#at first I was like getting twow isn't going to make a difference but now???

[fromtheseventhhell]

I feel like you can tell people are getting more and more tired of Stansas and their nonsense. Like even over on Twitter and reddit, lawless lands, they're getting called out for their bias and fanon. Really gives me hope for the fandom if(when) we get TWOW.

[jackoshadows]

This is just going to come off as me hating on Sansa, but if anything makes me believe that George would kill her off it would be the fact that she's had such little growth over the series in terms of actually learning/being taught politics. I always see people greatly overestimating her intelligence and accomplishments so it's hard for me to believe she's meant to outsmart LF. We only have two books left and she isn't even questioning him yet. She definitely could get that development but it would be weird for George to wait until the last two books to do so. I think it's more likely she has a part in it instead of being the sole reason. Her story has always seemed more about showing others plotting and adding suspense because she doesn't fully grasp the situation rather than being actively involved herself. That's just my thoughts on it though.

While GRRM has talked extensively of the lack of the 5 year gap with respect to Arya and Bran (He mentions in interviews of specifically wanting an older Arya and Bran Stark) IMO, the character most affected by the loss of the gap is Sansa, who really needed that time jump and off page development because the author has not written in an organic growth over several books for her.

Which is why I felt that even the Alayne TWoW sample chapter comes off as sudden, jarring and out of place with a newly confident Sansa flirting with Harry and talking about how much she loved the Vale and felt alive there. Seems to be a bit of a disconnect with how her last AFfC chapter ended. Still, I do think that with two books left, Sansa will start quickly connecting the dots - she has to for GRRM to wind up the LF character and plots there.

I do think GRRM intends for Sansa to take LF down, even if she ends up dying in the attempt. Sansa's been closely connected to the character since book one, there's the parallels between Sansa and Lysa (mirroring the parallels between Arya and Lyanna), the Sansa/Catelyn connection wrt LF and LF being one of the important human antagonists of the series. Sansa is an important POV character that keeps the reader connected to Littlefinger until GRRM decides that his story is done.

Which is why I am in the minority of opinion that it's Sansa and Ladystoneheart that are going to end up meeting/interacting through the Riverlands/Littlefinger story, first because I really, really want Catelyn/LSH to have a role in taking down LF (Revenge is a dish best served cold and I love vengeance!) and secondly in interviews GRRM has hinted at there being some kind conflict brewing between Emmon Frey and Littlefinger over being Lord of the Riverlands.

The Vale is closer to the Riverlands than Braavos and Arya in the Riverlands would be a retread of her ACoK/ASoS plot when she has more plot important things to do in the North - IMO. I am listening to AFfC right now and even Brienne's story there already feels like a retread of Arya's narrative themes in the Riverlands.

That said, if Arya does end up going back to the Riverlands for whatever reason - for ex. when she is helping/leading Northerners fleeing the Others or to figure out the food situation for the starving North - it could also be here where she and Sansa settle their differences after a reunion with LSH.

[bitchfromtheseventhhell]

hello there, this one stupid question but does the fact that baratheons overthrew targaryens means that dany is no rightful heir to the iron throne? also i've seen people comparing aegon's conquest to the robert's rebellion yet rb is more like the dance of dragons, isn't it? i mean a civil war between to sides (targ-loyalists and rebels) in one kingdom whilst ac is a formation of a new realm.

not a stupid question, and there are two parts to it that i’m gonna answer separately.  

does the fact that baratheons overthrew targaryens means that dany is not rightful heir to the iron throne?

it gets back to several issues, most of which conflict with each other if not themselves.

there is no rule of law in westeros

robert’s rebellion was justified (screw you game of thrones) because aerys violated his feudal contract with his lords.

the seven kingdoms are currently in a state of civil war with eleventy billion claimants to some part if not the whole, and those claims are not all unjustified.

there is no rule of law in westeros

there is no rightful heir to the iron throne.  

there isn’t--that’s what makes the whole series so fascinating.  i think that robert held it about as lawfully as one can hold the throne in westeros (ie, he took it through a means that westeros saw as lawful bc basically the only law that really matters in westeros is the sword; see varys’ riddle).  but he doesn’t have “rightful” “lawful” heirs.  i lied--he does actually: they are joffrey, tommen, and myrcella.  those are children born within his marriage contract to bear his rank and title when he dies.  doesn’t matter who their real dad is, “““““lawfully”””” they are his baratheon children.  but the reader knows they aren’t, which is why stannis seems justified in claiming the throne.  lawfully he isn’t justified at all.  the law is not on his side.  it likely never will be because he won’t ever be able to prove that joffrey, tommen, myrcella, aren’t robert’s children, and with robert dead so too is the case since robert would have to be the one to disown them.  renly’s not being “lawful” either bc he’s younger than stannis.  and, to make it tricksier in affc, the whole interesting thing with dorne is that the dornish don’t have salic law (hell yeah hell yeah hell yeah dorne), so arianne is looking at myrcella as joffrey’s heir, not tommen.  

after tommen and myrcella, it would be stannis, but stannis is not the rightful heir to the iron throne even though he says it is.  sorry broski.  he’s not.  the law protects cersei’s children.  except it doesn’t.  because there’s no rule of law in westeros.

all this is to say: the whole reason that robert is considered a legitimate king and not a usurper (though targaryen loyalists will forever see him as such) is that he took advantage of a situation where the king was violating his feudal contract to his lords and defeated the king and conquered the kingdom.  his rebellion was successful; i think it’s similar to right of conquest in that regard: he had to conquer the ruling party to rule.  it’s not a 1:1 with aegon’s conquest, but it’s still a right of conquest.

so is dany the rightful heir to the throne? only if she wins it.  there is no rule of law in westeros, so i’d say she’s got a strong shot of it what with her three droggos.  her also saying she is is reliant on saying that robert’s rebellion is illegal, and i get back to this quote in 1776 (is it a real ben franklin quote? that show has so many real quotes in it) that i’m obsessed with:

A rebellion is always legal in the first person, such as “our rebellion.” It is only in the third person - “their rebellion” - that it becomes illegal. 

robert’s rebellion was “our rebellion” to robert, ned, jon arryn, the tullys, therefore it was legal; to the tyrells and the dornish, it wasn’t; tywin lannister waited to see who won before he came in with the killing blow.  

to daenerys it was “their rebellion” which means by her strain of what is legal and what isn’t legal, she is the rightful heir.

is she for realz tho?

westeros has no rule of law beyond strength.  she’s got 3 dragons.  it doesn’t matter what “rightful” is.  i’m team aerys behaved illegally so robert was justified, but i also don’t for a second think that anything happening in westeros right now is happening in a way that follows legality so i sort of shrug and move the fuck on because why would i think about what’s legal when westeros is just gonna westeros?  (this is part of why i’m living in denial about what’s gonna happen in the north lmao bc it’s gonna make sense in the books unlike in the show and i’m gonna get so annoyed at the different claims to winterfell that are gonna happen.)

i've seen people comparing aegon's conquest to the robert's rebellion yet rb is more like the dance of dragons, isn't it? i mean a civil war between to sides (targ-loyalists and rebels) in one kingdom whilst ac is a formation of a new realm.

i don’t think it’s like anything tbh.  i think there are traces of all the conflicts involved, but i think this fandom tends to think that everything is a direct parallel rather than “a little of this a little of that” and i think what daenerys has to do has a little of everything as well as something yet unseen (ice zombies.  ice.  zombies.)

her conquering westeros would lead to civil war...but.....the whole.....series.....has been......a civil......war........ so like it’s neither like the dance of the dragons (civil war #1--a war for the ladies in the room), the blackfyre rebellion (civil war #2--a war for the bastards in the room), or robert’s rebellion (civil war #3--you burned people alive, dude).  all of them were civil wars.  the war of the five kings is the civil war.  daenerys entering that theater isn’t going to be a new war at least by my standard (but my historical standard is possibly different from others out there, and it will depend on twow so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯). she’s not the cause of the civil war, she’s throwing her hat in.  

her conquering westeros is going to be like aegon’s conquest in that she has three dragons and wants the whole thang.  the whole thang is also questionably unified (the north? is it independent? they’re trying to throw the boltons off and possibly declare for stannis, but technically cersei rules it through roose bolton; the iron islands?? are doing?? some major?? fuckery??; stannis is still around to begin with; what the actual fuck is petyr baelish up to in the vale?). so it’s unified but is? it?  aegon’s conquest was about bringing the kingdoms to heel (people pretend these kingdoms were at peace with one another...no....no they weren’t....the riverlands have been 1 giant contested zone for like...ever.... and were once again in the war of the five kings oh hey).  i would argue that dany conquering westeros would be the same dealio bc there’s no rule of law in the place throughout the kingdoms.

as for the dance of the dragons: also yep, esp w/aegon in the mix (bc i’ve hardly mentioned him).  you’re going to have the challenge of targaryen salic law, and a question of who’s “rightful” and who’s “mightful” and what constitutes right because that’s the thing it always comes back to--pretending lolol for a hot second lolol that westeros does have rule of law lolol--what defines rightful and should it be rightful?  the whole thing about laws is that they can be changed.  they aren’t set in stone, they are reflective of evolving society so even if they had rule of law dany’s challenge to that rule of law exists very much in her gender which is so frequently denied both by targaryen rule of law and by westeros more broadly @ dorne you’re so good at what you do thanks for not making that an issue.  

so it’s got elements of all of them, and will be something wholly different because of the impending ice zombie apocalypse.

[une-nuit-pour-se-souvenir]

Aegon opened war against a peaceful and stable kingdom, which is always a minus to the peasants. Moreover, he is a foreign invader with a foreign army, from that wretched family nobody likes.

I don't think he'll be that well received in TWOW, from the majority of the people. He'll be welcomed by the houses that are still Targ loyalists as well as Rhaegar loyalists (some thought he was "different" from his nightmare family), but also anti-Lannisters.

As for Dorne, I think it's straightforward. They all want revenge against Lannisters and justice for Elia and Oberyn, from the lords to the peasants (the only ones who'd welcome war). I don't think it matters if here are doubts about Aegon's identity. Arianne's chapters really showed how even the peasants want action against Lannisters (throwing citrus on their prince). Arianne going to go check it out first seems to be out of Doran's cautiousness as well as to prevent Dorne to uprise in war just yet. I also feel like Arianne is risking a lot considering the Stormlands will be at civil war soon while she crosses it. It's also worth remembering that Quentyn died because of Daenerys' dragons.

In the show and by cutting Arianne-Quentyn, this plotline was taken over by Daenerys. So Ellaria (the Dorne block) joins the Targaryen heir (Aegon) against the Lannisters, for justice and revenge. I doubt Dorne will ever join Daenerys because of Aerys / Rhaegar and now Quentyn. It's true that Quentyn is dead, Arianne is doing a risky journey which may not end well for her, and Trystane is going to be in Lannister hands soon. So if all die and Daenerys convinces Doran that it wasn't her fault Quentyn died, he might fill in Elllaria's shoes after all as he'll have nothing else to lose. Still, Dorne may bow out because it isn't worth it, they were irrelevant to the endgame seasons.

Aegon conquered Storm's End but I'm unsure how he Stormland's Lords would react. On one hand, they loved Robert who hated Targaryens and his child Tommen Baratheon is crowned as king. On he other hand, they choose Renly (the popular boi) over Stannis, plus they all suspect Tommen is a Lannister bastard and their lands have just been attacked. Perhaps the Stomlands' Lords fracture in 3-4 groups each with it's own different objective. A good chunk could abandon Stannis so no wonder he looses the Battle of Ice. Arianne will have to pass the Stormlands, most likely during a civil war, to get to Aegon, so we might see this stuff from her eyes. As said, I find this journey too risky considering what will happen.

There is also the Reach. Yeah sure, they all seem to be aligned with he Lannisters but the truth is that they are only aligned with themselves. Cersei will most likely move against them and that will cause a rift between Lannister and Tyrell and for some reason, Loras is hanging out at Dragonstone (Aegon's seat). The Tyrells already supported a popular claimant over the genuine heir once (Renly versus Stannis) and many Reach houses were Targaryen loyalists too.

In the show, Olleanna joined Daenerys out of revenge after Cersei destroyed the Tyrells but I think in the books, it might be overestimating the consequences of their own greed. The Tyrells and other Reach Lords might stay loyal to he Lannisters until Cersei ruins it, so they betray the Lannisters for Aegon, both out of greed and revenge. Margaery is sort of known for being a black widow of sorts, so they might even kill Tommen so she is marriable again. That would be interesting, because of Arianne.

The Riverlands are loyal to the Lannisters and the peasants are tired of war. They will hate Aegon and never join, from Lords to peasants. For sure the Freys all die and Edmure is released, but even then I doubt they'd join any Targ side. I keep my instinct on this, they'll rejoin the North in a war against the south at some point.

Vale would be a wildcard if not for the show making it obvious they're siding with the North. I had the instinct that Jon + Sansa would restore Stark rule and both Vale and Riverlands would join (Robert Rebellion v2). GRRM likes that kind of stuff. I also looked at the map and thought I was interesting that Dragonstone is close by. So if Aegon leaves for Dragonstone and /or then attempts to take the Vale (since its doable in winter as they had to leave the Eyrie so it doesn't matter if the thing is impossible to take). It would also be smart against King's Landing because they'd have the "neighbours" (pincer attack). I can totally see Aegon crashing the Winged Knight tournament and this is how Sansa escapes Littlefinger and runs away North. If she is grey girl, she's fleeing a marriage arranged for her. She is often in that situation because of north claim. Some say its Harry but it might be Aegon. Littlefinger would trade Hardying for Targaryen to marry Sansa in a heartbeat. What he want is the Iron Throne, so he "sells" her to the Targs instead of Boltons. Sansa would run away because she doesn't want to go south but north (with no rape plot).

It looks really good for a massive clusterfuck there in the middle-lands. The peasants won't be happy about Aegon in TWOW (except Dorne peasants). However as you say, he was raised to be the perfect monarch so I see them changing their opinion if Aegon takes Kings Landing rules well during ASOS. Kind of what happened with Cersei in the show. So when Daenrrys arrives, the peasants will be both tired of war from TWOW and liking Aegon's rule, so they won't support her.

North will hate any Targs. They'll be too worried with the Boltons and the independence. I think they'll only care about the south in ADOS.

aegon vi targaryen is the most educated claimant to the throne after stannis. he was raised to be as close to perfect as person can be. he treats his people well and made the hard risky choice to invade westeros earlier than planned. he doesn’t have a list 45 titles but his campaign doesn’t violate every human right possible (a certain targaryen can’t relate). westeros is going to love him and there’s nothing you bitter clowns can do to change that.