swing a sword and male. They didn't even acknowledge Sansa's contribution (making an alliance with the Vale, which was decisive to defeating the Boltons) and credited solely to Jon, just like how history seems to have acknowledge Aegon as a Conquer while his sisters are lucky to be mentioned at all by the people.
  • Jon was shown to have enough charisma to make 8 brothers follow him to avenge Mormont and capable enough to command the defense of the Wall during the Wildling invasion until he was needed elsewhere. He even became the big man on Campus after teaching his brothers how to fight. Saying he is shit because he doesn't react well when you kill his younger brother is kind of extreme. Plus word echoes that he is not only a great swordsman but came back from the dead; he is almost Jesus at this point.
  • Sansa's claim to rule in her own right was lost when she was married. She's still technically part of House Lannister.
    • The Lannisters married her because she has the claim to rule as the last known surviving Stark.
    • She has claim to Winterfell and its lands. As long as she is the unwed Lady Stark she could rule in her own name as a Stark. Once wed, her husband would be the de facto ruler of the North, not Sansa directly because she's a girl. She was married off to give the Lannisters a claim to Winterfell, and later on to the Boltons to cement their claims to Winterfell. Lady Mormont even brings this up that she is no longer 'Lady Stark' but either 'Lady Lannister' or 'Lady Bolton'.
    • Technically in Westerosi culture, a marriage is not considered valid if even one of the participants is unwilling. Her marriage to Tyrion was unwilling on both sides, and her marriage to Ramsay was unwilling on hers. Sp technically she's still a Stark.
  • While Sansa does have a legitimate claim and political skills, she is not one to lead the North against the White Walkers. Jon has faced the Night's King and it's his words that the North must unite against this threat which caused the lords to rally behind him. Also, when Arya and Bran are found, there is bound to be a succession crisis.
  • In this case I don't think Sansa being a woman sinks Littlefinger's plan. As far as the world is concerned Sansa is the only living legitimate child of Ned and Cat. There is a good reason to believe the North, which is supposedly honorable would follow Sansa. If Sansa succeeded Rob to become the next ruler of the North it opens up the opportunity for males in Northern houses to court Sansa for the chance of becoming the Warden of the North. After all Sansa would likely need a good marriage to help her hold the North and produce an heir. Littlefinger's plan was always to get the Vale to ride North to defeat the Bolton's spent army to liberate the North. He likely would have given credit to Sansa for forging an alliance between the North and the Vale and was probably banking on people seeing Sansa as the one to avenge the Red Wedding and freeing the North from the Boltons. On paper its not a bad idea. Had Lyanna not supported Jon there is a good chance that would have happened.
  • All of the above overlooks something very important. Laws of succession are not natural laws. The universe does nothing to enforce them. The North elects to follow Jon because at that point, Jon has freed them of the tyranny of the murderous Boltons and is a blooded battle commander. They choose him over Sansa because Sansa hasn't done any of that. Yes, we out here know she helped by calling for the Vale army, but she's still not a war leader. In the end, the ruler of a people is one who has either or both of A) an army strong enough to hold the territory or B) the consent of the governed. Currently Jon has a little of A and a lot of B, so who "should" be ruling based on bloodline and laws of inheritance doesn't really matter. Much like all the arguments of "Who has the right to the Iron Throne?", the actual answer is "Whoever can seat his ass upon it and keep it there."
    • I agree with you on that is what ended up happening, but I think it still fair to say that in the case of Littlefinger's reasoning for why the North would accept Sansa as ruler is still pretty sound. We have to remember that succession and bloodline beliefs are strong and rooted into the culture that them following it with Sansa isn't as unlikely as it seems to us the audience. There is also to account for the players and schemers who could see Sansa as a pawn or gateway to go from powerful bannermen to the next ruling family of the whole North through marriage with her. At the end of the day they chose Jon, because he fits more Northern tradition and they see him as the savior rather than Sansa since he actually fought in the battle, but Littlefinger's plan was by no means unrealistic or foolish.

Varys's plan

• Does Varys want payback on Tyrion for Kinvara? Because the Sands Snakes make terrible allies what with their kinslaying, child-killing and rampant insanity. With Olenna's support seems more than enough to avoid the infighting the Sands are gonna bring when they gloat about killing Myrcella to Tyrion's face. While we are at it does Varys plans on fighting the dead because I'm not sure who else needs more than the Dothrakis, Unsullieds, Greyjoys and dragons to defeat? Maybe if everyone in Westeros gang up on her.
  • Well, I imagine the show runners want us to think of the Sand Snakes as being far more competent than they've actually presented them as being; it seems clear that they want them to come off as capable, cunning players of the game and just haven't been able to actually convey that in the writing. As for who Varys plans on fighting, given that the show has erased his shadier characteristics it's entirely possible he legitimately wants Dany to claim the throne with little to no bloodshed at all and force a surrender through threat of the might of the army she brings to bear. That being said, even with Dany's forces, sans the Reach and Dorne, victory isn't a guarantee. Between the Dothraki, the Unsullied, and the Ironborn she's got maybe 120k men? The Reach could raise 100,000, Dorne could raise 50,000; between the two of them they'd have Dany outnumbered, and the effectiveness against Dothraki and Unsullied against Westerosi forces is a debatable question that's not been put to a real test yet. Having the Dornish and the Reachmen on her side gives her two potentially ideal places to land her forces without having to establish a beach head against a hostile enemy, and having an alliance with the Reach means that they won't be burning Westeros' bread basket right at the onset of winter. Also, there's some Genre Savviness here in removing Dorne as an enemy; none of the Targaryens were able to defeat Dorne in open war, not even Aegon himself; maybe Dany could, maybe she couldn't, Varys is smart to avoid having to attempt it in the first place. As for who's left after all of that? Stormlands still have some forces left though who they're serving at this point is very unclear. The Lannisters and the Westerlands still have their army, which is at this point the most battle hardened army left in Westeros. The Vale still has it's forces; Littlefinger took some of them up North and those seem to have pledged to Jon, but the bulk remains in the Vale and it's unclear what Littlefinger's next move is now that he's been shut down by Sansa. There's also no guarantee that she and Jon will form any alliance despite them being related, and while the North may not have the numbers to oppose her army at this point, none of her forces are used to fighting in the snow, and marching hostile army through the Neck isn't an easy proposition.
  • Yes but an alliance between Tyrell/Martell would have been hard without Varys and how come all the Reach and Dorne still follow Olenna and Ellaria? I mean Olenna can probably keep the Tyrells but the Tarlys and Hightowers would probably had sided with Daenerys by themselves or assume their own hold on the Reach, it starts feeling like the North is the least loyal region in Westeros. I get that for Varys it's a good move that it's both of them he allies with but I can't see the Sands redeeming themselves when they pretty much did the same thing as the Frey.
    • These are all perfectly valid questions and ones you'd have to take up with the writers. If I were Cersei or Jaime I'd be doing everything I could to foster rebellion in Dorne and the Reach, and I can't imagine it would be hard to do. But we'll see if they actually do anything with that.
    • It turns out that Sand Snakes are very incompetent after all after Euron Greyjoy and his Ironborn defeated them in one punch. Come on, using a whip against a bunch of armed men is very stupid. Even Tyrion doesn't like Ellaria as he called out on her for poisoning Myrcella and Dany tells her to give him some respect because he's her Hand. As for the Tyrells, Jaime goaded Randyll Tarly to turn against Olenna and promised him to give him the title as Warden of the South which means things are looking bad for Olenna.

What's the point of not killing Littlefinger in season 6?

There is only 13 episodes left in the series. Politics and intrigue was one of the selling points of Game of Thrones, but considering how much the writers have had to do to streamline plots to get to the ending sooner it seems strange they would keep Littlefinger around for the seventh season and have him play the Game of Thrones in North to create drama there. Don't get me wrong I liked his character, especially as an antagonist, but with only 13 episodes left and so many other plot lines that need focus before everything converges to the War with White Walkers it seems like Littlefinger was a character who could have been killed off last year by Sansa or one of Vale Lords just tie-in loose end. His character doesn't seem to have a place in the plot anymore now that politics is getting less and less focus in the last part of the series.

• Think about this: how can you kill off Littlefinger in Season 6? He had the Vale under his control by using Robin and he's in a safe position. You can't just kill off the Lord Paramount of the Trident at random. Sansa is suspicious of him but she still doesn't known yet that he's the one who betrayed her father. They might kill him off in Season 7 and maybe at that point Sansa will learn the truth about how her father was betrayed. And considering that Arya is back in Westeros and the Hound is heading to the North with the Brotherhood Without Banners, these two are Spanner in the Works. Arya saw him meeting with Tywin at Harrenhal and the Hound was present in the throne room when Janos Slynt betrayed Ned. If these two ever went to Winterfell, which is extremely likely and they might meet each other again on the same road probably, Littlefinger's chances of survival are slim to none. I won't be surprised if he dies in Season 7 either by Arya or Sansa and his death might provide closure for Ned's death.
• OP here: Hear me out. Littlefinger's power derives from manipulation and being in the shadows. He constantly tricks people into thinking he is on their side, while secretly playing multiple sides, then picks the winning horse without people realizing he does this. That's how he has gotten so far. However, by the end of the sixth season Littlefinger has boxed himself in. He openly sided with Sansa and her family. That burned the bridge with the Lannisters. They were the ones responsible for giving him titles and lands in the first place. He is officially an enemy of the crown, which puts all Littlefinger's remaining power in the Vale. While he ha Robin under his control the rest of the Vale hates and distrusts him as much as Sansa does. Littlefinger broke his own rule by revealing to Sansa what he really wants (her and power). It wouldn't be that hard to imagine that Sansa went behind Littlefinger's back, made a pact with one of the Vale Lords, they kill LF, blame it on one of the Bolton Loyalists and give Robin some poor Bolton solider to punish. Sansa is responsible for his downfall, bringing closure to Ned's death, Sansa gets to become a player like the show runners want, they wrap up a storyline in season 6 so they can focus on the remaining plot threads, like Euron, Brotherhood Without Banners, etc.
  • The Vale are only there because Robin sent them, Robin only sent them there because Littlefinger pulls the strings, if he dies the Vale are going back home since they don't really care and would rather protect their land. Sansa can't offer better than being at home and not fighting an army of the dead head first.
  • If you want to take the Doylist approach, it's time constricts. Sansa only learned of Littlefinger's true plan in episode 10 which already has over-congested with other storylines such with Cersei blowing up the Sept and Dany preparing her departure from Mereen. Also, the Northern lords are too busy discussing about surviving Winter and declaring Jon as King in the North. And as Season 7 episode 1 revealed, Sansa explained to Brienne that the reason why Littlefinger is still around is because he's the one who brought the Vale reinforcements by orders of Robin.
  • Now that seventh season is over and the Stark's bringing down Littlefinger by essentially revealing everything he did it really feels like Sansa could have just gone to the Yohn Royce to tell him the truth about what happened with Lysa and Jon in the seventh season premiere and they could have deposed LF way sooner than just dragging this plot out through an entire season.....

House Frey's status in Season 7

• According to Jaime, the Freys were all wiped out during the feast... Except we only see the adult males being killed which makes sense since they participated on the Red Wedding. However, there is no word on the Frey women, several of which were established way back in "The Rains of Castamere" and presumably there must be several children wandering around that were unaccounted for. What happened to them? Its very strange considering that House Karstark is still standing despite it being reduced to just one girl.
  • in feudal society EVERYTHING went to the sons: name, title, and of course any assets unless by an official will. Plus as the patriarch of House Frey was known for having his way with the ladies it will be hard to establish as to whom will inherit the position. House Frey is done for as when the rest of the Riverlands find out retribution will undoubtedly be swift.
  • House Karstark is only standing because Jon allowed it to stand, as for house Mormont while their leader is young she is feisty and her people supports her, no one supports the Frey and the women might want to run now that their brothers and fathers are dead because they are open season for everyone else that are less honorable in their revenge.
  • The Freys were never a particularly powerful house, and only got by because they swore their allegiance to larger, more powerful Houses. Plus, after the Red Wedding, they practically guaranteed that there would be nobody around to back them up. The Karstarks and Umbers at least has Jon's mercy to fall back on.
  • The Lannisters (should) support them. Also, even if we go utterly insane for a moment and assume that Arya somehow managed to gather up every last adult Frey in Westeros (and not a single one was sick, away on business, or just didn't get the memo), that congregation didn't have a single young man among them. What, did 15-year old also ran away? Where even?
  • To Lannister's land, the only place that they can pretend won't kill them on sight even though that's a stretch (Jaime said they have no use of them if they can't save themselves so they are likely gonna be killed). Plus Arya invited everyone Walder gives a damn about so let's say there is that distant mentally challenged cousin Frey somewhere who the fuck care? The Twins are probably already in ruins because the soldier stole everything when they realized the family's done.
  • All of the Freys that mattered died. It's not normal for women to take ruling positions in Westeros, the likes of Cersei and Lyanna Mormont are the exception, not the rule. And kids are not expected to be specially useful in a war either. Not to mention that whatever is left of the house is now probably in the middle of a huge succession crisis, where everyone who was ready to take the lead is dead, and only bit players remain. Walder Frey was the lynchpin holding that family together, Arya didn't even need to kill the others in order to make them useless for anyone else.
  • Given that Arya is both a girl and a child herself and still managed to singlehandedly bring down House Frey, it would be incredibly foolish and hypocritical of her to dismiss the Frey women and children as not being a potential threat. She even gives a speech about how this was Walder's biggest mistake, that he didn't kill every last Stark, he missed one (well, several) and it came back to haunt him. More than likely the writers were just afraid that Arya slaughtering women and children would cause her to lose the audience's sympathy, so they just didn't bother addressing it.
  • In the show version of House Frey, women do not hold power. Walder went through wives faster than Joffrey went through swords and girls are treated as servants, pawns, and broodmares. The books are a little more fair with this with a few Frey women being significant schemers(including Tywin's sister), though Walder's treatment of women is largely the same. It's likely that Arya wasn't so much dismissing the Frey women and children as not being potential threats but rather expecting that the women at least would be grateful for the turn of events where the men that tormented and objectified them their entire lives were dead in one fell swoop.
  • It's still a pretty big stretch to assume all of them would sympathize with their family's killer over their family. Sure, many of them may have been abused, but that doesn't mean they weren't still loyal to House Frey or that some of them weren't happy. And even if every single one of them was happy to see Walder and his men gone, they've still got a slew of logistical problems Arya has created for them (how to provide for themselves now that all their breadwinners are gone, how to defend themselves when some other Lord hears House Frey is no more and decides to claim the Twins for himself, etc.) that could foster resentment of her.
  • Arya simply doesn't seem to have thought this far. Really, even announcing that the murder was orchestrated by a Stark ("winter has come" and "the North remembers", and all) is a huge target on Jon and Sansa's backs, if she really cared about the consequences she would make it seem like this was just a Faceless Men job like any other, that could have been paid for by any of the several families that have bones to pick with the Freys.
  • For the record, the Lannister soldiers say they're occupying the area to keep the peace. Which presumably means a Lannister garrison is ruling the Riverlands whilst the remaining Freys are basically puppets.
  • Arya didn't just discreetly kill the Frey men. She spread the legend of winter coming for House Frey. Any surviving relative who wants to set himself up as the new Lord Frey can look forward to her hunting him down to stick him with the pointy end.
  • And Arya is a teenage girl. Who literally brought down 90% of House Frey all on her own. The women at the feast saw that she was impersonating Walder, and that's the story that will spread. Only someone very stupid would dare try for retaliation. Given that the Freys violated Sacred Hospitality with the Red Wedding, everyone might see it as cosmic karma coming from the Gods too.

Maybe we should ask the necromancer at our service

• Why Qyburn was not part of the little war council between the twins? He is pretty much Cersei's trump card. At first I thought the actor was absent but he is there, slightly out of frame when they receive Euron at the court. Why does he have no line?
  • I think we should wait for more episodes just to see what he's going to do. Also, the "war council" is very personal between Cersei and Jaime. You had Cersei asking her brother if he's afraid of him and then, Jaime wants to talk to her about Tommen's death.
  • I'd also question how much of a trump card he really is. It took him, what, a whole season to get Gregor up on his feet? That does not sound like a process that's ready for mass production.
  • That ballista sure looks like it.

Use Fire You Morons! 2. 0

• How did Jon "the military man" Snow somehow manage to fixate on the least helpful aspects of the upcoming war possible and ignore the one that matter?
  • Numbers, that plainly don't matter against an enemy who doesn't suffer attrition, and who possesses, essentially, WMD. Did Jon forget how the Night King just froze tens of thousands of wildlings to death in an instant at Hardhome? What good would manning some decrepit castles, and teaching women and children how to fight, do against that? Why aren't they thinking intensively instead of extensively?
  • Dragonglass, which doesn't affect 99,(9)% of the enemy force. What're they going to do when they arm themselves with it, and the WWs just... stay in the back of their horde where the generals belong?
• All the while the real solution is looking straight in his stupid face. Big, loud, green solution that should be his only concern but is completely ignored for no explicable reason. It's not like the existence of wildfire is some tight secret, in fact, Brienne is aware about the caches under the King's Splatting, and if they heard even a third-hand account about Cersei's coup, it should tell them the stuff is still there. And I know, it's only the first episode, there's still time, but you'd think a potential WMD of your own would deserve immediate discussion, even if they'd have to cut time for it from bickering about such essential matters as who should have the honor of being the first Westerosi draftee to Night King's army.
  • Wildfire is unstable, hard to use according to Bronn in battle and since it's across the continent kind of hard to lay trap before the dead come. He cares about the castle because if no one is there the White Walker can just keep going no one is there to oppose the, it's like saying let's just knock the Wall down because we have wildfire somewhere far away in the hands of someone that wants you dead, we don't need fortification when we have that.
  • Aside from the above, wildfire is considered very rare and hard to make. It's likely that the only people who can make it are in King's Landing. Regular fire is all they have to fight the wights with. You need people to wield that fire, and you need them to be able to fight in order to be able to use it.
  • OP: I would hate to sound smug and condescending by repeating myself (oh, who am I kidding...), but "Night King froze tens of thousands of wildlings to death in an instant". This isn't just an "oh, shit, our enemy is strong" moment - it's a radical shift in the entire warfare paradigm! Which is a thing and nothing to scoff at. In real life artillery made castles obsolete, and raw numbers stopped mattering because of machine guns. These unlucky bastards found themselves facing a full-fledged Fantastical Nuke, and their only concerns are: a) extra bodies to throw under the bombs, b) magical rocks they won't even get the chance to use (yes, I know that in previous encounters White Walkers inexplicably kept going in vanguard instead of drowning the enemy in wights and cold, but you can't rely on them staying stupid forever, right?.. Right?), and c) piles of rocks, that will in no way whatsoever protect them (unlike the Wall, which is supposedly magical, so no, that comparison is not valid at all). And the "regular fire" is what? Torches and flaming arrows? Uhuh, I can see NK's death freeze cloud being very impressed with that. As for what you said about wildfire, all true, but that doesn't change the fact that, aside from Dany's dragons, it's still their only chance at leveling the field.
  • They can only work with what they can reasonably obtain, and wildfire is in the clutches of the Lannisters. The northerners have every reason to believe that the Lannisters are complete monsters that would rather doom everyone than ally themselves with the North, and as far as Cersei is concerned, they'd be absolutely right. Heck, it's quite likely that the northerners don't even know what wildfire is, information is not as neatly widespread for them as it is for us. Jon's most important decision was to have Sam go south in search of ways to fight the war, if anyone could come back with wildfire, it's him (instead of just finding out about the obsidian reserves the North should know about already). Meanwhile, all they can do is try to fight in the traditional way, use the few weapons they know they can use against the enemies, and hope the Wall endures until a solution appears(the likely solution being Dany, with a bunch of fire weapons of mass destruction of her own).
  • The White Walkers seem to die pretty quickly and easily to dragonglass. If they have just a few thousand dragonglass arrowheads they can outright kill white walkers, and force said white walkers to play it carefully. Plus, they probably have plenty of access to regular fire, albeit not on the scale or usefulness of full grown dragons. Wights aren't merely vulnerable to fire, they go up like kindling. If the north has catapults or other siege equipment, a few dozen catapults loaded with flaming projectiles would put a major crimp in their style. Anything they'd have that could shoot wildfire is perfectly capable of shooting regular fire, and regular fire is a whole lot easier to create and way easier to handle.
  • Indeed they do. So all the heroes need to do is ask the WWs to keep stupidly marching ahead in the vanguard instead of staying behind their swarms of wights and the death freeze cloud that can freeze thousands of people to death in an instant. How is that people keep ignoring that part? "it's quite likely that northerners don't even know what wildfire is" - no it's not. Not only was it the hallmark of the late Targaryen dynasty up to being used to burn down Benjen Stark (you know, the act that spurred the rebellion), but, I reiterate, Briene was straight out told what it is and what it can do. And yes, Lanniseters have it and they're assholes. This only means that the only option is to go south and convince them othervise, one way or another. And comparing regular fire to wildfire is akin to comparing wood to gunpowder. Both burn, but there's a nuance. You cannot use regular combustibles to set a trap for the WWs and blow them all up, which, taking into account the death freeze cloud that can freeze thousands of people to death in an instant, should be the only viable battle strategy.
  • Oh, what a shock, all those castles proved to be completely useless, and ended up being deathtraps for the poor sods they were "granted" to, and they should've all fled south while they had the chance, and now they're all going to die.

Why was Dragonstone empty?

• As in, why was it completely empty? Even if we accept Stannis took every single person he had (unlike in the books) when he left, why wouldn't another House pretty much move straight in? I know everyone is low on troops, but if there is an empty castle, especially one of the most defensible castles in Westeros, someone would have stolen it away while Stannis was off warring. What should have been a truly amazing scene of Daenerys coming home and taking the throne of Dragonstone was spoiled a bit for me by her rowing a boat to the shore (to no resistance) and then pushing the unlocked gate open and walking all through the castle without meeting anyone else. Even a scene of some random bandits spotting the fleet coming and running for it would have helped.
  • Everyone even looters are too scared of bumping into Stannis' ghost.
  • It's specially grating considering Dragonstone is a very short distance away from King's Landing, and someone who makes their base there can easily attack the capital with a fleet (like Stannis did in season 2). Daenerys should be in the perfect position to checkmate the Lannisters in an episode or two now.
  • Watsonian perspective: (1) The Lannisters are too busy with all the drama in King's landing that they forgot taking Dragonstone after Stannis' death. They probably didn't think that Dany would eventually be coming to Westeros. (2) Dragonstone is a shithole with little resources and food. No wonder Stannis hates it when Robert gave him Dragonstone. (3) If Stannis did left a small garrison in there, they probably left when he died or they fled when saw Dany's dragons and ships. Doylist perspective: The writers think that the viewers are too forgetful or stupid to remember Dragonstone that they'll just make some excuse that the Lannisters just realize too late that Dany is going to take the castle when they heard of her impending arrival. (4) Dragonstone was stormed during Robert’s rebellion and Dragonstone had the strongest bloodline connection to House Tagaryaen (being their ancestral seat and home of their oldest vassal houses) so many who dwelled there fled or were killed with the survivors still too terrified to return.
    • Even those Watsonian perspectives are dubious: 1) The Lannisters were not too busy to send Jaime to Dorne and the Riverlands in that same time period so sending a couple hundred men to garrison Dragonstone seems pretty simple. You can just call up some minor knight and dispatch him, like how Ned sent out Beric in Season 1. And it's not just about Dany because you don't want some random pirate like Salladhor Saan setting himself up there either. 2) Dragonstone might be a shithole, but it's a strategic shithole, that's why Robert gave it to his strong and loyal if disliked brother Stannis. 3) Any garrison might've indeed surrendered or fled, but if that's the case it's the show's duty to give at least some implication that's what happened, be it the garrison commander surrendering, the Unsullied escorting prisoners, something!
    • One has to remember the context of sending Jaime far and wide the last two seasons; he went to Dorne, on a secret, two man mission, because they were holding the princess there. He went to Riverrun because Riverrun was still in active rebellion against the crown, and that was mostly pretext to get him out of the city so he couldn't protect Cersei from the Faith. And while Dragonstone is a strategically important landing site for one wishing to stage an invasion of Blackwater Bay, it's been fairly consistently shown that the Lannisters have always considered Dany to either be a non-threat or a distant one to worry about another day while they deal with the immediate, closer to home threats, whether that be Stannis, Robb, the Faith. They've always assumed that they'd have time to prepare for her after everything else. And in the mean time they got caught up in personal problems until it was pretty much too late. And insofar as either Jaime or Cersei are capable military thinkers, they might consider that any force they could spare to take and hold Dragonstone just wouldn't have been enough to even inconvenience Dany. They're spread thin, holding the Westerlands and the Crownlands and in all likelihood, the Stormlands in preparation for an invasion from the Reach and Dorne, and holding the Riverlands - without any support from the locals at all with the Frey's gone - to keep the peace either in consideration of another invasion from the North or from a resurgence from Tully and Stark loyalist in the wake of the Frey massacre. Because of Dany's alliance with the Reach and Dorne, she can attack them on three fronts and they may have estimated that trying to resist her landing on Dragonstone would have left them open to attack from one of or both the other directions. Whether or not they're right about that estimation is immaterial as neither are perfect strategist.
    • This once again fixates on Dany as the only reason to occupy Dragonstone when there are plenty of other reasons like rewarding an ally as Sansa—who apparently learned a lot from Cersei—argues for in the same episode, or just keeping upstarts from setting up shop there (Salladhor Saan wreaking havoc on shipping comes to mind), or as a bulwark against more immediate threats for whom the castle would be a serious obstacle such as Stannis (whom they didn't know was going to the Wall) or Doran Martell (whom they didn't know would remain neutral after Oberyn's death). Moreover, even if one accepts that the Lannister's simply didn't take advantage of it, Stannis apparently abandoned the place and thereby risked leaving himself without a base at all if his trip to find funds in Braavos didn't pan out since he couldn't have set up shop at the Wall without those mercenaries to beat the wildlings, and that's in Season 4 when Tywin was still in charge and the Tyrell alliance was still solid, so Cersei and Jaime's lack of foresight and manpower can't really be blamed.
    • Dragonstone isn't a great bargaining chip, though. The weather and the terrain makes it an awful place to live, nothing grows there, it isn't self-sustainable, it has very little income from sworn houses. It's also a large fortress that requires resources and manpower to maintain and defend. Anyone minor enough to view it as a reward wouldn't have the strength to garrison it and anyone who had the strength to garrison it wouldn't want it because of how awful it is. Dragonstone only has three virtues; dragonglass, as a staging point for an invasion, and as the traditional seat to the heir apparent of the Iron Throne. That last one is precisely why Tywin wouldn't bargain it off to any minor knight who could hold it - in the books he makes a big deal about stripping Janos Slynt of Harrenhall because he considers Harrenhall - another fortress that's impressively defensive but also unsustainable and a shitty place to live - too prestigious a place for someone who's just been jumped up into the nobility. Putting anyone on Dragonstone sends the message that you're putting them in line for the throne, which is not something Tywin would just give away so he could have a minor defense against Stannis or the Dornish.
    • The ideas that Dragonstone is both so worthless no one would want it and too valuable to give away are contradictory and debatable since a strong castle on an island easier to garrison than a gargantuan ruin on the plains and Stannis remained Lord of Dragonstone long after Joffrey, Tommen, and Myrcella all superseded him as heir-apparent. But even if we accept no one could be its lord, there's absolutely nothing stopping the Lannisters from sending a mere castellan with an official royal garrison (unless you believe no one can garrison or operate a castle for an absentee lord). And once again, why would Stannis have abandoned a perfectly good strategic fortress that menaces his enemy's capital and risked leaving himself no retreat from Braavos? Stannis knows better than anyone the immense cost of taking Dragonstone back from a garrison of remnants since he had to do it at the end of Robert's Rebellion. Unless Stannis knew he was going to fail and die up in the north, his intention was always to reconquer the whole realm, and he's unlikely to want to storm Dragonstone twice without even an attempt to hold the place first, especially since if Dragonstone is truly as barren as you claim the mere logistical cost of supplying food and supplies to any besieging army/navy them would be an immense drain on the Lannisters.
    • 1. The reasons are not contradictory. Dragonstone is rather worthless as land. It's a rocky island that difficult to get to. Much in the same vein as Hong Kong. However, it's valuable as a symbol because that's where the next adult in line to the throne is typically given as a holding. Giving it to some random knight or minor lord would be dangerous because it might give them an inflated sense of self worth (and an eye for the throne) or make it so that they are so impoverished in trying to maintain it that they turn on the crown. Dragonstone is a whit elephant. 2. Stannis remained Lord of Dragonstone because he was the next adult in line for the throne. Despite the age jump for all the Baratheon children, they are still children and not expected to be away from their parents and ruling a castle on their own. 3. Stannis is an honorable man and (for the most part) a very good general. He has to lead from the front. Especially when messages can take days to arrive. He also knew that he would need as many soldiers as he could get, so he brought probably most of his forces and left a skeleton crew to guard the island, especially since he brought his wife and daughter to war with him. When news of Stannis' death reached Dragonstone, there would be no reason for anyone to remain, given that it's a barren rock with no protection from a vengeful crown and anyone remaining probably put in with the Lannisters.
  • If I had to guess, Stannis's support and men has been dwindling ever faster since mid-season 2. Lords die, Lords desert, Lords run out of resources. By season 4 he was complaining to Davos how he's bone-dry as far as support goes, saying his new allies don't have enough men between them to raid a pantry dish. His army later bulks up to significant size by hiring Sellswords, but he's still very low on nobles. So when he marches North he could leave Dragonstone either in the hands of A) his ever-reluctant-to-serve-him Lords B) Sellswords. In season 6 he went North and got his entire army wiped out. My guess is whoever he left in charge of Dragonstone just decided to go Screw This, I'm Outta Here unwilling to face a possible Lannister siege and seeing how Stannis failed miserably. We've received zero information on how the Stormlands are doing, but if I would imagine it suffered a complete breakdown in the central feudal system considering their liege house has been wiped out wholesale, their funds are zilch with the war effort (as Stannis had pointed out), the Lannisters threat, the religious troubles between Lord of Light and Faith of the Seven, e.t.c. Dragonstone being abandoned is likely a sign of how things are in the Stormlands, politically: in disrepair and with no one in charge.
    • So Stannis' entire garrison abandoned the place off-screen. Now we're back to the question of why the Lannisters didn't move in a castellan or a small garrison, besides serious Offscreen Inertia. And since you bring up the Stormlands and what might have happened off-screen, I would've guessed the Stormlands were occupied and divided between the Lannisters and Tyrells, thereby greatly increasing their power but also creating a corps of staunch Stannis supporters with nowhere else to go and nothing left to lose, including Ser Rolland Storm, the Bastard of Nightsong, a member of Davos' faction who's left behind to make the Lannisters pay dearly for Dragonstone in blood, treasure, time, and resources just like in the novels.
    • Stannis departs Dragonstone in season 5. In season 4 Tywin said the Lannisters were extremely broke and then he died. Stannis's war effort collapses in late season 5, which is the exact same time the Sparrow movement arrested Cersei. If you presume Stannis's entire garrison fled between season 5 and 6 we have: 1 - Cersei having her hands full with the Sparrows 2 - Tommen as a laughably incompetent King who cannot decide on everything. 3 - Kevan Lannister's My Master, Right or Wrong has him sit out and wait for Tommen's orders 4 - Dorne is in open rebellion. 5 - The Lannister forces are occupied trying to keep a semblance of peace in the Riverlands. With all the clusterfuck of a leadership the Lannisters have in season 5-6 and all the rising threats, it's likely they simply could not get their shit together to occupy Dragonstone or storm the now completely anarchical Stormlands.

Walder Frey's sons

• So it's implied in the season 7 premiere Arya has been impersonating Walder Frey for a while (long enough to gather his family and hold a feast, at least). She's using his face and presumably disposed of his actual body, so no one catching on to that makes sense. But what about his two sons that she murdered in the season 6 finale? Did anyone notice they were missing? How did she explain their absence at the feast?
  • The Freys don't have a lot of loyalty to one another. They're always scheming and conniving to better their position in the house and earn Walder's favor. It's likely that the ones assembled at the feast who noticed that Black Walder and Lothar weren't there simply thought "Oh, they're not here? Great! Opening for me!"
  • Or "Walder" just said to anyone who asked that "he" sent them on some errand.

If the White Walkers can go around the Wall

• Why not raise their army of the dead behind it instead of taking the scenic route? Like they can make it from Craster's Keep to their kingdom in less time it takes a newborn to starve, even if they want to bring their zombie giant they could have scouted with the season one and two White Walker instead of reuniting?
  • A few reasons, actually. First, they need a big army. They've been picking at the wildlings for over a decade, assuming the aging of characters means something. The north is mostly empty space, with a few dozen pockets of a few hundred people in vulnerable positions, and the rest mostly in castles. While there probably aren't more wildlings than northmen, the seven kingdoms are a whole lot more organized. If the White Walkers show up south of the wall with a smaller force, there's a lot of potential attrition and the potential for the humans to figure out or rediscover their vulnerabilities. Hitting with the largest army they can muster gives the humans less time and room to maneuver, and puts more distance between the White Walkers themselves and the potential dragonglass and valyrian steel weapons. Second, winter only just showed up. They're connected to cold, and for reasons we can only guess at, they seem to be waiting for winter to hit before moving. Third, they may be taking advantage of the ice that's grown up on the sea by Eastwatch. It's possible that they're using it as a bridge to cross over what used to be very choppy and dangerous waters.

People cheering for Euron

• From Ep 3 preview, apparently he receives a hero's welcome in King's Landing. But... he's an Ironborn, and not just any Ironborn, but the worst Ironborn. "From Ib to Asshai, when men see my sails, they pray." Yeah, he saved the city from a siege, but you'd think the reaction would still be more of a mixed one, akin to "Ok, we'll let you actually ride into the city without immediately hanging you for piracy", not outright adoration.
  • They are serving a queen who just blew up the church, the worst Ironborn is also the only guy who hasn't killed civilians in a massive terror attack in the last two years that's on our side.
  • Do remember that Cersei is spreading black propaganda against Daenerys who had a Dothraki horde and three dragons. Euron is Cersei's ally (for now) and he's bringing in those who are allied with Dany(particularly Ellaria and Tyene who are both responsible for Myrcella's death) and are considered traitors to the Crown.
  • Well, you better cheer for the woman who blew up half the city on a whim and the most ruthless pirate of the entire world. Bad things are bound to happen if you don't. By this point the King's Landing populace are essentially hostages.
  • You'll note that Ib and Asshai and most places between the two aren't part of Westeros or the Seven Kingdoms. Euron may be the most feared and infamous pirate in the world but his pirating activities have mostly been carried out in distant, foreign lands. Given the xenophobia we've seen from the Westerosi this season it's doubtful that many would hold any kind of grudge against him for that and entirely likely that just like real world outlaws and pirates throughout history, he may even have an aura of the romanticized folk hero; a dangerous, daring rogue terrorizing distant, exotic lands. He certainly carries himself in a way that evokes that kind of imagery. It's also important that the Ironborn raiding that affected Westeros largely took place on it's west coast; the North, the Westerlands, and the Reach have all suffered from Ironborn aggression but the Crownlands haven't. So you have a guy, Euron, who's last known act of aggression against mainland Westeros was against the Westerlands, not the Crownlands, and was over ten years ago(nine years previous at the start of the series, it's been several years since then), who's reputation since then has been a distant thing that likely has a certain appeal to it, who in public is a charismatic showman who plays to the crowd, not against it. And he's bringing in people who are right now, not ten years ago, in open rebellion against the crown, who have brought foreign invaders t their shores - who have brought the Dothraki to their shores - whether or not the Dothraki are objectively worse than anyone in the seven kingdoms is irrelevant when their reputation is most certainly worse. And in general, Euron is(at that moment) the only thing standing between them and Dany. A mob of forgetful people with much more pressing issues are fully likely to forgive a little piracy for that.
  • It's also a chance to shout some abuse at some nobles (Yara, Ellaria, Tyene). If I lived in this shithole I'd certainly take the chance to do so no matter who they actually were.
• The propaganda explanation doesn't add up: any reason that could be used to downplay Euron's villainy (he's foreign, he may be romanticized) would also apply to the dothraki. Plus, why would anyone listen to Cersei after she proved herself a monster by blowing up the sept and clearly has a vested interest in villifying her opposition? The three real reasons, Doylist and Watsonian are most likely A. As implied by Shrug of God, the citizens we see are just the schandenfraude-prone, and don't represent either the general KL population, or their feelings towards Cersei. B. The scene is meant to be part of aa Trauma Conga Line for characters who became The Scrappy, and we're not supposed to read that deeply into it. C. The writers, knowing they would end the series with Dany destroying KL, were trying to give her a reason to do so by showing that the people of KL inexplicably support Cersei. Ironic, isn't it, how sufficiently bad writers can toss out all logic to set up an ending that still doesn't make sense.

The naval movements make no sense

• S 7 E 2 has Euron sneak attack the fleet Dany sent to Dorne mid-voyage. This is already weird because, since they were coming from King's Landing, they should have been spotted at Dragonstone, where they could be attacked by the dragons without need for Dany to get into the fray.
  • Well from what I've seen, Dany does not establish a naval blockade on King's Landing. Euron could have sneaked out at night, him being an experience pirate probably help.
• S 7 E 3 shows that the Unsullied went to the Westerlands by boat. The way from Dragonstone to Casterly Rock passes by Dorne. There's no reason for Dany's Greyjoy fleet and Unsullied fleet to not have been together when the previous attack happened.
  • Maybe the Unsullied fleet sailed first to Casterly's Rock while Yara's fleet is just an escort for Ellaria and followed behind. Euron let the Unsullied fleet pass unmolested then ambushed Yara's fleet.
• Still in S 7 E 3, Euron goes back to King's Landing (passing by Dragonstone again), has time for a parade, and then catches up with the Unsullied fleet in Casterly Rock (in fact, they beat the Unsullied to it, since Jaime says the Greyjoy were the ones who depleted the castle's food reserves). The wings on his ship must not be just for show, the only way he can do all that in time is by flying as supersonic speeds.
  • It could conceivably be done, since we didn't know how much time has passed between the attack on Yara's fleet and Casterly's Rock, but I admit it's too much of a stretch. Eat your heart out, Varys....Btw, it's Jaime who ordered the Lannister's troops to withdraw and taking all supplies away, Euron is just there to wait for the Unsullied.
• So I'm looking at a map of Westeros right now; albeit one without a legend or scale for distance. I've been told that Word of God is that the continent is roughly the size of South America; if that's true then Blackwater Bay would far more accurately described as Blackwater Gulf as I'd estimate it to be somewhere between Lake Superior and the Gulf of Mexico in size; i.e., too big to effectively blockade, even with a fleet the size Dany was shown to have in the season 6 finale. If that scale is accurate, it's easily possible to sail a fleet of ships through the Gullet between Driftmark and Sharp Point without ever coming in sight of Dragonstone. So, getting back and forth between the Narrow Sea and King's Landing wouldn't be too difficult. Though the speed is certainly the speed of plot, the books do suggest that Euron uses magic to enhance his ship's speed, though the show has otherwise dropped Euron's supernatural elements and even his own actor describes him in fairly mundane terms. But everyone's been traveling at the speed of plot for this entire series, both in the books and on the show, so we maybe shouldn't beat that dead horse. HOWEVER, I'd actually like to add to this headscratcher by pointing out another thing: Dany's fleet would have had to have passed directly by Dorne on their way to Dragonstone. Why she felt the need to bypass it and later backtrack in the way she does in the show is completely and utterly indefensible by logic.
  • Eh, if Dany set sail from Essos which is west of Westeros, the shortest path would be directly to Dragonstone. Dorne is in the south of the continent.
    • Here◊ is a map of the world. Dany isn't just setting sail from Essos, she set sail from Meereen. Not from Pentos, or from Myr, or from Tyrosh, or from Bravos, or from Lorath. Meereen. Which means that she has to go around the entire southern coast of Essos - including sailing around the Doom - and then coming up into the Narrow Sea from the south, through the island chain known as the Stepstones, between Dorne and mainland Essos. Sunspear is absolutely on her way from Meereen to Dragonstone and the fact that she didn't land there immediately to solidify her control over the Dornish houses, so that she wouldn't have to rely solely on Ellaria for their support(i.e., Ellaria being taken prisoner at a later date wouldn't immediately have taken Dorne out of the fold the way it apparently has here), either demonstrates a profound foolishness on the part of the character or a contrivance on the part of the writer.
    • So apparently, Lady Olenna was in Sunspear with Ellaria when Varys visited them which means Dany had to pick them up there then travelled to Dragonstone. I think Dany purposely chose to travel to Dragonstone as a symbolic gesture, it's where Aegon the Conqueror first landed in Westeros and she clearly tries to emulate her ancestor's conquest. Staying there also directly threatens King's Landing.
  • Euron hid himself in the storm, I don't know how he does it either but he always summon storms when he personally kill someone.

Where's the Tyrell army?

• I might have missed something in S7E3, but it looks like the Lannister army (which is severely depleted and scraping the bottom of the barrel for manpower) somehow managed to march to Highgarden and take it in an afternoon without resistance. Even if the Tyrells, who had the strongest army in Westeros at this point, were marching the bulk of their forces to Casterly Rock, surely they still had some to spare to defend their castle? (Yes, I know that Jaime could've screwed the Unsullied army just as well by besieging Highgarden and cutting off supplies from the Reach, but at least they wouldn't have just marched in and decapitated the political leadership)
  • Highgarden's most powerful bannerman, Randyll Tarly, has defected to Cersei's side, taking a good portion of the Reach's army. You can see him marching together with Jaime towards Highgarden.
  • Tyrion's description of the Casterly Rock army kinda makes it seem like this is the "true" Lannister army (the "army his father built"), that didn't get used in the War of the Five Kings at all. We know for sure that most of the Casterly Rock garrison, at the very least, is in that army.
  • I noticed Randyll Tarly, but everyone else in the field was wearing Lannister armour, so it didn't seem like Tarly men-at-arms made up a significant boost to the force. Besides, aren't the Tyrells supposed to have a pretty large army of their own? It's mentioned that there were maybe 10,000 men in the Casterly Rock garrison, and the force marching on Highgarden seems to be the right size. Olenna has already mentioned that "the Tyrell family" sent upwards of 13,000 men to support the Lannisters, and knowing them, they probably had a good number held back in reserve. You only need a fraction of that to defend a castle. After a few seasons of seeing the Lannisters ground down and hearing about how well the Tyrells are doing, it seems pretty jarring for the former to suddenly take the latter's stronghold in a single afternoon.
  • The Lannister's banner is the Crown's banner now so it's logical that Randyll's bannermen used Lannister's colour. The Tyrells might have the number but as Olenna said herself they're not really good at warfare and the Lannister does have many good commanders (Jaime, Bronn, Tarly). Randyll Tarly probably knew quite a bit about Highgarden's defense and how to breach them.
  • Knowing how to take a castle doesn't equal to being able to do it in a few hours/days, unless there was a secret tunnel Randyll used to bring whores into it. Sieges are long and the advancing army didn't look nearly large or well-equipped enough for a swift storm. It defies credibility that Olenna wouldn't be able to hold out long enough for Dany to arrive with reinforcements. Yes, there's always a possibility for betrayal from inside, but there was no indication to anything like that.
  • Last episode Jaime said the Reach houses would not have shown up to King's Landing if Randyll didn't, it's possible the other houses just stay the hell out of the fight. Also there can't be that much men loyal to the Tyrells when they are to their last, sterile relative, the nobles aren't the only one defecting when they see a losing side.
  • The supposed disloyalty of Tyrell bannermen is another can of worms entirely though. Are we supposed to believe that the lords of the Reach, whose families have been fast allies with the Tyrells for generations, would all rather side with the broke, incestuous psychopath who just blew up their lady's entire family? Especially after Olenna joined the side bringing over a huge army and three dragons to the party? And why would Olenna, probably the smartest head of the great houses, not raise a proper army and consolidate her alliances before launching a military campaign?
  • Yes? Like the Reach started this war on Renly's side then switched to the Lannister, Olenna may be smart but she is old and treat everyone with contempt (also she is still suffering of Stay in the Kitchen from the society) and her huge army is of foreigners and the Mad King's daughter. They might hate Cersei but they'll rather side with someone who is willing to give them rewards instead of someone who just wants revenge for her family to the point of bringing dragons to burn the kingdoms.
    • This makes no sense. Who cares if Cersei is willing to give rewards if she's not going to win the war?
  • I may be misremembering as it's been a few years but I seem to recall one of the History & Lore videos on House Tyrell, narrated by Margery, suggesting if not outright saying that all the Reach houses that mattered actually had a fair amount of resentment towards House Tyrell as they considered them to be upstarts and opportunists; the Tyrells didn't start as nobility but rather stewards to House Gardener, and were given control of the reach because they surrendered Highgarden to Aegon and Aegon liked to reward people who personally surrendered to him. Given that Margery herself in that video suggested that the Tyrells intentionally manipulated the Gardeners into the war that got them killed and the Tyrells advanced, it's not unthinkable that this is a common suspicion among Reachmen. In the History & Lore video where Margery runs down the other Reach houses, she describes them all with that same back-handed, barely veiled disdain that Olenna has for everyone, suggesting that House Tyrell may not have treated it's bannermen with the most respect, either. Combine that with House Tyrell being effectively extinct as a dynasty at this point, and Olenna committing treason for vengeance without apparently consulting any of them, and consider that we've been shown that even houses like Stark - the oldest and most legitimate house in the seven kingdoms, a house with a reputation for fairness and loyalty with it's bannermen, has trouble rallying and maintaining support when in a weakened position, it's by no means surprising that the various houses of the Reach would at the very least sit out the conflict and not come to Highgarden's defense, if not side against her openly like the Tarlys did.
  • Still doesn't make sense. The EU may suggest reasons for their to be some mistrust and resentment among the lower Reach houses, but the show itself shows us that the Tyrells were largely pragmatic and PR savvy, and Cersei has proven herself a monster and very untrustworthy, so they should still have the loyalty of most of their bannermen. The dialogue in the episode and Word of God also implies that they were never very strong, not that they some but lost it due to bad diplomacy. If their bannermen were so disloyal, why were the Lannisters so eager to marry them, and how could they field Westeros' largest army in the past, considering the plotlines in the North show many lower houses would sit out a war called for by higher lords they don't like? As for a "weakened position" the Lannisters were up against the North, Dothraki, Unsullied, a rightful queen with dragons, parts of the Greyjoys, and Dorne, and had just surrendered almost all of their homelands to win the battle with the Reach; the Tyrells position seemed pretty damn good before their entire kingdom apparently turned on them.

Chances of Arya Succeeding

• Based on the evidence we have, how successful would Arya have been if she had followed through to assassinate Cersei? This is assuming she won't do it later, if a great tragedy befalls the North before she can reach Winterfell. For it to work, she'd have to sneak into King's Landing, find someone to impersonate, and kill Cersei. Let's assume this is a Suicide Mission, and Arya knows she's not getting out of King's Landing. How are the odds in her favor?
  • Pretty good, probably. The city and the Red Keep aren't under siege yet, so if she gets there fast enough there shouldn't be any problems getting inside. She can disguise herself easily enough, and she's got pretty good knowledge of the castle and the tunnels underneath from the first season. That may even solve the "getting out of King's Landing" problem, too.
  • It wouldn't have to be a suicide mission at all. All she'd have to do is get progressively better disguises until she manages to get one that allows her some alone time with Cersei (Qyburn or Jaime being the prime candidates). She'd then be able to kill the queen, take her face, and do whatever she wants to escape. There's no easy way to defend against an assassin with perfect disguises.
  • If she learned half of what Jaqen was seen doing she has good chances. Her mass murder of the Freys wasn't that easy to do either.

Why would Jaime show mercy now?

• Jaime has quite the List of Transgressions: sleeping with his sister and siring three children with her, pushing a child out of a window, murdering Stark bannermen in revenge for Tyrion's kidnapping, killing his cousin to attempt escape, threatening a Tully baby to get Edmure to comply, and enabling a queen — his sister— to do what he prevented all those years ago. Balancing that is saving Brienne when she's in trouble, trying to keep Sansa safe and failing miserably, defending Tyrion and helping him escape, and giving Olenna Tyrell a merciful death. He obviously doesn't care about being good at this point. Why should it matter to him that Olenna should escape Cersei's wrath? What does one Cool Old Lady who's related by marriage matter to him?
  • My take is that Jaime, deep down inside, is a decent man whose morals are severely compromised by his love to Cersei. Every heinous action he has done is to protect his sister, when he's out of Cersei's influence he is nowhere near as bad.
  • He may also want to avoid the spectacle of Cersei going all out on an old woman whose family everybody knows she already spectacularly murdered. Based on Tarly, Olenna seems to have been well respected, and there's no point alienating their new allies in the Reach, no matter how scared of Cersei they are.
  • Well, that scene seemed to show Jaime more like he is the books, where he becomes a pretty decent fellow after losing his hand (making the Bran incident look more like Early-Installment Weirdness, it was a much more fitting action for Cersei). In the series his portrayal is a bit more convoluted, but he's still not an overly cruel man. He has no qualms killing his enemies, but he doesn't have interest in torturing them. That's the kind of stuff the Mad King did, and he despises this type of behavior.
  • Last season Jaimie seemed clearly incensed with seeing Queen Cersei after she blew up the Sept of Baelor, holding the act as at least somewhat morally ambiguous. It's likely his decision to give Olenna a merciful death is an attempt to make up for that, given her entire family died in that explosion.
  • Jaime has done some reprehensible shit, but he doesn't enjoy cruelty for the sake of cruelty. He loves the thrill of battle, and torturing an old woman to death has nothing to do with that. Witness him abandoning his fight with Ned in Season 1 after his mook stabs Ned. Notice that he's not actually there when Cersei's torturing Ellaria and Tyene, such a scene has no interest for him. There's no reason to torture Olenna when the same objective can be realized with a quick, painless death.
• What I wonder is why would Olenna bet on his mercy instead of downing her own poison right before he enters. This way she still has enough time to drop the bombshell on him, but also ensures herself against whatever torture Cersei might have devised. I mean, Cersei certainly didn't wait to see if Stannis might be in the mood to spare her and Tommen, did she - she was prepared to drink the poison the moment the enemy breaks through.
  • Jaime in the show is a bit easier to read than in the books, even Edmure called him out on how he likes to pretend he is a good man just because he had him bathe and talked softly while they murdered his family like two years ago. Olenna probably saw it too that Jaime would not torture an old lady out of his own ego.
  • Out of ego - no, but what about obeying the order of his queen and lover? Olenna couldn't have known Jaime had talked Cersei out of torturing her. Jaime was still by his sister's side past the Green Trial, why would he go against her on this matter? Also, Olenna should've expected Jaime to blame her for Tommen's death, since the Tyrells' intrigues were major links in the chain of events leading up to it.
  • What makes you think Olenna didn't have her own slower-acting poison on her, or ingested some before Jaime entered? Maybe she only took Jaime's vail to keep up appearances and have some of the good stuff.
  • Indeed, she could've and I would expect her to. Which brings the question why was her execution ever a matter of debate between Jaime and Cersei? It would've made sense if they'd managed to capture her off-guard like they did with Elaria. But in her own castle after a siege, no matter how swift? Obviously she would've had time to poison herself. Cersie should've understood that better than anybody, having almost done the same, and settled for simply having the old bat dead. And yet they both completely ignore this aspect and treat it as if Jaime's mercy was decisive. Yeah, it's a nice humanizing moment for him but a really undeserved and superficial one.

Treating greyscale

• So it turns out that skinning off the infected remains and applying medicine to it will completely heal greyscale. I am sorry but what? I thought this disease way worse than just a skin condition like leprosy, since it was said by Qyburn in the History & Lore video about it that some people often cut out one limb to stop the infection only for the other one start going grey.
  • I'm pretty sure there's way more than just skinning off the infected skin and applying some band-aid to it, Sam just makes it sound easy. Archmaester Ebrose clearly stated that many maesters specializing in healing have tried it and failed or get infected themselves. In short, Jorah's Plot Armor and Sam's luck beat greyscale.
  • I think the Archmaester also says the disease went inactive, not that it was actually cured. Just like with the severing of limbs, it may be that the disease will become active again at some point.
  • Ebrose says it looks like someone removed the outer layer of Jorah's skin and treated the inner layer with some sort of compound. The second half (the pasty thing Sam is seen mixing during Jorah's operation) is likely what seals the deals.
  • Ebrose said sometime amputation works, sometime kid can be cured if treated early and Sam's method was known to have cured two adult in late stage. So it's possible Qyburn works on the limited knowledge of greyscale.
  • Building off of the above, it may just be that Qyburn doesn't know of treatments like what Sam used, because really, Qyburn just doesn't care. If we are to treat the History and Lore video as being told by these characters in a personal narrative style, than everything discussed in the history and lore could be colored by their own perspectives. So Really, Qyburn could know about Greyscale in an academic capacity, but would never have bothered putting forth the effort to research possible cures, unless he needed too.
    • This is most likely the case. You look back at various other History & Lore segments and they're very clearly colored by personal bias; Viserys, Robert, Tywin, and Maester Lewin all had drastically different views on Robert's Rebellion, and Bronn and Jaime had drastically different opinions on the Kingsguard, as examples.

Can a giant mount a dragon

Like let's say an undead giant jump on Drogon is he too heavy or the dragon is strong enough to fly with it? Aside fishes I don't remember dragons grabbing stuff or displaying great strength.

Grounded Dragon

• Say Drogon can't fly for a while, is he fast on his feet or it's like a giant flying bird lumbering.
  • Drogon can fly. He made a controlled descent and recovered quickly from the ballista bolt. It pierced the side of one of his wings and while it hurt, it was not terribly damaging by itself. Once the bolt is removed, Drogon should be able, at least, to fly Dany back to Dragonstone where he could convalesce and considering the much worse punishment he took at the end of Season 5 where he was a little smaller than he is now, and his hide was not as strong (see the arrows bounce of his belly), he must have a very good Healing Factor.
  • The bolt actually hit Drogon on his shoulder joint, not just the wing. That's going to take some time to heal off.
  • The preview for episode 5 has Drogon flying in it, so he'll be back to form by some point next episode. That being said the episodes are playing very fast and loose with time so how long that will actually be is unclear.

Dany targeting the caravan

• Why? Wouldn't her own army desperately need the supplies? And it's not like it was her only option, like she was beaten and wanted to spite her enemies or make some good out of the lost battle - she won. The Dothraki would've been perfectly capable of securing the caravan once the Lannisters are mopped up. I would understand if Drogon hit the carriages by mistake, but she specifically barraged them!
  • The only good explanations would be that Drogon isn't actually that easy to aim, all he really has is an on and off button (Dany saying "Dracarys") or Dany was just so blinded by rage she wasn't thinking of gaining resources as much as she was thinking about fucking her enemies shit up.
  • You can't underestimate just how long it takes to move a huge caravan of grain overland, and how vulnerable that caravan is to attacks — just as we saw demonstrated in this episode. Daenerys would be alone in a hostile territory, extremely vulnerable to guerrilla attacks and moving the grain would take so much time and energy that the Lannisters could put together a new army to strike Dragonstone while she was away. Even all three dragons can't guard the entire caravan all the time. So Dany had to make a strategic choice to deny supplies that she could never have gained for herself from her enemies. All part of the cruel mathematics of war.
  • Uhuh, she would've been all alone. Just little scared Daenarys, her three near-invincible killing machines, and her 100 thousand crazy horsemen ninjas. Who's going to attack them? No, seriously, I'm quite curious.
  • It's not a great logistical move but it's not a bad tactical one, either, trapping the Lannister forces between the Dothraki and a fiery death. Granted it's a bit unnecessary given that as the Lannisters had their backs to a swamp they were already trapped between the Dothraki and drowning, but the fire adds an element of psychological warfare that the swamp lacks, making it an effective terror tactic.
  • We, the viewers, know that the shipments carrying gold are already in King's Landing, but Daenerys has no way of knowing which shipments are carrying gold and which shipments are carrying grains.
    • She probably has no way of knowing what they're carrying period, but regardless, it has to be something valuable. "trapping the Lannister forces" - why? If you trap them, they'll only fight harder. Leave them an avenue to escape, and they'll probably take it, allowing the Dothraki to run them down. Hell, wouldn't the Dothraki themselves run into those burning wagons?
  • I believe this tactic is called 'scorched earth' - which Stalin's army made good use of during World War II. Basically you destroy anything that could be useful to your enemy. I can't remember fully, but Daenerys has good reason to know that the Lannister army is transporting supplies they raided from Highgarden. So perhaps she also sees this as punishment; they got the supplies by ambushing a weaker opponent so their punishment is that no one gets to use them. And in the long term, King's Landing will have been deprived of food and supplies, giving Cersei more reason to surrender peacefully. We know there's no chance of that happening, but still.
    • Red Army was retreating, so they were evacuating everything they could and destroying the rest. This is nothing like that. Also, securing the supplies would've achieved all that and actually getting her army some munchies.

Forgetting about the Scorpion

• Yes, chaos of battle, all that, sure, but you'd think deploying the AA would've been a priority, with people assigned to it beforehand, ready to fire the moment dragons appear. Also, just one? Wasn't the entire point of it that it can be mass-produced?
  • Well yeah they can be mass produced but that's not to say they've been mass produced as of the time of the battle. For all we know that could be the very first one that Qyburn showed Cersei in episode one and the others are currently being built and positioned around King's Landing. As to why none of the Lannister soldiers thought of going for it before Jaime or Bronn, they were dealing with a horde of Dothraki on top of a fucking dragon raining fire down on them. Also, it was hinted to be a new weapon invented by Qyburn for taking down dragons specifically. It's likely no one had actually been trained to use it yet, they certainly didn't have enough time to learn to use it well. It's a miracle Bronn managed to hit Drogon at all really.
  • I'm surprised they even brought some in the Reach, they didn't expect dragons in Highgarden and it's still a siege weapon even if it's more mobile than the usual ballista. Although kudos to whoever designed the caravan to open itself because Bronn would have been toasted if he had to take the thing out by himself all in all they used the scorpion faster than they should have been able to.
  • They probably are being mass produced but the last intelligence the Lannisters had put the three dragons at Dragonstone which is very close to King's Landing and no where near the Reach so it makes sense most would be hoarded around the capital. The one Jaime had was most likely for the attack on Highgarden or a "Just in case" and they may have had more, remember we only saw the tale end of their baggage train they could have more up near the front guarding the very important gold shipments that already were across the water. They also were already in formation (just barely having time for that much) and only had a few seconds between seeing Drogon and getting attacked by him no where near enough time to issue a command to get some men over to the Scorpion, especially since Jaime and Bronn were too shocked at seeing a full grown dragon bearing down on them. The scorpion would be useless against a cavalry charge so against Dothraki there was no point to arming it before Drogon appeared
  • Which is why you give such orders beforehand. As in, "You, you, and you - Scorpion duty. Stay by it at all time, keep it in working order, once you hear the signal, deploy it and prepare to fire. Lookouts, if you see anything suspiciously large in the sky, give the signal." Doesn't seem like the most complex stratagem to me. As was correctly said above, they had the right idea for the quick-tent, which hints at foresight and cleverness. Which they then completely undermined by failing to actually assign people to make use of it.
  • Well, to be fair, they first saw a hoard of Dothraki, than the giant, flame-spewing Dragon. They may have had crew set up just like that, wouldn't have helped. Up until that point, its likely that the people or armies Westeros have never seen a living dragon in battle since Aegon first conquered Westeros. The US military could have multiple training drills and assigned positions and tactics for fighting hostile Alien invaders (Independence day/Battle for L.A.), but that doesn't mean its ready for an Alien invasion. Having men assigned to operate the Scorpion and being ready to operate it doesn't mean that once the dragon shows up and starts turning soldiers to ash, they are going to either be able to or even *want* to. Its likely that with all the chaos, whoever were assigned to operate the Scorpion was either cut down by Dothraki heading to it, or simply didn't even think about manning it with said chaos all around them and above. Just consider the look on Jaime's face when Drogon showed up, how do you think the soldiers felt? Wouldn't be that surprising if this raid ends up *helping* the Lannister forces, by allowing them to get over the shock of dragons in warfare and being ready for dragons when it comes time for the next battle.
  • Which soldiers? You mean the ones who obediently converged on Jaime and shot Drogon with mere longbows at his command? Oh yes, utter shock, panic and loss of morale right there, sure. As for the Independence Day example, if you recall, the military still retaliated, whether or not they were a match for the aliens. Which is exactly my point. If there was a crew but it was taken down by the Dothraki, or they snapped and run, that would've indeed been believable. But it looks like it wasn't even assigned there in the first place, which is ridiculous.
  • They retaliated like morons though, like some guy got vaporized because they thought the shield will block dragonfire. They are falling back on their usual drill instead of dragon attack drill, like that's where the you can only fall back to your training sentence come from.
  • Of course the real reason is that they needed a named character to do something heroic rather than some random nobody soldier. Who knows, maybe there was a team on scorpion duty but they all got drunk the night before celebrating the victory in Highgarden. We can't really make a judgement call either way.

How the Citadel feels about Qyburn making weapons?

• Its established that the Maesters don't care about scientific progress, if anything, they are more interested in keeping Westeros trapped in Medieval Stasis. Qyburn was kicked out of the Citadel for his admittedly amoral experiments on living subjects, yet he managed to make significant leaps by raising the dead and developed fairly advanced weapons to assist the Iron Throne in a more meaningful way than the Citadel had. It makes me wonder, how does the Citadel feels about the crown using a disgraced Maester raised as Hand and using his knowledge towards progress, which is a complete subversion of these ideals?
  • They are probably unaware, they predicted Winter coming when everyone knew it three months already (granted they might have wanted to be sure but still) don't know that Lord Commander Mormont is dead and as Qyburn said the Citadel are mostly made of young noble with no ambition or peasants satisfied with having a meal and work out of the field. They aren't actively against progress they just have a shitty scientific method of if it fail once it fails forever let's not bother take other factors in. They are just gonna act like Pycelle and impotently complain that Qyburn is dabbling in dangerous science but nothing more.
    • Minor nitpick on your first point there. The Maesters don't predict winter, they announce its official start. So yeah, people knew summer was at its end before the ravens were sent, they weren't meant to say winter is coming in the future, but that it has come already.

Why not make Daenerys a Liberator?

I understand Tyrion wants to hold Daenerys back from conquering in full force to prevent her from being seen as a foreign invader. To his credit he has some point since Cersei painting Dany as a blood thirsty warmonger who has brought over a people who are known for enslaving, stealing, and raping people. Instead of trying to win the war by holding a siege on the capital why didn't anyone think to have Dany start her conquering in areas that were hit bad by the Lannisters during the war and are dissatisfied by their rule? This way they can paint Dany as a liberator and win the people's support. The Riverlands were shown to be in shambles thanks to Tywin's actions against the people and the Freys poor ruling skills. If Daenerys' forces started there, worked with the lords to fight off the Lannister forces then helped restore order and supply them with food back when she still had the Reach it would go a long way in not only winning over the Riverlands, but also show the rest of Westeros that she is different from her father and possibly win more people to her cause and allow her to conquer more without fear of looking like the Mad Queen. In comparison with Cersei who has failed to keep her actions in blowing up the Sept secret.

• The Riverlands don't have enough men to be worth it, every kingdom that was hit by the Lannisters was hit so hard there is not much left to liberate.
• That doesn't mean the country was completely depopulated. This is indeed a great idea, if Dany could force the Dothraki to keep their worst tendencies at bay (doubtful, but they do worship her as the second coming of T-1000, so not impossible). This way she could've countered Cersei's propaganda, cut off her support, provided food for the Dothraki (what is she feeding them with now BTW), reinforced her allies, forced the Lannisters to spread their forces thin, blasted any significant opposition with her dragons, and eventually tied the noose around KL. All better than just sitting at Dragonstone for months (?) waiting Gods know for what and taking a single castle which apparently nobody needed anyway.
  • Dany starts the war with the most obvious kingdoms already on her side. She had the Reach, due to Olenna's support. Dorne thanks to the Sand Snakes. Half the Iron Fleet courtesy of Yara. Parts of the Crownlands such as Dragonstone she'd already captured. That leaves the Iron Islands, which she'll have to wrest from Euron at some point anyway and isn't a good demonstration of her mercy because it's a very harsh island region of ruthless killers and religious fanatics whom most of Westeros doesn't believe deserve much pity. The North and the Vale are aligned with Jon now and are neutral, irrelevant to her fight against Cersei and honestly not worth 'liberating' because that will only be considered an unprovoked attack. The Riverlands are the only area where she can score easy brownie points with the locals, but it's a liability for anyone trying to hold it. Taking the Westerlands is already a part of Tyrion's plan, but they take it at the expense of the Reach. And the Stormlands are seemingly with Cersei and a very tough nut to crack on account of the weather, the terrain and the fortified castles.

If Tyrion's plan had worked, the Lannister army would have been beaten decisively and the Riverlands would have been easy to hold, with only one direction being left Cersei could have struck from, which was going to be King's Landing, the next obvious target. If it wasn't for Euron and Randal Tarly, Cersei wouldn't have had a chance. This way, Dany could have actually demonstrated some mercy. But not only does Randal's bigotry override his self-professed sense of duty, it actually puts Cersei in a position where she can't show mercy, and does look like a merciless conqueror. Euron's wildcard nature also loses Dany the Reach and Dorne, where she can actually build support for her conquest. In hindsight, the liberator approach was the wrong one and it underestimated the agency some of the chess pieces displayed on their own.

If the annulment was known

• That means Tywin just butchered children for no reason, right? And he has way more to make up for changing sides so late in the war. So why no one brought it up? It's not like the septon did the marriage secretly if he sent it to the Citadel.
  • The High Septon in question seems to have recorded absolutely everything. If he was already known for this, it's incredibly likely that the maesters saw his name on the book, said to themselves "oh look, yet MORE exhaustive documentation from His High Holiness", and put it on the shelf without ever actually looking at it. Why it doesn't seem to have come up anywhere else is trickier. Maybe Rhaegar made him swear never to speak of it?

Sam abandoning the Citadel

• Why. Ok, maesters were kinda jerks for refusing to immediately obey an acolyte making outlandish claims, so what? Sam came there first and foremost to learn. He got that, and he'd already obtained valuable knowledge about Dragon Glass. How was grabbing a few random books and storming off any better than staying and continuing his studies in relative safety and comfort? You can't even say it was due to lack of progress through the Citadel ranks, seeing how in a few (?) months (??) he elevated from menial labor to a personal assistant for an Arch-Maester, from whom speaking out of line and conducting forbidden experiments was tolerated, what the hell else did he want? To be made Grand-Maester in a week?
  • To have them actually take the invasion, real reason he was there to begin with, seriously? Because if they don't what's the point of being there? He didn't even need to go there to know Dragonstone had dragonglass Stannis told him, he is more useful manning the raven at the Wall to make sure everyone who treats the White Walkers has a good communication relay than transcribing books. He didn't even came there to learn he came there to get formation and be sent back at the Wall not cleaning chamber pots and be a scribe, nothing we were shown taught to him came close to what Aemon does so why would he bother staying there when he knows that in two weeks the dead are gonna be in Westeros? Just going back to give someone's Heartsbane is more contribution than anything he did so far by being at the Citadel. And he studies illegally, his real job is to copy manuscripts of wedding and such, so every hour of studying the matter he needs to fight White Walker is in between four hours of serving Ebrose.
  • Why should they? Did he bring any proof? The point is to look for information. No, he didn't need to go there to learn about Dragon Glass. And yet it was treated as a huge discovery he made specifically in the Citadel, so we'll have to go with that no matter how stupid it is. "in two weeks the dead will be..." - uhuh, after several months (or is it years) spent galavanting behind the wall doing fook all now it suddenly becomes super-urgent. Give me a break. Yes, his studies are illegal, although I'm pretty sure that Ebrose was aware of them and was turning blind eye, because he doesn't look like an idiot to me. Yes, he hasn't found what he's looking for yet. So? Who's to say he won't come upon it tomorrow? Or two days later? And what better things are there for him to do? I somehow feel that there were other ways to pass the sword, and it didn't look like the raven service was crumbling without him either. Oh, and he's also taking his wife and son straight into the maw of the undead horde, after going to such lengths to take them away from it. That's certainly worth it.
  • Sam also wasn't sent there just to gather information. He was also sent expressly to be a maester as the Wall lacks one since Aemon kicked it. And it's clear he would have become one eventually had he stayed.
  • Sam was sent to Oldtown to serve as Maester of Castle Black in service of The Night's Watch. You know, the organization dedicated to fighting White Walkers that is currently devoid of a Maester? The Maesters ignoring Sam's requests for data, particularly when Jeor Mormont, Jon Snow and now Maester Wolkan (a respected member of their own order) all had already sent letters warning of the Walker menace, is pretty much a direct disrespect for the sovereignty of the Night's Watch. Sam's request was that he as a member of an organization dedicated to fighting the undead with personal experience in fighting the undead just be allowed to look at data regarding the undead (which happens to be forbidden books). Sam handled himself with monastic patience up until they ignored an actual Maester asking them for help on the subject. By that point he realized they were far too stubborn.
  • Yes, we get it, the maesters were uncooperative. Well, fook them. The question remains, how grabbing a few random books and running straight into the maw of the undead horde was any better than staying in safety and comfort and continuing his research since he already had access to the forbidden books, even if limited, and it's clear that, as he progresses through Citadel's ranks, he'll be getting more freedom and resources, and who knows, maybe even an opportunity to turn the maesters around.
    • Sam has more important things to do than just study the few books of relevance he gained access to. He needed to tell Jon about his parents, which can't be done by raven. He had a Valerian steel sword with him that could do more good in the hands of a skilled warrior, such as the ones who are with Jon now, which isn't something he could entrust to Ginny. He also had to quit while he was ahead, because he'd already gone against the maesters before, and eventually their patience would run out, they'd find the books he'd stolen, and kick him out. Better to leave on his own terms with everything useful he'd managed to scrape together.
    • He gained access to the entire library. No, he very-very much didn't need to tell Jon about his parents - it fooked everything up between him and Dany, and it was clear from the very beginning that it would. I'm honestly astonished Dany didn't kill Sam just for that. Sword - send a raven and ask Jon to send someone to come pick it. In fact, do that right after arriving, so that his father cannot take it back. Also, "everything useful he'd managed to scrape together" is what, exactly? A few random books that ended up doing no good whatsoever?

To catch a Wight

• Notwithstanding some slight logistical concerns, I see a couple inherent flaws with that brilliant plan.
  • Night King controls the wights. How do they know he cannot just shut one down long before they get anywhere near King's Landing, turning it into a regular corpse? Hell, how do they know it won't shut down by itself if taken too far away from its master?
    • They don't, but there's nothing that's been shown in the series to date that states he can shut them down.
  • What is it going to prove? Ok, so they will drag a thrashing mindless undead before Cersei. Who has a sentient, highly-functioning undead standing right next to her. Not to mention, two of the people trying to convince her are also undead, which I see no reason why she cannot know, and her arch-enemy has dragons hatched from petrified eggs. Why would she see the wight as anything but a cheap parlor trick by that point?
    • Yes because knowing there is a Qyburn on the opposing side of her is not something to worry about.
    • It is, but that's not what they're aiming for.
    • The Mountain is held together by some sort of weird science/magic mix that has it's upsides (he's very resistant to damage now) and some downsides (he's lost most of his speed), Jon is living as near as anyone can tell, and more to the point he doesn't want to advertise that fact. The wrights however can be decayed to the point where they scientifically should not be able to move yet are still fast as hell and can still operate their severed limbs independently, making them more of a threat.
    • The question was how the existence of a single undead proves the existence of the Army of the Dead, when there are other ways of raising the dead which Cersei is aware of.
    • Do any of them know that Gregor's undead? Officially Gregor Clegane is Ser Robert Strong. Even if we assume that Varys or someone else has told Dany's group that Ser Robert is, in fact, Ser Gregor, do they have any reason to think that he's undead and not just miraculously recovered from his wounds? Ultimately I agree that the wight hunt is a waste of time, and Cersei seeing another form of zombie may or may not have any affect on her, but do we have any reason to believe that they have any reason to think this won't be the most shocking thing Cersei's ever seen in her life?
  • Why do they bother? Dany is winning. Why do they need any incentive other than "surrender, and I will let both of you live"? Don't tell me that "expedition" would be faster than just winning the war which she should've already done by now.
    • Because winning the war will be costly and she has to keep the peace afterwards. If Dany burns down KL she becomes a hated tyrant and has to mop up any resistance, the Lannister's can still put a dent in her remaining armies, and ultimately if she kept fighting the war there is no guarantee she would be strong enough to fight the Night King immediately afterwards.
    • Even If the dragons can brush off all the scorpion bolt and arrows thrown at them Daenerys on Drogon's back might not, also it would really help if the peasants are on her side because her Dothraki and Unsullied are gonna freeze to death if no one can weave them warmer clothes.
    • As of Season 8, it's quite clear that they should have just stomped Cersei right from the off and then gone and fought the dead. As was obvious to anyone with a brain and certainly should have been obvious to Tyrion, Cersei just betrays their trust and let's them fight the undead sustaining heavy casualties whilst Qyburn beefs up Cersei's defences.
  • Why do they bother with that particular way? I think it's been established, that if a man dies north of the wall, unless the corpse is burned, it will shortly rise as a wight. Well? Make a corpse and let it rise. Don't tell me they cannot find some cutthroat to use.
    • It has not been established that way at all. The only time we see an on-screen resurrection involved the Night King being personally involved, but none of the night's watch members killed by the mutineers turned, nor did the wildlings killed by the Ranger party at the tail end of season 2. So far the only common link is that White Walkers are nearby when the dead rise.
    • Yes, it has been. The very first two wights we see. The ones they bring into the Castle Black back and Jon ends up saving Jeor from. Also, afterwards they're constantly aware that you need to burn the corpses as soon as possible, or they'll rise, and the Wildlings do that all the time. Mutineers must've burned their victims, and the wildlings might've arisen, unless other Wildlings found them and burned.
    • The two corpses found at the start of the series were already wights when they were found. It was noted that their decay rate was unnatural. And after seeing that burning the dead is just common sense. They might not automatically turn into ice zombies at death but it still doesn't stop any random white walker who happens by take control of them if you just leave them in the ground.
    • Episode 6 also showed that killing a White Walker kills off all the wights they raised, which would indicate that they had to play an active role in raising them. And the first two corpses were just playing possum to be brought inside the wall. It could be that they physically can't cross it as Benjen said, or that they were hoping to catch the Night's Watch unaware, but from the way Mormont describes what happened and how the other two castles along the wall burned the corpses immediately implies that this was an intentional ruse rather than the dead rising of their own accord.

What was the point of Jorah's greyscale?

• So in the books Jorah didn't get greyscale. That was a different character's plot point they grafted on to his. Not altogether uncommon but for this one I'm really scratching my head and wondering why they bothered. Jorah getting greyscale influenced practically nothing. It separated him from Dany for a while which...achieved nothing since he warped to the citadel and warped right back to her side without doing anything worth noting. And Jorah's not a master tactician, having him by Dany's side would not have changed the outcome of any of her battles. True he met Sam and is in gratitude to him, but that's not all that significant an achievement since if they meet under any future conditions Sam's connection to Jeor Mormont would be enough to achieve any other plot point that might influence. Furthermore the fact that it's not at all a plot point in the book means any future Sam/Jorah interaction is unlikely to be plot critical. Seems like it was just some busy work to keep the character's relevant during a lull in their story. Unless the disease itself is going to play a crucial role.
  • It is possible that the show runners originally wanted to do something different with Jorah's grey scale storyline, but realized they couldn't do it in 13 episodes they had left to wrap up the show. The sixth season had them rush or end storylines abruptly to for similar reasons. There is also the possibility that they intended Sam to save Jorah from the start because they liked the idea of Sam saving the Old Bear's son. It might have even been as simple giving Jorah grey scale freed his actor up to film the Resident Evil movie without having to kill off the character.
  • I read somewhere that the actor who plays Jorah wanted some time-out from the series in order to pursue some other work, and asked to be written out. So they gave Jorah greyscale so he could disappear for a while, and then easily cured it once he could come back.
  • It's primary reason was to give a definitive end to Jorah's arc with Daenerys. When he revealed to Daenerys the Greyscale in season 6, the concept of her loyal bear being infected with a incurable horrifying disease seemingly made Daenerys finally realize that she took Jorah Mormont for granted all these years (you can tell by her "I'm sorry. I'm so sorry."), when she sent him away to cure himself there was the caveat that she had finally realized how important Jorah is to her ("I need you by my side" and whatnot). Him getting cured and finally returning to Daenerys was a conclusion to that arc, with Daenerys now appreciating him fully as she thinks she should have.
  • Additionally, Greyscale also was a crucial point in Sam's story. His transgression act to cure Jorah's disease was fundamental to his realizations that the Maesters are a bunch of traditionalist old farts and he'll have to break their rules to get anything done.
    • Coupled with this, Sam cures Jorah's greyscale. Because of this, Sam has to transcribe old scrolls upon one of which Gilly reads that Rhaegar and Elia broke up and Rhaegar married Lyanna, which means that Jon was born legitimately and is the rightful heir to the Iron Throne. Kinda important plot point.

How does the Blackwater Rush works?

At first I thought Jaime sinking into the abyss was just for drama, because we could see people on fire run in before getting really deep, but then Bronn apparently had to swim him across another shore and according to comments the deep sinking was legit. How does it work it's not like he was catapulted out of a bridge, he was relatively close to the shore shouldn't it have been him drowning in four feet of water?

• Don't think too hard about it. Bronn somehow dragged a man in 50 pounds worth of armour and swam several hundred meters downstream, without any of the thousands of Dothraki running around noticing.

Night King's Javelin

So the Night King has ice javelins powerful enough to kill a full-grown dragon with one shot. Why didn't he use it to kill Jon and Co when they were stuck on the ice lake? Forget about pride etc., in Hardhome the Night King clearly recognized Jon's threat, this is plain stupid to let a serious enemy get away that easily.

• If he did recognized Jon as a threat he wouldn't have let him leave Hardhome where he told his wights to stop pursuing just to show his last trick, he is mostly amused by Jon and humans in general as we saw plenty of times White Walkers ignoring, toying or ritual killing humans and horses for fun.
  • The first time is understandable, the second time, not so much. Jon killed a high-ranking White Walker and is shown to have good leadership skill, he's a credible target now. The Night King is shown to be quite cunning and calculating, it's quite hard to understand while he let a formidable foe get away given his track record. If the Night King has psychic power like Bran and can see the future somewhat, it's even more stupid.
  • Pretty average leadership skills, I mean he died once by his own men and needed a lot of miracles to be saved the other times, like Jon survived this encounter already by luck and the Night King got a dragon out of the deal, why would he see him as that much of a threat? Because he killed a few lieutenants? Well just keep an army of undead in front of Jon and he won't be able to do much.
  • And a lousy battle commander, but it didn't deny the fact that, miracles aside, Jon rallied the North to defeat the Bolton, was crowned King in the North and now he is the only Westerosi leader to recognize the Night King's danger and set out to stop him. Killing him will throw the North into chaos and likely doom mankind's last chance. In fact, he manages to get Cersei and Dany to sit down and discuss a ceasefire (ep 7 preview), likely giving the Night King's plan a major bump.
  • Does it? I mean even with what is left of the seven kingdom together it's not exactly a war as much as pest control for the White Walkers so far. It's kind of hard to understand what his motivations are but given how he personally killed the Three-Eyed Raven the moment he had the opportunity it's possible he sees Jon Snow as a game more than a threat. Also since Jon has one of the few weapon resistant to White Walker magic NK might not have wanted to look stupid if he dodge or parry the spear and he has to throw another one, I mean guy has an image to keep. In fact most of the actions the White Walkers have done so far suggest they want people to know they are coming (weird dismemberment, the Wights attacking Mormont at Castle Black, letting the Wildlings flee Hardhome, taking Craster's children, etc.)they don't do low profile.
  • What you stated is plausible but again it's just speculation, the fact is the Night King let a prominent human leader get away twice, which is a major no-no for any aspiring Big Bad. And remember, whatever pride, confidence or bravado the Night King has, he lost once 8000 years ago. They can be defeated. NK should have been more careful this time around since he has every advantages over the world of man.
  • Letting prominent human leader get away is kind of generous since Jon barely made it out alive and either benefited from Plot Armor or his undead status to survive freezing water (plus he did aim for Drogon after so it's not like he was sparing the people), you can say he could have went overkill and use the weapon he uses on dragons on Jon but truth is we don't know much about how the White Walkers think or what the Night King sees Jon as.
  • I mean if NK really wants Jon death he could have done so earlier and much easier: use javelin or send a blizzard to freeze them to death, tell the wight to make some sort of bridge or just make them walk underwater all the way to that island they were stuck in. Why did he hesitate and let his prey get away at the last moment?
  • The prominent leader whose authority as the king is already crumbling after just a few months. But even more important, I think Jon becomes NK's sorta secret weapon against his true enemy - Daenerys. He's a reckless, sentimental fool, and she's falling in love with him, meaning she's bound to make dumb moves that can be exploited. That tactic has already yielded NK a dragon. I think at this point he considers Jon more as an asset than a liability.
  • For the "secret weapon" theory to work, it requires the NK to actually foresee:
    • Daenerys' rise, the birth of dragons and the return of magic.
    • the Lord of Light will reveal the vision to Sandor that lead them right into his trap, which means NK and the Lord of Light are in cahoot or worse, be the same person. Sounds crazy?
    • Jon will be resurrected after being shanked, by a Red Priestess no less. Shit maybe the Lord of Light is NK's BFF after all.
    • Dany will have feeling for Jon and come to rescue him, at the precise moment that they're about to be overwhelmed.

Sorry, at the moment I can't really say that's reasonable.

• If NK could indeed predict the dragons coming, he was likely saving the javelins for them.
• The "dragon trap" theory makes no sense. As soon as the wights realized they could safely cross the lake they attacked immediately, there is no sign indicating that they were waiting for something. If the Hound threw that rock just 15 minutes earlier, they would have been long dead by the time Dany arrived.
• Then again, the notion that they needed some shmuck to throw a rock to verify the solidness of ice is ridiculous in itself (as if there were no other ways to test it), so the slightly less nonsensical explanation is that rock throwing was coincidental, and they attacked when NK sensed the dragons approaching.
• Heck, NK could have said "Hey Ben, remember to send some wights to check the ice at least twice a day, Imma have to practice javelin throwing for the Winter Olympic" and Jon and Co. would be royally screwed.
• Alternatively NK could have not foresee but wanted to see what the humans got. Like he could have caught up with Gendry or even throw an avalanche on the six soldiers and all but that would mean he doesn't get to see what humans have in store for him. Like now he knows they have dragons, that they want their wight for something and that some of them can light their swords on fire. Better know about this now than when he loses home field advantage. Like that he doesn't get surprised when his scimitar get parried by a magic sword and is too deep in enemy territory to go back home.
• Getting back to the original question, the Night King probably could have killed Jon and co with the javelins, but he had no real need to. He has them cornered in a completely inescapable position -their only options are to wait for the lake to freeze and be overrun, wait until they run out of food and die of starvation, or make a suicidal charge against an enemy force that has them surrounded and outnumbers them 100 to 1. Escape only becomes viable once the dragons show up, and then he's got much more important targets to deal with. Maybe the javelins are somewhat rare or difficult to make and he didn't want to waste them, maybe he knew the dragons were coming and was saving them for them, maybe he just enjoyed watching them struggle with the inevitability of their deaths. And prior to raising Viserion, the Night King's plan was to wait for winter to freeze the seas enough for his army to walk around the wall, so it's not like he really had anything better to do than just stand there and watch them die. Regardless, in the end, he came out ahead -an undead dragon is going to be a much bigger boon than a few more human wights would have.

• Ir should also be pointed out that word of god has compared the others to the sidhe. Basically, who knows just what they are thinking or their true moralities are at any given time.

Frozen Lake Shenanigan

The White Walkers can freeze things, it's a proven fact. Why didn't they just freeze the water the moment the ice break and swarm Jon and Co. right then and there, instead of sitting like idiots around the lake for several days while the Hound threw rocks at them.

• They were waiting for the dragons to arrive, so the Night King could kill them and add them to their army. As to how he knew that Dany will come, he was established to have some sort of psychic powers, whether it's Greenseeing or something else.
• Well either they don't want to get too close by freezing the lake, like one dragonglass dagger, spear or whatever and they die losing a big part of the wights. Or it's beneath them to do it to kill seven people they could just leave to freeze. Like this is ridiculous to go why are the White Walkers doing what they have always been doing, can't they play Frontline General and approach the enemy whose only chance is a lucky punch at them if they get close enough?
  • Leave some people to freeze to death while your whole army just sorta watches is a bit excessive, don't they have to cross the Wall and kill people?
  • They aren't exactly in a hurry to do that, they have been planning it for thousands of years. Also didn't Craster gave them like dozens f White Walkers? This can't be the whole army they didn't even bring the undead giants.
    • The undead not just going for it is itself something of a headscratcher: even ignoring ranged weapons like the javelin or the notion of the undead swimming, there's no reason they couldn't have walked along the bottom of whatever body of water there was, or just used corpses mounted up from the bottom. If you've got an endless army of the dead at your complete disposal, there's really no reason for this to be a plausible obstacle. If it is, why not just replace the Wall with a big moat?
    • Now, perhaps it was indeed a big dragon trap. But even if we assume NK knew there were dragons around (which I don't recall any evidence for) and that he knew they'd come (which we certainly weren't given any evidence for), it still doesn't really fit with what comes later - as soon as the dead realize they can cross, they go in after Jon and the others, and there's nothing to indicate they're holding back. So the idea that the undead were just waiting for the dragons to arrive in an elaborate trap doesn't really fit.
  • I just rewatched the episode, apparently the wights can swim. Two of them bust out of the ice and drag Tormund to the lake (the Hound save him though). That just begs the question why were they so afraid of water if they can't drown (duh) and they can fucking swim.
  • Even if you know how to swim it's kind of hard to drag yourself out on slippery ice, they probably waited for the place to freeze since otherwise they'll be getting dunk back the moment they try getting up.
  • Seven hells, now we have a villain who: was once a man but was turned evil against his will by supernatural means, has control over ice, can bring back the dead, has a pet undead dragon, rules over Grim Up North, apparently has super strength and vast psychic power. Arthas Menethil, is that you? The show writers better have a damn good reason why such a monster could ever lose.
• Whether or not the dragons' appearance was predictable is irrelevant. Jon and co weren't needed alive for it to work. As soon as Gendry left for his cross country sprint the trap was set.
  • Eh, they kinda have to stay alive until she arrives. If Dany comes and see six zombies shambling around she will turn tail and run, no dragon for NK. But then again the fact that she could find them in the middle of fucking nowhere with no map or GPS is ridiculous in itself.

Cersei's prophesized number of children

• On the show we get to see Cersei receiving her prophecy from Maggi the Frog. It clearly states that she and the king shall have no children, and that Cersei will have three. Yet in season one both Cersei and Robert talk about their firstborn son, who was "black of hair" and therefore presumably sired by Robert. She obviously had more than three children, and it's strongly hinted that one of them was with the king. So what gives? Did the writers plainly forget about that child and/or hoped we would too?
  • Well, it's insinuated that the baby died in childbirth/was a miscarriage, so at best it's a semantics issue over whether or not that counts as "having a child".
  • I'm pretty sure the prophecy didn't yet exist in the books when the first season was filmed, so it's not as much that they forgot, but that they just didn't know. Then, as the prophecy actually became part of the show too, maybe they forgot to change it accordingly.
    • Yes, it did. The prophecy first featured in A Feast for Crows, published in 2004. The first season was filmed in 2010.
  • There's always a slight possibility that the "prophecy" was a load of bullshift, and Maggy was a fraud, as the so called clairvoyants tend to be.
    • Everything in it's been true so far. Cersei married the king, not the prince. She had three children and he had twenty.
  • It's likely that Cersei's "first child" was the result of a misunderstanding. In the books, Ned refers to Robert's first-born as having black hair, but later chapters clarify that he was referring to Mya Stone, not a child of Cersei's.
    • Cersei herself talks about this child that she shared with Robert on the show, and Robert later talks about it as well, confirming that on the show they did have a child together who had black hair. If memory serves he died of a fever, which also means he wasn't stillborn or miscarried. So unless the prophecy was bs or the writers/showrunners forgot, the question remains unanswered.
    • Maybe Maggy doesn't count cradle deaths as real children? She's certainly not a considerate woman, and with medieval women having many, many children in their lifetimes, many of whom never made it to adulthood, infant mortality is just something that gets swept under the rug and ignored, otherwise you'd go mad with grief.
    • The other children of Mad King Aerys and Queen Rhaella who were cradle deaths often don't get counted either.

Retrieving the Body

• Was it really necessary for the Wights to attach chains to Viserion's body and drag him out of the lake? It was shown in "Hardhome" the Night King doesn't need to be in direct contact with a corpse to zombify it. That seems like way more work than it needed to be.
  • No contact is needed to make wights, but it is shown to be needed to turn babies into new White Walkers. The show seems to be implying that Viserion will be a White Walker dragon, not just a wight dragon. Or maybe a mix of both, seeing how he apparently died before being transformed.
  • Can an undead dragon float or swim back? I'm not even sure dragons can swim when they are alive.
  • The whole touching the dragon was done for dramatic effect more so than turning it into a walker. Craster's babies were demonstrated to be alive when they became Others while the dragon is quite clearly dead. Plus given its tattered appearance in the Season 7 finale, it seems more zombie than necromancer. With that in mind, touching the dragon can be handwaved with it being harder to raise a dragon than a human due to their fire affinity, or the aforementioned problem of your zombie dragon immediately drowning.
  • Zombies can't drown, and if zombie Viserion can't swim, there's nothing to stop it from simply walking along the bottom of the lake until it reaches the shore.
  • Also it's probably easier to have it happened like that than animate a dragon jumping out of the water.
• It's also never explained how the White Walkers produced the massive chains used to drag Viserion out of the water. Did they somehow predict the rather unlikely scenario of, A) a dragon being killed on their side of the Wall, and B) its body ending up in a place where it needs to be dragged out? Or did they only make those chains after Viserion's death, which would be a completely unnecessary and time-consuming effort, when they could simply raise Viserion from the dead, then have him fly, swim or walk out the lake?
  • More to the point how in the hell did they get the chains in the first place? Did they just happen to have them from before the Wall was first built, which seems unlikely, give the technology available at the time? It's not like the wildlings have forges they could have used to make them, not to mention it's unlikely they'd have that much iron ore North of the Wall. And the wights are creatures that fall apart if you whack at them hard enough, how did they withstand the sheer weight of the chains themselves, let alone dragging a dragon's carcass out of the water?

An obvious sham

• For the audience, it was cathartic to see Littlefinger getting tried for all his crimes and executed, by Sansa and Arya no less. At the trial, however, why didn't he lampshade that it was a Kangaroo Court, apart from mentioning that the letter that Sansa mentions no longer exists, and that the evidence appears flimsy? That should have been obvious to Sansa, and to the lords. Or, worse, why not mention that Sansa was complicit in Lysa's murder because she lied to the Lords to save Littlefinger from the Moon Door, if he had to admit to that charge?
  • Considering how Royce didn't seem at all surprised, it's possible that the Starks informed him ahead of time. A quick bit of Three-Eyed Ravening would probably convince him, and Baelish is already The Friend Nobody Likes.
  • That still doesn't address the fact that Sansa lied to Royce's face and is therefore untrustworthy. Also, Petyr was the lord of the Vale. As Riverrun episode showed, people take such things extremely serious, even to the detriment of common sense, and as the Vale episode showed, Royce didn't hold any particular authority among the knights, as they were prepared to kill him at Robin's (i.e. Petyr's) command. Neither would they have any reasons to dislike Petyr. And to presume that the Starks managed to hold council with all of them, show off Bran's power, convince them of LF's true colors, and all of that without Petyr knowing is ludicrous beyond belief. Hell, half that room should've been in his pocket by that point, ready to protect him regardless of the charges!
  • Money means jack if they know he just killed Lysa as they suspected, sold the closest thing he has to a loved one to the Boltons for his schemes and everyone revealing how much full of shit his words and gold means when he'll just slit your throat. He was lord of the Vale because Sansa lied about his crime otherwise he is no lord of the Vale he is an usurper! And it's not especially hard to figure out why the girl who just escaped the Lannisters thanks to Baelish why she covered. In short he has no official authority and his money is worthless since he might get you killed like Hollard before you get to spend it (especially when the undead are coming).
  • Baelish's authority relied solely on his control of Robin Arryn in the Vale and Sansa in the North. By coming out of his home turf to the North, he placed himself completely at the mercy of Sansa and he knew it, that's why he tried to manipulate Sansa to kill Arya. If Sansa commits kinslaying she will earn the ire of the Northern lords and have to rely on him even more. Sansa figured that out and worked with Arya to defeat him. As for why the Vale knights didn't protect him, they only obey him because he can tell Robin, their liege lord to throw them out of the Moon Door at any moment. Robin is not here, they have the perfect chance to get rid of a vile, scheming bastard, why would they act otherwise?
  • Remember with Royce, the only Lord present (no Northern Lords were there and frankly none of them would care about an outsider like Littlefinger anyway) that Petyr is sentenced for betraying Ned Stark, a man Royce knew for years from when he grew up in the Vale and seems to count as a friend, helping to murder Jon Arryn his liege lord that Royce would have been sworn to obey and protect (and was popular among the Vale Lords), murdering Lysa Arryn who was his liege lord's wife and liege lady whom he was also sworn to obey and protect. Plus don't forget that time Baelish threatened Royce by practically convincing Robin to throw him from the Moon Door because he was questioning Baelish's motives. On a personal level Royce would have plenty of reasons to hate Littlefinger and already never trusted him, unless Littlefinger had clear proof of innocence Royce would have no reason to not believe the accusations were true. Once he admitted to lying before about Lysa and that he killed her Royce would easily believe everything was true.
  • It should also be mentioned that the first crime spoken of was the murder of Lysa. Baelish admitted to it immediately. Ultimately, none of the other evidence really mattered much from there as he condemned himself in front of everybody present. On another note, it's possible she spoke to Royce about the matter prior or he just ignored it. During the scene where she lies for Baelish but confesses to her identity, the lords of the Vale are sympathetic to her need to hide herself and her lack of trust in anybody so it's possible and likely he pardoned her, at least in his own mind based on that.
• Baelish's political protection flew through a window like an Arryn falcon the very moment the Vale Lords chanted "The King in the North!" alongside the Northern Lords. This means the Vale is now subject to King Jon (and subsequently, Sansa) first and foremost, not to Petyr. Baelish himself says he's now a sworn subject to the King in the North Jon Snow. This means he is, legally speaking, 100% at the mercy of Jon and Sansa and there's not much he can do about it. If his King/Lady of Winterfell declares his death, he dies.
• To be noted, trials in Westeros aren't exactly fair. Lysa Arryn v. Tyrion Lannister, Ned Stark v. Gregor Clegane (in absentia), Ned Stark v. Night's Watch deserter, High Sparrow v. House Tyrell, e.t.c are all objectionable trials during which a single person decides a man's fate based on circumstantial evidence. What Sansa did is protocol in Westeros.
  • It's also worth noting that once upon a time fair trials and protocol meant something in Westeros but since the War of Five Kings broke out everything's been falling apart. It's basically a free for all. No one likes or trusts Littlefinger so no one's going to stick their necks out for him.
  • Tell that to the butcher boy who was killed for the crime of existing during a dispute between highborn before the War of the Five Kings started. Even the wolf got a better trial than he.
• The moment Baelish responded to Bran and Arya getting into the deeper details of his treachery with stunned silence, he knew and everyone else knew it was over for him. Let's not forget that the moment Sansa gave Baelish the opportunity to defend himself, he immediately tried to bail himself out of the trial to escape his punishment. If that didn't make it apparent how obviously guilty he was of his crimes, I dunno what would. Bran's proven that he now has absolutely zero filter, and knows things about people that nobody else really should - possessing a living CCTV camera is more than enough proof as far as I'm concerned.

Is The Stark Line Extinct Now?

Jon's status as a Targaryen is officially confirmed, which means Bran is Ned's last male heir. As he said he is the Three-Eyed Raven now and can't inherit title and land, he's likely unable to father a child too. Sansa and Arya can inherit Ned's title, but their children will bear their fathers's names and thus not Stark. So, bye bye the wolf of the North, I guess?

• There has been precedent both historical and in-universe of men taking the name of their wives due to them having higher status in order to continue the family line, so Sansa or Arya can still have children with the name Stark.
• In fact, there's precedent of the Starks doing it. About a hundred years prior to the series' start, there was a time when only female Starks survived, and they did exactly that. The Mormonts also did that in recent times (Lyanna Mormont is the daughter or Maege Mormont, Jeor's sister, with an unknown man).
• In the show, Tyrion explicitly said that if Dickon died with Randyll Tarly, House Tarly is finished, despite the fact that Randyll's wife and daughter were alive, not to mention Samwell Tarly. Arya also wiped out House Frey by killing every male Frey, while I'm sure Old Walder has plenty of daughters. I'm not sure if the show writers noticed this problem or not.
  • The Tarly family probably cannot count on getting any sort of leeway when it comes to succession because they are a minor if old house. They also betrayed the popular Tyrels, who had supported Dany. So the women of House Tarly can't count on royal decrees, nor can they make their own exceptions as Lord Paramount because they were not confirmed as such and because Dany again wouldn't let them. The only one who can change their fate now is Sam, who admittedly could be free to step up with the Night's Watch's disintegration.
• Yes but the Lady Stark still have too much influence to die out for a while if they survive the apocalypse. Sansa's husband will probably keep the wolf as sigil because it's badass and respected and reform are born to happen after the war with the White Walker.
• I would imagine that in the case of the Tarlys, presumably when Dany takes over, she would disinherit any potential Tarly heir, as they were opposing her in the war, so there wouldn't be a third son somewhere willing to take the Tarly name. It's less clear with the Freys, although I guess it's possible that Cersei will appoint someone else as Lord of the Riverlands, also leaving the Frey name worthless.
• Not to mention Bran isn't actually out of the running yet. The whole three-eyed-raven thing is not likely recognized law in Westeros and paraplegics CAN be stimulated into producing sperm (even if they themselves can't feel it).

How was Jon going to bring the wight across the Wall in the first place?

• Benjen Stark once mentioned to Bran and Meera that the Wall has a magic that prevents any wight or White Walker from crossing it (unless if a part of it was destroyed entirely as shown in Season 7's finale), so how is Jon going to bring the wight back in the first place? They're going to the North by land and not taking a ship there, so when they capture a wight they can't return by sea. The Wall was the only place they could go. If Daenerys hadn't shown up with her dragons, even if Jon's group managed to get back to The Wall, the wight they captured would've died the moment they crossed it, making the whole journey pointless. Jon is a Night Watch like his uncle, so why wouldn't he know about this? And if he did know, how did he planned to transport the wight across the Wall in the first place?
  • They used a ship to transport the wight from Eastwatch to Dragonstone. The show is kinda vague with this one.
  • Yes, but the Eastwatch is behind the Wall, isn't it? They'd have to get through the Wall first to get to it.
  • See, that's the problem. S 7 E 6 is full of holes like that. The only explanation is they docked the ship in the shore beyond the Wall.
  • The magic on the Wall seems a bit finicky even in the books. The wights that attacked Jeor Mormont were also brought through it without being destroyed. The most likely explanation is that the Night's Watch members have some power to "invite" things through the Wall.
    • Possibly, but if that's the case, it raises another question. If the Night's Watch can decide what to allow past the magics of the Wall, then why didn't Benjen Stark go home? He's part wight, but he's also mostly human and is clearly fighting for the humans' side.
    • You don't have to be Night's Watch, wights can be physically dragged across the Wall. As for why Benjen doesn't just get himself dragged over to rejoin his family, it may be a bit of an Adaptation-Induced Plot Hole caused by the fact that Coldhands in the books isn't Benjen. Plus he may intuitively know he still has work to do north of the Wall (like saving Jon).
  • Benjen got raised by the Children, the Night King's magic might be more powerful than a dying race by now.

Why didn't the dream team mention Arya?

• Out of Jon's "dream team," four of them know Arya: Gendry, Sandor, Beric, and Thoros. They all know who she is and her relation to Jon. With all their reminiscing about past interactions with each other, did they all forget she was present for most of them? Gendry brought up that he met Ned Stark once, several years ago, but forgot to mention that he travelled with Jon's favorite sister for over two years? Beric and Thoros didn't think it relevant that they once planned to take her back to her family but she vowed to kill them and then disappeared with the Hound? Sandor didn't bring up that he wandered Westeros with her for months and he's the last known person in Westeros to see her alive?
• Yup, I have no idea why. Perhaps the threat of ice zombies destroying civilization makes them forget that tidbit?
  • If you have time to talk about Pyke and bear-fucking, you have time to mention meeting the guy's sister. My guess is Gendry talked to Jon about it offscreen.
  • But then why didn't the writers have that on-screen instead of/as well as Gendry mentioning Ned? Gendry's relationship with Arya was 100x more important than his one-off meeting with Ned, and Arya is Jon's favourite sibling. Why did the writer's blatantly ignore that?
  • The original script actually had Arya as a possible topic of conversation for Gendry and the Hound.
  • I guess as luck has it, it never came up. Does Gendry even know Arya is a Stark?
    • Well, she introduced herself as "Arya of House Stark," and they talked about her father, Lord Stark, and they discussed what they would do when she was reunited with her brother, Robb Stark, so yes, he knows she's a Stark.

Are the revelations about Jon and Daenerys in the season 7 finale supposed to be shocking twists?

• The fact that the penultimate scene in the season 7 finale (before the zombie cliffhanger) reveals Jon is the trueborn son of Rhaegar Targaryen and Lyanna Stark, and shows him and Dany having sex, seems to imply all of this very important and a dramatic twist. But is it really? First of all, let's consider the sex part: sure, when Dany and Jon find out about their relation, they might feel a bit squicky... But on the other hand, marriage between cousins is considered acceptable in the show's setting, and the Targaryen family has a history of even having married siblings. So having sex with your nephew doesn't sound so horrible, considering that neither of them was aware of the fact, they'd never met until in their adulthood, and neither of them even knew the one person (Rhaegar) through whom they share blood.
  
  As for the fact that Rhaegar and Lyanna married before Jon was born, since the previous season already revealed Jon is their son, it seems that the fact Jon has a legitimate claim to the Iron Throne is the twist here. But there's never been any implication whatsoever that Jon would be interested in ruling the Seven Kingdoms. He was reluctant to even become the King of the North. And while heritage and having the most "rightful" claim to the throne might be important to many in Westeros, the show also has several examples of those rules being overthrown for convenience's sake. Most of the Baratheon bannermen decided to follow Renly instead of Stannis; after Tommen's death Cersei was crowned Queen instead of some cousin or uncle of Robert; Jon himself was chosen the Lord of Winterfell over Sansa, despite his bastard status. So unless something drastically changes with the characterization of Jon and Dany, it doesn't seem like there should be any drama about this: he doesn't want the Iron Throne, she does, and she has the authority and power base to back up her claim.
  • The biggest immediate problem is how the Northerners will react when/if they learn of Jon's true heritage. Jon's already got an uphill battle to fight convincing them that submitting to a Targaryen (who are still largely disliked in the North) is the right thing to do; if it becomes public knowledge that he's not only sleeping with a Targaryen, but is one himself, his motives are going to be drawn into question. As for his claim to the throne, while we as viewers know he's unlikely to ever challenge Dany, that's not a guarantee she has, and even if he doesn't, it could still potentially be exploited by others to disrupt her power base. And even putting the actual politics aside, it's probably a personal blow for Dany to take. She's based her entire campaign on the belief that ruling Westeros is her birthright. She's dismissed Robert, Stannis, the Lannisters etc. as being usurpers based on them not being Aerys's legal heir. Now it turns out that - surprise! - she's not the rightful heir either. If she doesn't yield the throne to Jon, then by her own standards, she is a hypocrite. And sure, she still has right of conquest, but so did the other would-be usurpers. It's not something that's necessarily going to lose her the throne, but it's a bitter pill to swallow.
  • Daenerys would not be considered Aerys's legal heir only because of the sexist rules of succession. She is still the sole surviving child of Aerys, while Jon is only his grandson; if it weren't for "any male heir is more rightful than a female one, even if he is further away in the family line" rule, she would still have a rightful claim to the throne. Since Daenerys is clearly opposed to such gendered norms, and since at least one of the Westeros Kingdoms (Dorne) has already discarded the "male heirs before female ones" succession rule, you'd think she could easily justify her birthright at least to herself, if not to everyone else?
    • Not that Westeros isn't sexist, but legally gender actually has nothing to do with it in this case since primogeniture fundamentally favours the eldest lineage while gender criteria (agnatic, cognatic, absolute, etc.) are a separate variable, so even if Rhaegar and Jon were both girls (or if Daenerys were a man), Jon would still outrank Dany in the line of succession as the eldest child of an eldest child descended from Aerys II rather than the third child of Aerys II. (Edward III of England was succeeded by his grandson Richard II rather than his third son John of Gaunt if you need a historical example)
  • She could justify it, but it would be just that - a justification. An excuse to ignore the law as soon as following it no longer benefited her. She can say whatever she likes, but she and everyone else would know her motive in doing it. (Not saying Heir Club for Men is actually right, but that is the law in-universe and how Daenerys disregarding it to maintain power would be seen)
    • It's not really just an excuse if Jon willingly gives up his claim to the throne. Which, as the other commenter pointed out above, is better than Dany's claim not because he's a man but because he's in the direct line of succession as the only surviving child of Aerys's eldest child. The fact that Rhaegar himself never got to be king is irrelevant in primogeniture. Of course, if Dany and Jon marry then the issue is academic.
  • Right now the Wall just fall down, like the Umbers must be close enough to see it and all that, so I don't see why succession is an issue when they aren't sure if they'll survive what is happening. If anything Jon's blood helps filling the written out warg power to explain why he is special like Dany's fireproof power.

Walder Frey's inexplicable shrinking

• So none of Walder Frey's sons noticed that their so-called father was suddenly ten inches shorter?
  • The masks of the Faceless Men clearly have a magical aspect to them, allowing the wearer to assume the other physical characteristics of the person also, not just the face. If the mask can make Arya's voice sound exactly like Walder's, surely it can also make her appear as tall as he.
  • Aside from face changing, the Faceless Men likely train their assassins in every mundane disguise trick, voice imitation and deception known to man. Also, Walder Frey tends to slouch a lot so his height is not that easy to get a read on. Also also, Walder Frey really mistreats his family a lot, so a lot of them won't look him straight in the eyes anyways.

Why didn't Bronn accept Tyrion's offer?

• Tyrion is an old friend of his, he's on the side that looks much more likely to win, and even before he showed up Bronn was expressing doubt Jaime and Cersei would ever actually pay him what he was owed. What is the advantage of sticking with Jaime?
  • He keeps changing sides like that someone is bound to kill him for being opportunistic, be it Cersei or Danny, I mean he did wound Drogon.
    • There is zero chance Dany wouldn't slit his throat for wounding Drogon, no matter how much Tyrion likes him.

The Dragon Pit of Madness and Stupidity

• The negotiation scene has left me with a few minor questions.
  • Why were there no Scorpions or archers? Wasn't Cersei afraid that Dany would just burn them all and claim the Iron Throne? Incidentally...
  • WHY DOESN'T DANY BURN THEM ALL AND CLAIM THE IRON THRONE?! The entire enemy HQ was right there! The Queen, her Hand and Master of Spies, Master of Ships, Master of War, the entire Queensguard - Dany could've ended the war that very moment, without wasting a single innocent life! There would've been literally no one left to oppose her or lead a potential resistance. And please, don't tell me it was about not being like her father or some bullshift like that. Just... don't. And even if she was feeling extraordinarily merciful, why not at the very-very-very least threaten to burn them, and demand Cersei to surrender?
    • Doing that would make Dany be loathed by absolutely everyone in Westeros. They agreed to meet for truce negotiations, it's not very wise to turn that into another Red Wedding-level betrayal. Even at her most trigger-happy, Dany would notice that.
    • Would it though? Cersei couldn't have been that much beloved, and besides, Dany was not a guest coming to strike an alliance - she was a conqueror coming to take the throne from an usurper, and deigning to negotiate instead. As far as everyone would need to know, negotiations went south, and she resorted to violence, as was her right. Seems pretty straightforward and legit by the setting's standards. And it doesn't explain the lack of even a threat. Dany could live with being loathed, but Cersei definitely couldn't live with being burned to a crisp.
    • Yes, it would. The moral character of the victim is irrelevant when the standards of honorable behavior are violated in Westerosi society. Jaime is despised for being the Kingslayer even though the Mad King himself is also despised, because Jaime was a sworn Kingsguard. And no would be able to trust that Dany wouldn't do the same thing to good people.
    • Because right now they kind of need the most people alive to fight the dead, especially when the Night King can one shot a dragon, taking the Iron Throne like that would likely make the other lords just bail like the Ironborn intended to. Like it's stupid anyone cares about politics when they aren't even sure to survive the Winter even if they are all united.
    • First, what other lords? Second, Ironborns didn't bail - Euron pretended to bail, it had nothing to do with Dany, and burning him alive would've solved that problem as well.
    • The lords of the westerlands and stormlands under Cersei's rule. The ones who actually direct the armies.
    • Theon's Ironborn were bailing, you know, the guy who started on Dany's side? You think their enemies have less incentives to run when she sees her dragons falling? Edmure can just say fuck it I take my baby and run to Essos, other lords aren'T aboe just exilng themselves if the opposite is fight for a queen that kills you with dragons against undead.
    • They weren't bailing - they were going to save Yara (let's pretend for a moment that it sounds even remotely plausible), which they did because neither Dany nor Theon pressed the issue of her release, which would've been also resolved with burning Euron.
    • First, Theon's Ironborn were definately bailing until Theon asserted himself. Second, Dany will never unite Westeros against the White Walkers if she burns down people under a flag of truce. She came to the meeting to convince the southern lords the undead are real. If she kills them through treachery, she'll have convinced no one of the wights' existance and angered everyone. Jon Snow wouldn't stand for this kind of thing after his half-brother (cousin?) was killed in similar fashion, Tyrion would have grave misgivings that everyone he loved or even hated was callously murdered, Davos doesn't have much sympathy for people who burn indiscriminately, and if Varys truly cares about the people, he should hatch scheme to stop the monster he unleashed. This is an atrocity that the gods themselves turn you into a baby-eating rat for.
    • "Jon Snow" - you mean the Jon Snow who broke his vows and then was going to assassinate Mance Rayder under the flag of truce? "Tyrion" - you mean the Tyrion who callously murdered his own father for calling a whore a whore? "Davos" - you mean the Davos who stayed with Stannis despite the latter burning people indiscriminantly? "Varys" - you mean the Varys who supported Dany after all the wanton executions she'd pulled in Meereen, and submitted his enemy to a Fate Worse Then Death? Those people would've turned on her in disgust if, instead of waging a full-scale war as she'd initially planned, she'd resolved the matter with a surgical coup-de-tat? I mean, you do remember that she was planning to conquer the country, right? And they were all behind her. Even Tyrion, in his sudden fit of pacifism, was suggesting to lay siege to King's Langing and storm Castlerly Rock. Which would've meant tens of thousands dying. And everybody accepted it as an inevitability. Now it's just a dozen, including the insane terrorist, her dishonored fuck-boy, a notorious rapist and pillager and a creepy necromancer, and that would've been seen as an atrocity?
    • Jon Snow's code of honour is less about strict rules than it is about owing up to your deeds, protecting those you can, and don't be a dick. Tyrion murdered Tywin because his father called his ex-wife a whore, not Shae, and because Tywin was a dick. Davos didn't stick with Stannis after he burned Shireen, after that he made it clear Stannis was a dick. And Varys accepted the executions of the masters because they were dicks, and tortured the sorcerer because he took his dick. There is a threshold at which people stop caring if they're hypocrites or not, they just can't support someone who crossed the Moral Event Horizon. Dany agreeing to put her ambitions aside to claim the Iron Throne in order to save humanity from the White Walkers, then arbitrarily deciding to kill her rival claimant so she can have her golden crown is such an atrocity. And at this point, further infighting amongsts humans is dooming them to being slaughtered after they spent years softening themselves up for the White Walkers. If this series has a message to it, it is that a society that promotes such destructive fueds over power and lacks any sense of honour or integrity is unworthy to survive the Long Night.
    • Oh, what a shock, they could've always taken the city in less than an hour without killing a single civilian, so all the angst and meandering was completely pointless. Also, "his father called his ex-wife a whore, not Shae" - no he didn't, that was in the books, here it was just Shae. "Davos didn't stick with Stannis after he burned Shireen" - Davos was sent away before that happened, and then Stannis died. He did stick with Stannis when he was burning all those other people. Please study the source material before defending it.
  • So, they present a Wight, and Cersei agrees for a truce as long as Jon promises to stay out of their fight. Uhm, why? The North has 10 K warriors at best, and obviously the war with the dead will decimate that number. How is he relevant? Or was Cersei wary of his mighty charisma and ability to rally people to his cause? Hell, demanding neutrality from Ser Davos would've made more sense - at least he actually knew how to convince people.
    • Cersei is surrounded by enemies by all sides. If she can get one of them, no matter how small, to declare themselves neutral, it's a victory.
    • And if Dany decides that it's not worth the hassle, then she's dead. Doesn't seem like a worthy gamble to me.
    • She knows Jon got the Wildlings and possibly the Night watch under him, that's more than 10 k.
    • Still just a fraction of her enemy's force.
  • Why does Jon refuse her? She isn't asking him to bend the knee to her - only swear an oath not to march south, which I'm sure the North would've more than happily supported. And how does Jon's reasoning make any sense? He swore to serve Daenerys? Key, then all that's necessary is for her to swear not to demand from him to march south, which she would've happily done. In fact, isn't that decision up to her in any case?
    • That sort of rules lawyering doesn't work, even with Cersei. Jon knows what she means with that condition well enough, and there are plenty of witnesses if he'd swear. And Jon doesn't swear oaths he knows he can't keep.
    • What lawyering? Cercei spelled it out clearly that she would only want him to abstain from the war between the two queens. To interpret that as a demand to bend the knee to her or to betray Dany - that's what would've taken some serious twisting. Also, Jon had absolutely lied in the past for the sake of the mission. He lied to Mance's face about abandoning the Night Watch.
  • He refuses, Cersei rejects a truce and storms out... Key, then what? What is stopping Dany from going to plan A, i.e. take the city by force and repurpose Cersei's empty head as a wine cup? I mean, her army was right there, along with the dragons! What exactly did Cersei expect was going to happen? That they would just leave? Yes, I get it, Dany was reluctant to attack and waste innocent lives, but that doesn't mean she wouldn't do it! And what was up with Tyrion's "we're fucked?". They had an overwhelming numerical advantage, and the dragons. Why were they suddenly so despondent?
    • Cersei was expecting them to do exactly what they did, keep trying to get a truce. The whole thing was a farce on Cersei's part.
    • Relying on... what? Dany's pacifism? Tyrion's brotherly love? I have no earthly idea why the Targaryens bothered with negotiations in the first place, but to expect that they would tolerate her acting out?
    • And then they lose a bunch of Unsullied and Dothraki in the shitstorm and fucked by the undead later, it's not because Danny take the Throne like that all the other lords away under Cersei will accept her rule, they'll just try bailing on it. Like the war in the North.
    • How exactly do you bail on the queen who can just send a dragon to burn your ass?
    • You wait she runs out of dragons fighting the undead, like she already lost one think they are gonna be cannon fodder for the war in the North when they see she loses dragon to whatever is coming. Theon's Ironborn were about to bail on her too!
    • Except that she clearly has to consolidate her rule over the living before she can face the dead, meaning that the issue will come up much earlier than she can run out of anything.
  • Cersei seemingly changes her mind and even pledges her forces to their cause, except she's not actually planning to send them. Uhm, why does she bother to declare it then? Nobody demanded that she participates, only that she keeps a truce until the Night King is dealt with. But now, as soon as Dany realizes the Southerners are not coming, the entire charade will be exposed. At which point I would expect Dany to finally get enough of this bullshift, turn around, take the city by force and repurpose Cersei's empty head as a wine cup. Even from a purely strategical sense that's the only sensible move, because only a moron would leave an enemy behind their lines.
    • By the time Dany figures that out, her army will already be moving north. Turning an army like that around to go deal with Cersei is only going to delay their war on the White Walkers, and once she hears about the fall of the Wall, Cersei's betrayal is going to be very low on Jon and Dany's list of priorities.
    • It will also eliminate a threat of a backstab and secure the supply lines, which, what a shock, both turn out to be huge issues once her army marches north, and a potential retreat route, but regardless, this is not about what Dany would or wouldn't actually do - this is about what Cersei can realistically expect. Does she have any reasons to believe Dany wouldn't turn back? How does she know Varys doesn't have any spies in KL or around who would be able to inform Dany immediately about the betrayal?
  • Why does Cersei let Jaime leave? Ok, she cannot find it in herself to execute him, fine, but he's going to expose her, and then the above will happen even faster! I know she relies on Euron for reinforcements (which I'm not sure how are supposed to fare better against the dragons than her own troops did, but details), but he has to cross the Narrow Sea, negotiate with the mercenaries, mobilize them, and bring them back - that's gotta take him at least a couple days, so you'd think any extension would be much welcome.
  • What was that... thing between Euron and Theon? Euron demands Theon to submit to him... eh? Theon is a nobody, he has no forces or authority. Neither Theon, nor Dany, ever press the issue of Yara's release... whaa? Wasn't that the sole reason he was even there?
    • Euron was probably just being a dick.
    • Key. Who did that justify not demanding him to release Yara?
  • What was Brienne doing there? Jon is the KitN, obviously he speaks for Winterfell as well.
    • She was representing Sansa. Why Sansa was invited is less clear.
    • She was invited since she is lady of Winterfell and Jon keeps leaving his job so she is kind of needed to explain what is happening in the North.
    • Who cares? I mean literally, who of the present company gave even a hint of a shit about "what is happening in the North"?
    • Sansa is basically queen of the north in all but name, Having the Kit N and what amounts to the queen in the same place regardless of truce, was probably not smart, in case Cersei decided to just kill everyone, she isn't exactly the picture of good decisions.
  • What was Varys doing there? Just... what?
    • Varys was one of Daenerys' advisors so it makes sense for him to be at the meeting even if he doesn't contribute anything.
  • What were all the other Lords not doing there? The fate of the entire continent was being decided!
    • They preferred being where there is no dragons and a bunch of foreigners ready to fight? I mean fate of the continent can go fuck itself if it means dying first when shit goes down.
    • Uhm, "fate of the continent" kinda included their own lands. Wouldn't they care about their own place in the negotiations?
    • Given that Cersei was initially planning on having the Mountain kill her enemies at the meeting, she may have not invited the other lords since they weren't actively rebelling against her.
    • She ordered him to only attack in case of any treachery, which is already stupid because what the hell was he supposed to do against a dragon.
    • It's not stupid. What else did she have, really? If Dany decided to attack, The Mountain isn't much compared to two dragons, but it was all she really had at that point.
    • That's not the point. The point is that Cersei was not planning to kill them no matter what, so there was no reason not to invite other lords.
  • Perhaps Jon was there to represent the north, and Cersei considers herself the representative of the south? Or maybe they all did get summons like Sansa, and like her refused to go anywhere near someone as deranged as Cersei.

Scorpion Effectiveness

• Isn't Jaime being a bit too dismissive of Qyburn's scorpion? After all, just one bolt managed to ground Drogon. It seems its ineffectiveness had less to do with its inability to injure or kill its target, and more to do with the fact that they had only one being operated by just one one person with no prior training.
  • They don't have much time to train people and even a falling dragon can breach the gate for the Dothrakis. Plus let's face it Jaime wasn't that into a full on war with dragons to begin with.
  • They could've at least tried. At least build a few dozen. After all, Anti-Air was always about saturating the air with missiles rather than precision. And Jaime started having doubts after their humiliating defeat, which, accidentally, attributed to the lack of AA.
  • A weapon like that takes time to set up and load, and there are three dragons to keep track of. A weapon big enough to take out a dragon is also big enough to be an easy target. Jaime saw one dragon incinerate an entire row of wagons in one go. So while you're targeting one, the other two can destroy the weapons. And even if the dragon is grounded, it can still breathe fire.
  • For what it's worth, Jaime is already getting disillusioned with Cersei's efforts - especially after the Green Trial. The fact that they aren't likely to win the war without an obscene amount of effort is just another motivator for him up and leaving her. He knows that Cersei shouldn't be queen and that she's a danger to the realm, so he's not that enthusiastic about getting ways to actually help her win this war.

Jon's name

• At the end of the previous season, Bran chose to see the circumstances of Jon's birth, discovering that Jon is not his half-brother by Ned Stark, but his cousin by his aunt Lyanna Stark. According to this episode, Bran has ever since believed that Jon should be called "Jon Sand", as he's a bastard born in Dorne. In that episode, the audience did not hear what Lyanna whispered to Ned just before she died. But apparently, neither did Bran? It's only in this episode that the audience hears Leanna name her son "Aegon Targaryen", and seemingly, Bran hears it for the first time as well. Why would he choose to see that scene of the birth, learning Jon's parentage, but not hear what Lyanna told Ned, until just now?
  • Remember that just because Bran heard her say that doesn't mean he knew that she and Rhaegar had been married beforehand. He heard Lyanna name her baby "Aegon Targaryen", but, since Bran still believed at that point that Rhaegar had kidnapped and raped her, and because she was dying of complications during birth and was likely delirious, he considered Jon a bastard born in Dorne. Ergo, Aegon "Jon" Sand.
    • He didn't hear her the first time because he wasn't "standing" close enough. He heard what we heard.
  • Related, why Sand? That doesn't make sense since he's Jon Snow. If Lineage Comes from the Father (as Snow implies) then Bran should say he's Jon Waters. If it comes from where the child was born, he would never have been Snow in the first place.
    • Bran could've just made a mistake. It's been a while since Maester Luwin was teaching him about nobility.
    • Bastards are named after where they were born in the show - It's implied Bran thought Jon was a Sand because Dorne is where Rhaegar and Lyanna married and may have been where Rhaegar kept Lyanna safe when the fighting of Robert's Rebellion began. Additionally, Ned's misnaming of Jon may have been completely intentional to keep others from even thinking that he was her sister's child by her "rapist".
    • The thing is, Jon is known to have been born in the south. Baelish mentions it plainly last season, and it is referred to as far back as Season 1. Catelyn and Robert both refer to Jon being conceived while they were "away" at war. The war had never reached the North.
    • While the place of birth should technically take precedence over place of residence, it probably doesn't matter. Jon's a bastard in the eyes of the world and has no place in Dorne or the North. People would chalk this up to Ned using the Northern name for bastard because that's what he's familiar with, and to not inflict the 'foreigner' identity on his son on top of being a bastard. Nobody's really going to question it too much because the only people who might get curious are kept at arms' length (Robert, the Dornish, Targaryan loyalists), the Northerners won't question their Lord or are actively involved in keeping Jon's heritage secret, and Catelyn won't ask because she hates Jon.
  • Remember that Bran never properly completed his training instead he was given all the world's information literally in one shot it probably was just too much info and everything was coming in jumbled bits until he learns to properly sort out the information and focus on particular events.
  • To be fair the books have always been somewhat inconsistent in regards to how a bastard's name is applied; of Robert's two acknowledged bastards, one was named Stone (the Vale) and one Storm (the Stormlands), based on where they were conceived and raised. Likewise while he's never been officially acknowledged in the source material most fans like applying Waters to Gendry because he was born and raised in the Crownlands. On the flip side, aside from Jon, more than one of the Sand Snakes was born and raised somewhere other than Dorne (Nymeria was born in Volantis, Obara in Oldtown in the Reach). You also have a few bastard children who take or are given surnames outside of the nine "official" ones; Lollys Stokeworth's bastard is named Tyrion Tanner by Bronn, Tanner referring to the fact that Lollys's rape took place behind a tanner's shop because book Bronn is classy like that. Point being that the naming convention is custom, not official law with official regulations and involves some matter of choice on the part of both the parents and the bastard in question, themselves.
    • Fair point, although that actually makes it even more confusing why Bran would think Jon's surname is actually Sand. With the element of choice involved, Jon's surname of Snow was a deliberate choice which Jon himself would have little reason to want to change.
    • It could be that Bran (or the original Three Eyed Raven) was of the opinion that bastards are named after where they were born, even though the matter itself is subjective.

Sam deserting?

• Since Sam is now at Winterfell, having left the Citadel, does this count as his deserting the Night's Watch? Though I suppose it doesn't matter, since the Night's Watch no longer exists. Plus Jon's already "deserted".
  • Since he's at Winterfell to help Jon defeat the Night King and his army, he's essentially doing what he's supposed to do as a Brother of the Night's Watch.
  • Plus even if somebody were to question what he's doing there, Bran can vouch for him.
  • Beyond all that, Stannis already offered to release Jon from his Night’s Watch vows, legitimize him, and name him Warden of the North. If Stannis, who wasn’t even sitting on the Iron Throne, can do that, you’d think Jon, the King in the North, could do the same for Sam.

Littlefinger's Trial

• Why does everyone believe every single word Bran says regarding what Littlefinger said in the past and treat this as solid evidence during the kangaroo trial? Yes he's a Stark, but him claiming Littlefinger said "I did warn you not to trust me" during his betrayal of Ned isn't solid evidence that Littlefinger supposedly betrayed him all those years ago.
  • The northerners accept the Starks' word over Littlefinger's without question because of their Universally Beloved Leader status (recently restored because the northern houses who opposed them are dead) and because Littlefinger is Littlefinger. Meanwhile Yohn Royce is the only man from the Vale present and he certainly wouldn't mind Littlefinger being put on a Kangaroo Court. Furthermore, when he's given the chance to present a defense, Littlefinger puts up no counter-arguments of his own - instead he tries to order Royce to escort him to safety, which certainly doesn't help his case.
  • Let's not forget that he openly admits to killing Lysa, offering no better argument than a vague one stating that he did it to protect Sansa and that Lysa was "troubled".
  • Bran shouldn't have a problem proving to anyone he has powers, just ask him any personal question or have him warg into a crow or animal to do tricks. Especially since it's really not that hard to believe Littlefinger betrayed Ned. Like as far as medieval court goes a kid with actual magic power is more evidence than needed given every trial we saw in the series.
  • Also, Littlefinger could not think straight, at that moment, because he was in a desperate situation. He had been caught completely off-guard- he hadn't expected that Sansa would put him on trial. And then Bran's revelations were scarily accurate and unanticipated. ^note  Even though Bran had, earlier, mentioned the "Chaos is a ladder" line to him, he could have, later, brushed that off as something conveyed to Bran through either Sansa (he may have mentioned it while mentoring her) or one of Varys's spies (as a way of disrupting him). Considering this sudden barrage of accusations and accurate testimony, he started panicking, such that he wasn't able to make any chess moves during the trial.^note  Remember Season 2, where Cersei, out of nowhere, almost had him killed for the 'sake of power'? He had no idea what to do in such an unanticipated scenario, because he is a chessmaster, not an expert at thinking on his feet At that moment, his survival instinct, or 'flight-or-fight' response, kicked in (and as evidenced by the fact that he asked Royce to escort him out of there, he chose the 'flight' option). So, Littlefinger ended up failing at mounting a convincing defense and started making things worse for himself at the trial, which sealed his fate.
  • There doesn't really need to be any solid evidence. When there's no one you think you need to answer to - you can do almost whatever you want. Aerys, Lysa, and Joffrey were in similar situations - the difference with Sansa's, besides not being nuts, is that there was no one willing to go war over Baelish, out of grief or principle. It would have been interesting if Bran was challenged, but all things considered I think it went fine for what it was. Monarch says you die, you die.

The Night King's plan

• What was the Night King's Plan A? He had this massive army slowly walking to the Wall then a Dragon falls into his lap and he gets through but what was his original plan. Benjen stated the Wall had magic woven into it specifically to stop the White Walkers soooo what was his original plan to get past the wall if Daenarys never showed up?
  • It's implied that he planned to go around the wall.
  • By freezing the sea. It's slower, of course, but the dead are patient.

Tyrell gold

• If the Tyrells had enough gold to pay off the crown's astronomical debt in one go, and they were apparently so shit at fighting, why didn't Tywin seize it or at least force them to cough it up?
  • My impression was that the Tyrells themselves aren't particularly noted for their fighting prowess, they've relied on loyal subjects like the Tarlys to do their work, but they switched to Cersei, leaving the Tyrells with a poor remainder of an army.
  • Tywin Lannister is very concerned with the image of House Lannister. He doesn't want to be seen begging or robbing the second richest house in the Seven Kingdoms because he knows a lot of lords will see this as a sign that House Lannister is not so wealthy after all, and a mere paper tiger. And a Lannister always pays his debts.
  • How was that any worse than risking incuring the wrath of the Iron Bank?
  • If it was enough gold to fully pay off the Crown's debt (unlikely), it was only because the city was sacked and everything of value taken to do it. If the Crown tried to force a Great House that already supplied most of the food for the capital city and many soldiers for their war to give everything of value to pay off a debt they had nothing to do with, they would lose all support from every house, Great or not.
    • But that's what they end up doing. So, has Cersei lost universal support or not?
  • It's established multiple times that Cersei is quite the idiot when it comes to the bigger picture. She thinks she's smarter than she actually is. But to be fair, at the point she does this, House Tyrell now has no heirs and doesn't have anyone married to one of her children. It just remains to be seen how the rest of the world views Cersei after this stunt.
  • This has kinda always been Cersei's thing, blithely doing the kind of things no other lord would even consider. Honestly it's partly cultural. Mass killing and looting of high aristocracy is deeply offensive, and anyone who does it will not have too many friends at court. More to the point, they would also no longer be able to view themselves as having the moral high ground. Tywin got enough stick for the Red Wedding, and that was Tywin (who has the sheer charisma to pull it off) with the Frey's as the trigger men to take the weight of some of that contempt. But honestly, Cersei has already travelled far past that point, and honestly doesn't care if anyone likes her or not.

Ironborn taking Winterfell vs Unsullied taking Casterly Rock

So, here's the thing. When Theon leads his men to take Winterfell, Robb loses a lot of prestige because it is the most important keep of the North. But then, in Season 7, the Unsullied take Casterly Rock (which had never fallen to an enemy, either) with few casualties, and suddenly everyone acts as if losing the place is no big deal, even though it is the most important place in the Westerlands. Can someone explain it?

• Maybe it's because Winterfell was Robb's capital, while the Lannister regime is based in King's Landing? Losing the capital city is a pretty big blow to your legitimacy as a ruler.
• Robb put his trust in a Greyjoy, specifically a hostage child. Then when Theon took the castle, he murdered Robb's "brothers." He was played for a fool, and to his bannermen it shows that he couldn't even protect his family.
  • It doesn't hurt the Lannister prestiege because people soon learn it was part of a deliberate plan to defeat his enemies, and it succeeded. Not only that, but it succeeded in a way that enabled them to take the castle back. Clearly a successful plan that involves giving up the castle temporarily to defeat his enemies wouldn't hurt the Lannister prestiege, while Robb's failure to hold his own castle because he trusted the hostage of his defeated enemies obviously would.
    • Except, of course, their success was going to last precisely until Daenerys learns of it and comes down on them with her dragon(s) against whom their one measly ballista is no counter whatsoever. Also, what is up with downplaying Grey Worm's victory? He hasn't just taken one castle - he conquered the Westerlands. Who cares if they'd emptied the castle's larders? Unless the Lannister army sacked and burned their own country, starting with Lannisport that is sitting right next to Casterly Rock, I think the Unsullied will be fine.

Euron's Ships

Season 6: Theon, Asha and their men steal the entire Iron Fleet, leaving Euron with few to no ships of his own.Season 7: It's only a month or two later, and suddenly Euron has managed to not only get himself a fleet that is bigger than Asha and Theon's, but also carry it from the Iron Islands to the Narrow Sea. I mean, how the hell did he do that?

• Theon and Yara weren’t able to take the entire Iron Fleet; only as many as the Ironborn loyal to them could man. Since Euron won a narrow majority of the vote, it would be impossible for them to take all the ships, but by manning as many as possible with small or skeleton crews, they were able to take enough to leave Euron with a heavily reduced fleet. Euron still has ships, but he needs to build more **quickly**. Note also that when Theon and Yara meet with Daenerys’ court, Tyrion remarks that there are more ships in the Iron Fleet than what Yara and Theon brought with them.

The masks of the Faceless Men

• How does Arya know how to make them? She was never shown to be trained in this apparently magical art. Everything else - fighting, stealing, poisoning, stealth - fine, it's at least somewhat plausible that she can do that. I'll even allow that applying the already made masks is simple. But to turn a piece of skin into an artifact that changes your height, build, voice and smell? How does that make any sense?
• Just because we didn't see her learn it doesn't mean she didn't. It's quite possible that she assisted a fully trained Faceless Man in performing the task.
• She's shown putting the Waif's face into the collection, so she clearly has some idea of how it works. Maybe once the training is complete, it's something you automatically know how to do? It's magic, it doesn't have to be logical.
• How what works? Skinning a face and mounting it on the wall? Good for her, Ramsay would be very proud. How does that translate into knowing how to turn a piece of skin into a magical body-changing charm? "once the training is complete" - yeah, that's the problem. Her training wasn't complete at all. She flunked. She failed her first real assignment. And unless the Faceless Men are the worst Killer Inc in that entire world, there's no way they would teach their most potent art to an acolyte who hadn't proven their loyalty, or for that matter would let a rogue trainee get away if she'd somehow mastered it on her own. It's just bad business.

Cersei hires the Golden Company

• Isn't the Company made of exiles from Westeros who fled the country and want nothing more than coming back and taking charge? In fact didn't the Company try to invade Westeros several times? And now Cersei has invited them in, and provided them with ships and a ton of money, and, basically, advertised that her own forces are depleted. Wouldn't they simply turn on her and take over? Yeah, never breaking contracts and all that, but with a kingdom and a perspective to end their exile at stake I wouldn't hold my breath.
  • With Connington, Young Griff, and pretty much everything Blackfyre-related Adapted Out, the writers clearly intend to make them the Golden Company In Name Only. Except for the War Elephants, of course, because Rule of Cool. However, a better question would be why any Private Military Contractors would sign a contract to support Cersei in betraying the Dragon Queen who already roasted her first army with ease.
    • Mountains of gold, and presumably a lot of reassurances. Dany's army will be fighting in the North for a while, and she'll return to the South with a weakened army, maybe significantly so. They'll have plenty of time to build and man a lot more ballista to fight any remaining dragons that Dany has. Even in defeat, the Lannisters managed to wound one, and Cersei already picked up on the fact that one has gone missing.

How can Dany not know about the Army of the Dead?

• Danny summons Jon on Melisandre's advise. The witch mentions that the alliance is necessary against the "Great Enemy". And yet when Jon arrives, Dany and Tyrion act as if they have no idea what he's talking about and treat his tales of the Dead with incredulity. Hold on, did Mel not elaborate who/what she meant by the Great Enemy? And Dany didn't think to ask her? Come to think of it, why wouldn't Mel mention that Jon rose from the dead? That certainly would help Dany to treat her would-be ally with greater respect than she would a random upstart usurper she ends up seeing him as.
  • She assumes the 'Great Enemy' is Cersei. And I think Melisandre is intentionally witholding information so as not to interfere too much. And maybe she doesn't tell her about Jon coming back from the dead because it might have bad consequences for her. If Jon arrives and Danaerys knows about his resurrection, he'll ask how and she'd say Melisandre told her - which might spur Jon to have her found and killed since she's still at large in the area (he'd be bound to reconsider letting her go free if he hears she's still giving advice to royals in Westeros).
    • Cersei didn't nearly cut it, Dany didnt't need Jon to defeat her, and Mel never indicated she has any kind of a non-interference clause. As for the consequences, it'd be as simple as not mentioning that she knows or where she knows it from, which, for a queen, shouldn't be a problem.

How could Brienne fail to find Arya?

• So, after Brienne defeats Sandor, she spends three days looking for Arya in vain, according to her confession to Sansa. And yet she fails to hear Sandor screaming "kill me" at the top of his lungs, and she fails to find Arya's freaking horse, despite all that happening on an open plane, and despite the fact that Arya and Sandor randomly stopped there for a potty break, so there was no reason for them to hide their horses. How is that possible?
  • They're not in an open plane. The fight takes place in a small area of flat rock, but the area is extremely hilly and filled with rocky outcroppings. Arya is seen hiding behind one when the fight ends, and Brienne and Pod assume she ran in the wrong direction since they can't exactly track her. Some time later, Arya makes her way to the bottom of the ravine where Sandor is lying, so there's a lot of rock and distance between the pairs by this point. Sandor doesn't shout all that loud, and he's well outside of earshot from Brienne.
  • If it's a ravine, then his shouts should carry a long way due to echo. And that still leaves the horses. We see Arya riding away. That means that Brienne somehow missed that horse.
    • We don't hear any echoes when he was shouting that I remember, so presumably the landscape was not conducive to them. Also, echoes would make it more difficult to pinpoint the origin of the shouts if Brienne were still close enough to hear them, since echoes would come from different directions than the shout's origin. The horses are more complicated. Presumably Brienne did find Arya's horse and, seeing that Arya was not on it, assumed that Arya ran off on foot. Brienne didn't take the horse with her when she went off to search the area, presumably because she didn't think Arya would be so cool and calculating as to double back and retrieve it.

Jon's last name

• Bran assumes that being born in Dorne would make Jon's last name Sand, but the thing is, it was always clear that Jon wasn't born in the North as Ned's cover story was that he conceived Jon after his wedding to Cat in Riverrun, in the south while fighting the rebellion; maybe in the Riverlands, maybe in the Crownlands, maybe in the Stormlands, maybe in Dorne, he was never specific, but the North was never an option. What mattered was that he was the son of a northern noble and was raised in the north.
  • Considering that Ned was known to have taken an Army south post-Sack of King's Landing to put down any further resistance and the last place he pacified was Dorne, it's always been a good guess.

Totally plausible cover story

• Just how easily everyone bought Ned's cover story. To recap. Ned was known to be famously straitlaced and prudish. To the point that those who knew him well found the idea of him siring a bastard after he married, to be difficult to believe. He raises said bastard with his trueborn children, humiliating Cat in the process. He also for some strange reason refuses point blank to tell anyone who the mother is. At the same time he came out of Dorne, carrying his dead sister's body, (who had per the rebels' own propaganda been raped by Rhaegar). He also totally coincidentally had a newborn with him. And no one made the connection at all? Men like Tywin, Varys, Baelish, who could read and see conspiracies a mile away just accepted Ned Stark's bastard?
  • Firstly, the baby looked more Stark than Targaryen, and he grew up to look more like Ned than even his actual sons,^{From the books}  Many characters have noted that Ned and Lyanna resembled each other in terms of looks and this boy did not have the typical Targaryen platinum blonde/white hair colour. Secondly, he was a young man who had only spent a wedding night with his newly wed before going off to war, that had an unpredictable outcome, such that, as an unsure soldier, it wouldn't be inconceivable to assume that he had pre-battle sex with some female camp follower (like Tyrion and Shae). Alternatively, it would have been believable that Jon was a product of a tryst with Ashara Dayne,^note  this, of course, being before the Tower of Joy incident on whom Ned had an earlier, well known, crush before his unexpected marriage with Catelyn. Thirdly, giving some due to Ned, he (and Howland), may have hidden the existence of a newborn baby from Dorne around the southerners, until he made it back to Riverrun. ^note  Catelyn didn't receive any advance news about Jon until she saw him with her own eyes for the first time once she reunited with Ned Also, Jon, like Ned's own children, always stayed in the North, away from the radar of any suspicious southern noble, such that nobody bothered about him or the identity of his mother. Fourthly, King Robert, Stannis, Tywin, Varys, and Baelish were more obsessed with fugitive kids of the Mad King, Viserys and Dany (particularly Viserys, as he was the next in line after Rhaegar), even up till Robert's death. And even if they considered the possibility that Lyanna and Rhaegar had a child ('by rape'), the fact that she died in what was apparently a miscarriage would have negated that possibility in their minds. And lastly, Ned Stark was one of the most powerful and dangerous men in Westeros after Robert's Rebellion — if he said that Jon was his bastard, everybody had to take his word for it, and nobody, not even Catelyn, could dare investigate any further into this matter and not earn his wrath.
  • Ned followed Occam's Razor and it worked. The simplest, most obvious explanation was that he, a young soldier, went south and had either an affair or a one-night stand that resulted in a baby. As the OP mentioned, he was known for his honor. People believed he didn't name the woman because 1) he didn't want to do her further dishonor by naming her or B) he didn't want to do himself further dishonor by telling the world he slept with a whore. Dozens of men had bastards during the war (in the books, Robert had at least two during that time.) No one went looking for a deeper explanation because the one he gave was completely plausible.
  • We are also estimating how widely known Ned Stark is for his prudishness. Only people who know Ned believe that, or someone like Stannis Baratheon who generally has that insight about people. But Robert Baratheon believed it and he's Ned's best friend, albeit his understanding of people was shallow. Furthermore, everyone knows that lords father kids out of wedlock all the time or do things in private they don't admit in public. Tywin, whoremonger in private but Straight Edge Evil in public, is a good example of that, and fathering bastards in general is not really dishonorable, or rather it's only dishonorable to people who have the sentiment of marital fidelity, which many in Westeros don't since most marriages are Arranged Marriage. Only Jaime Lannister brings this up in the show, and even he's using it to goad Catelyn and push her buttons.
  • People believed it because they wanted to. Stalwart, honorable Ned Stark shows himself to have feet of clay, as susceptible to temptation and infidelity as any other Great Lord of Westeros? Far too juicy a tidbit to not believe, spread, and rub in whenever he shows up acting like his shit don't stink.
  • Also, it's not completely true that he refused to name Jon's mother. He kept Catelyn and the children in the dark, but told Robert that Wylla the wetnurse was the mother.
  • They had JUST gotten married. People might have thought that his steadfastness and loyalty to Cat was a result of his guilt over cheating on her.

How does he breathe fire?

• How is Viserion able to breathe fire? He was killed by a serious throat injury in the previous episode, with some of his flame breath gushing out through the open wound. It's also been established that wights do not regenerate.
  • Lack of regeneration hasn't stopped human wights from moving with the speed, strength, and weapon use of regular humans despite lacking the muscle structure and brain matter to do so.
  • Is it even fire, it didn't melt the Wall so much as cut through it and it doesn't even have the same color as dragonfire, chances are it's just the Night King powering him up with different power.
  • Even "normal" dragons are so magical the worldwide supply of magic rises noticeably when they return. There's absolutely no reason to believe that their fire breath has any anatomical basis or follows normal physical laws, anyways.
  • It's an undead dragon. It's magic. Same reason he can fly with tattered wings and giant holes in them. Plus the dragons seem to have two fire glands, almost like salivary glands. The other one could be working just fine.

Rickon

• Why on earth doesn't Rickon run zigzag instead of a straight line to Jon when Ramsay is trying to shoot him down? Given the distance between them after some time, Rickon is in a rather good position to avoid being shot by a single archer.
  • There's literally nothing to stop Ramsay ordering a volley instead. Rickon did the smart thing, tried to get out of bow range ASAP. All the "smart" people running zigzag would've ended up just as dead while at the same time forcing Jon closer into bow range. It's one of the dumber invocations of the "serpentine" meme.
  • Most people don't instinctively conceive of the serpentine tactic on their own, which is why people remind each other to do it in such situations. Unless Rickon was told to do it beforehand and recalled the advice in the heat of the moment, he'd just act according to basic instinct, which is is flee as fast as possible from the threat.

How can Cersei keep her betrayal a secret?

• Sansa is, of course, 100%-correct in pointing out how monumentally stupid was it for Tyrion to trust Cersei about her army joining them. What I want to know is, how could the entire sharade possibly still hold up?! That march to Winterfell had to have taken weeks if not months. How is it possible that in all that time there was no communication between the armies whatsoever?! There were no liasons, no people to discuss things like troop movement, accomodations and provisions for thousands of people? Varys didn't keep an eye on them through his spies?
  • Go ask Bran. He already knew that the Wall is destroyed and Dany lost one of her dragons. He should have also know of Cersei's deception unless he finds it not important. But he sits at the Winterfell courtyard for the entire time waiting for "an old friend" who happens to be Jaime.
    • OP: This is also good point. He spends all the time up to Dany's arrival doing fook all, instead of warning people of Cersei's betrayal and the fall of the Wall. Gee, they maybe even could've saved all those people in the Last Hearth.
• Speaking of which, what was Jaime doing this entire time? He leaves KL almost immediately after Dany's forces left, so he should've caught up to them in a few days top. And yet he arrives to Winterfell entirely alone and apparently unannounced. Why?! Why wouldn't he warn them of his sister's betrayal? Why isn't he worried that northeners might recognise him and kill for being a spy or just, you know, him?
  • He's travelling to the North and the winter condition is becoming harsh. He doesn't have access to ravens to send letters to Winterfell. And after dumping Cersei, he probably no longer has command on the Lannister army. It's like he did same thing Sandor Clegane did to Joffrey in Season 2. Do remember that after Dany's forces leave King's Landing, they're already on the ship heading to White Harbor. Just look at the Westeros map and you see the great distance between them. Also, Jaime is assured that Tyrion already informed the Northerners of the Lannister reinforcements. As seen in the episode 2 preview, it's up to Dany and Sansa on what do to with him.
    • "winter condition is becoming harsh" - no, it's very curiously not. Apparently, Sheeren's sacrifice still holds. "they're already on the ship heading to White Harbor" - yes, but the army still marches north by land, doesn't it? "Tyrion already informed the Northerners of the Lannister reinforcements" - yes, most likely, hencewhy it's even more important to disassure them. Regardless, my question is why would he travel all the way north alone, with no provisions to speak of, knowing full well that his crazy sis could change her mind at any moment and send a chase after him (in fact, she would have to, to prevent him from spilling the beans about her betrayal) instead of joining with Dany's forces the first chance he can. After he does, they could then use the first castle they come upon to send a raven north.
    • I'm going to add regarding Jaime not joining up with Dany's forces while heading north: Traveling at the Speed of Plot. I guess the Offscreen Teleportation of some characters and the fast travelling in Season 7 (particularly the episode "Beyond the Wall") is to blame for this perception since many viewers kept complaining about it. As for Jaime travelling alone, who does the Lannister army answer to? Cersei or Jaime? You would say that they should accompany Jaime to the north because by default, he's the head of House Lannister but given that Cersei blew up the Sept of Baelor, had zombie Mountain on her side and got Ellaria Sand and Olenna Tyrell disposed for rebelling against her, she has more control than Jaime. And she wouldn't care about stopping Jaime from revealing the betrayal to Jon and Dany because given her reaction on the Wall's collapse and the Night King's army marching, she considers the North screwed regardless if they knew about her deception.
    • OP: I deliberately left out the question of control over the Lannister army, because it's indeed murky and uncertain. My question is why doesn't he join Dany's army marching north. Hell, how does he get past Moat Catelyn then? Did he also put on a fake beard and smuggle himself through Roose Bolton-style?

Size changing chains

• Who keeps changing the collars of the ever-growing Viserion and Rhaegal? Season 5 made it clear that before Tyrion not even Daenerys was allowed to get this close to them anymore without almost getting roasted.
  • In Season 6 finale, Viserion and Rhaegal are shown to be smaller than Drogon. It is possible they did not grow as much as he did in that time due to reduced diet and lack of free range.

Littlefinger's last words

• Shortly after having his throat slit by Arya, Littlefinger mutters out "Sansa...I...". What was he going to say?
  • "...I am your father", perhaps?
  • I'm pretty sure it was "I love you.", so thank you Arya for sparing us.
  • He was probably just mumbling in the state of shock.

Waif's unnecessary disguise

• In "No One", why did the Waif disguise herself as a man to break into the house and kill Lady Crane? It's not like Lady Crane would recognise her and even if she did, she could easily dispatch her?
  • When you're going to murder someone, it makes sense to use a disguise in case there are any eyewitnesses.

The Dance of Dragons

• Since Jon departed Hardhome by ship, why didn't he sail to Eastwatch-by-the-Sea and march to Castle Black (150 miles inland) on the south side of the Wall rather than exposing his followers to the threat of further White Walker attacks on the north side.
• Stannis' forces are snowbound, yet Davos is easily dispatched on a Snipe Hunt to get him out of camp.
• Shouldn't Jorah Mormont be wearing a glove or something if he's going to go touching people's hands?
• Given that we've seen no sign of a Time Bomb in this Fantasy Counterpart Culture, how were so many tents able to be fired almost simultaneously, with no sign of their attackers? Bear in mind that this is a cold and snowy setting, so it should have been even harder to start a fire than usual.

Cersei's Grand Plan

• So, Cersei agrees to bring her army north to fight the Night's King and his army, then the second everyone is gone goes what basically amounts to "Just kidding, let them fight them off on their own, hopefully they will die" she has seen how much punishment a single Wight can take, and unlike Jon and the North, King's Landing has no Dragonglass, nor the amount of fire that would be needed, and that's not even getting into the fact that the White walkers themselves either need Dragonglass or Valyrian Steel to kill (that jon, for some reason, ommitted to mention the W Ws. What if Jon and Co hadn't won? suddenly she would have possibly millions of Wights pounding on her door, along with generals who can't be killed by fire and possibly 3 undead dragons, who I assume her Scorpions would have little to no effect on, I know she was quite snooker loopy at that point, but I'm pretty sure everyone at that meeting who wasn't Cersei or Euron, would be like "erm... probably not a good idea"
  • As mentioned in the "Dragon pit of madness" question, showing her one wight in no way, shape or form proves the existance of an entire army. She has an undead standing right beside her after all. She could realistically expect this to be an elaborate ruse to lure her army out. Of course, her army had already been mostly roasted, and Dany could've taken the city in a few minutes or just burn Cercei and her cohorts in an instat right there and then, and once her lie is exposed Dany could've simply returned and still do all that, but that's another thing(s).

Arya's assassination of Walder and massacre of the Freys

• The whole situation with Arya's mission against the Freys has a lot of headscratchers.
  • After Arya killed Walder, how did she dispose of the body and clean up the crime scene without anyone noticing?
    • She had the entire night to drag his body away, maybe chop it up as well.
    • And no one would run into her the entire time? This is the Frey's main castle. It's got tons of people in it going all over the place all times of day and night. It seems highly unlikely all the places she needed to go to cover up the murder with be totally unattended the entire time she needed them to be.
  • How did Arya impersonate Walder so well that his closest family members didn't notice it wasn't him? She didn't just wear his face and use his voice, she somehow matched his body-type. How can she do that? It was never established the faceless men could alter their entire bodies to match someone else.
  • It obviously took some time for her to assemble all the Freys for the feast. Was she just impersonating Walder the whole time? How could she do that convincingly? Walder must have all sorts of administrative and government tasks to perform as head of the household. Arya doesn't know anything about them. Wouldn't her cover be blown as she is incapable of performing routine tasks Walder did with ease?
  • Even if she was able to impersonate Walder convincingly, would someone have noticed that the dead family members she fed him were missing? She didn't have any way to cover for them.
  • Also, was she having sex with Walder's wives/mistresses? This a serious question. Walder is clearly established as a dirty, sex obsessed old perv. Wouldn't she have to be screwing his girls to keep up appearances until the night of the feast?
  • After she slaughters the Freys, she just walks away without wearing her disguise. How? Doesn't the castle have guards that would question a totally unknown girl who showed up out of nowhere?
    • One of the advantages of being a lord (and an infamous asshole at that) is that you don't really have to explain yourself to your underlings or care about your behavior too much. So, if "Walder" told that he'd sent his sons on an errant, locked himself in his chambers, and gave a few short orders to assemble the crowd and prepare the feast, delegating the rest of his duties to his many relatives, it wouldn't raise red flags instantly. Any odd behavior like misremembering things could be written off to his age finally showing. Hell, if anything, I suppose everyone would be relieved about getting a break from dealing with him, especially his wives and mistresses. Remember, they're all terrified of him. They're not going to start asking questions until they absolutely have to.

Ice spears are only for anti-aircraft use?

• The Night King seems to have the ability to launch his ice spears from over a mile away. So why doesn't he throw them at Jon and his team while they are stranded at the frozen lake? It can't be because he was conserving his ammunition for when the dragon showed up, because he had no way of knowing a dragon was going to show up.
  • The general theory seems to be that yes, he knew or at least expected the dragon to come, so he conserved ammunition and kept humans alive as bait.

How did Jaime and Bronn escape from the river?

• After Bronn saves Jaime by tackling him into the river, they somehow escape from Dany's dragon and army "off camera." How? First of all, shouldn't the dragon's fire have turned the river water boiling hot and fried them both to death? Second of all, even if that didn't happen, Dany saw them both fall into the water about 20 feet away from her. Wouldn't she just order her Dothraki to go capture or kill them? They couldn't possibly out-swim an entire army, could they? And even if they could, Dany could still send one of her dragons to roast them.
  • Dany had no idea who they were - just two more soldiers, nothing that worth any special efforts. She probably ordered the Dothraki to round up any survivors in general, but since Jaime and Bronn emerged on the other side of the river, even if some of the Dothaki saw them, they just didn't bother with them. Also, since the last she saw of them was when Drogon breathed fire at them, she had every reason to expect them to be dead already.

North vs. White Walkers and wights

• So if I understand things in Season 7, the Northern Lords (including Sansa) expected and intended to fight with no help from the other kingdoms (except maybe the Vale), as shown by their protestations when Jon proposes an alliance with Daenerys in exchange for dragonglass. Simply put, did they really think that they could have fought off the wights and white walkers with very little materials that could consistently kill them (there's also fire but it doesn't work on white walkers and it's barely used in Season 8)? By the beginning of Season 7, they only had fire (maybe) and two Valyrian Steel swords.
  • Aside from Jon and his friends, nobody has any real idea about the wights and the Walkers and no express interest to learn more about them, and Jon never bothers to elaborate all that much.

Dany doesn't need to breathe?

• In season 6, Dany wipes out the Dothraki Kahls by burning them to death in their hut and relying on her immunity to fire to survive. She may be immune to fire, but can't she still die from smoke inhalation or lack of oxygyn? Wouldn't she still sufficate or die from the smoke inhalation even if the fire doesn't harm her?
  • Well, all those issues (aside from falling roof pieces) were present at her first burning as well, so if we allow that this is her innate ability and not a one-time miracle, then we'll have to assume that she has the Required Secondary Powers.
    • The first burning was different. It was done outdoors, not inside a tightly locked and closed off structure.
    • "Tightly locked" is an exaggeration, and massive pyre is still a massive pyre, whether indoor or outdoor. All the oxygen would burned away instantly anyway, or would've been too hot to breath.

What was Alister Thorne's plan for dealing with the Wildlings after he killed Jon?

• Even if Alister's plan for taking over the Night's Watch worked, he had to know the Wildlings would attack him after he murdered the man who just saved all their lives. What was his plan for dealing with them? They outnumbered the Night's Watch by a huge margin and they still had their weapons. What was he planning to do to stop them from taking over Castle Black after his mutiny? That seems like an inevitbable outcome.
  • Adaptation-Induced Plot Hole. They mutinied for different reasons in the books, where the Wildlings were also under strict rules and supervision to stop them from raiding or turning on The Watch.

Doran Martell only has one loyal guard?

• When Ellaria stabs Doran, and Tyne stabbs Areo Hotah, all the other guards just stand around doing nothing. Was Hotah really the only loyal guard Doran had? None of the other guards were willing to do their jobs? Why were the other guards so disloyal? Was he secretly the worst ruler ever, and we just didn't see it on camera?
  • Ellaria calls him a weak leader as she kills him, the weak implication being that she convinced all his guards of that. Either that, or the Sand Snakes bribed them with money and sex. Both are serious Voodoo Sharks, but the writers clearly didn't care about the politics of a single minor kingdom in the march to all-out war.

Stealthy Knights of the Vale

• How did the Knights of the Vale march all the way through the North to get to Winterfell without Ramsey Bolton knowing about it? Ramsey controls the North. Wouldn't he have scouts and observation posts somewhere along any potential routes of travel that could warn him about an approaching army?
  • Fast Travel. It's really quite common in this show; has been from the start, it's just more obvious here because it's been used to create a Deus ex Machina instead of just have a cool scene with two expensive actors.

Wouldn't People Think Cersei Killed Tommen?

• How is Cersei not also "on the hook" for regicide and killing her only child? All anyone not explicitly in on her scheme (whose testimony couldn't be trusted) would know is that she blew up her own trial with most of her court in it and King Tommen, who wasn't on her side, was found dead outside the Red Keep shortly afterwards. What would dissuade the other nobles, soldiers or even smallfolk from assuming she'd had Tommen thrown out of the tower, and thus her claim to the throne was wholly illegitimate? (Adaptation-Induced Plot Hole of her gaining more allies and power after the sept explosion aside.)
  • After all the other atrocities she's committed, I don't think that one really amounts to much. Basically it doesn't matter if they think she killed her son or not. Cersei is just ruling by pure terror and violence at that point. Everyone following her is doing so more out of fear or personal gain than anything else. What they believe she did or didn't do really didn't matter anymore. Also Jamie made a point that Cersei didn't have the support of other houses in the scene right before he leaves for Winterfell, making it clear that yes, most of the houses have in fact turned against her, for any number of reasons, which could include the one you brought up.
    • Well, nobody, neither enemy or ally ever even brings up the possibility (even as Tyrion insists they can get her to surrender by appealing to her care for her children). Plus, we saw with Stannis that killing your own child is serious business even in this society and can get a good number of your soldiers to abandon you, but that doesn't seem to happen; on the contrary, it's implied from how the nobles listen to Cersei's propaganda about Dany and some nobles like Randyll Tarly defect to the Lannisters that many genuinely support Cersei. If they're cowards who are afraid of Cersei, they should be more afraid of Dany who doesn't need the element of surprise or days of preperation to blow you up. If they're cynics who want a slice of the pie, Cersei is currently the weaker army, so joining Dany would be smarter (though this brings us full circle to the Adaptation-Induced Plot Hole). The writers definitely know what happened, so the cynical explanation that they just didn't think things through is obvious.
    • There’s a lot more to take into consideration than who has the strongest army. If you’re living in King’s Landing under Cersei, then it doesn’t matter that Dany has the stronger faction, what matters is that Cersei is the one in position to harm you or your family if you turn against them.
    • I was primarily referring to the nobles, the overwhelming majority of whom don't live in Kings Landing. The majority of the Lannister army doesn't, either.
    • The majority of the Lannister army might not live in King's Landing, but they do live in places under Cersei's direct control, which means they face the same issue. As for the nobles, turning against Cersei still has risks, not to mention they aren't exactly thrilled at the idea giving Westeros to a deposed Targarian who is leading a horde of foreign savages with a reputation for rape and plunder. And like I said, Jaime did say they didn't have the support of the other houses, which implies that most of the nobles have indeed turned against Cersei, or at the very least decided to stay neutral as best they can.
    • We're rather off topic, but the real "control" lies with the soldiers. What would Cersei do if the majority, or even a good portion of her soldiers just refused to collect her taxes or rally when she called them? Send what's left of her army across hundreds of miles to discipline them while also fighting a war against a stronger enemy? That's not an abstract; that's how military coups work and chains of command break down. It's largely the same with the nobles, too. It's already a stretch to say that people came to the conclusion they should have offscreen, but to say they're ignoring it out of pragmatism doesn't make sense because the person they're supposed to be afraid of has little actual leverage over them, and has proven themselves the exact type of person not to honor any bargains made.
  • There aren't even many areas technically under Cersei's control after the Lannisters willingly surrender Casterly Rock and with it, the Westerlands, early in the war, and the narrative treats this as a brilliant gambit. So clearly who controls Cersei's underlings' homelands isn't a big factor in their loyalty.

Cersei and the sept’s destruction

This is listed as an Adaptation-Induced Plot Hole, but let’s at least discuss it here. Why didn’t Cersei face any consequences from the smallfolk for blowing up the Great Sept of Baelor and killing everyone inside, such as a guerilla war or getting lynched by an angry mob? Some have claimed this is Reality Is Unrealistic, since Real Life tyrants have done worse without being overthrown in popular revolts. Let’s play devil’s advocate for a moment.

• ‘’Point one: People don’t know she’s behind the explosion.’’ When speaking to the Iron Bank, Cersei claims it was an accident. But why couldn’t the small folk figure it out? They know it was her trial, and that the deaths allowed her to become queen. They should also know from how Tyrion repulsed Stannis’ invasion what wildfire is and that the Lannisters have access to it. The Lannisters don’t appear to have any propaganda machine, and it's been established that Cersei doesn’t give a shit what the smallfolk think. At best, she can send zombie Clegane to kill one of her millions of detractors at a time.
• ‘’Point two: People know, but not enough care.’’ But the people, or at least those in Kings Landing, have every motivation and factor to form a popular revolt; they have an ideology (their religion, which is everything to medieval people), a singular target, leaders (the martyred high sparrow and the faith militant’s surviving leaders), the sept explosion proves Cersei poses a threat to their lives, and killing the charitable Queen Margery and starting a war with the Tyrells means starvation will soon return, possibly worse than before. Maegor the Cruel is a canon character, and presumably so is how destroying a sept resulted in a prolonged guerilla war for the rest of his reign.
• ‘’Point three: People know, but are terrified of Cersei.’’ So Cersei has, in her corner, the Lannister army, wildfire, and zombie!Clegane. But it was shown back in season 2 with Joffrey that the Kings Landing smallfolk outnumber the garrison by a huge margin, and with medieval weapons, that matters. Joffrey also probably has fewer detractors than Cersei would after the sept explosion and even Lannister soldier and gold-cloak loyalty is now in question. Wildfire can be powerful, but it is still just a weapon that largely requires time and advanced knowledge to use effectively (and the wildfire caches under the city aren’t public knowledge.) Maegor’s dragons weren’t enough to dissuade the faith militant. Cersei may be safe in the Red Keep (from the smallfolk, at least) but the people could starve her out by attacking anyone who tries to bring food to it, and we see Cersei exit the keep at least once after season 5. If a popular revolt isn’t a real threat to a reigning monarch no matter how hated, why does Tyrion always act like it is?

---