Seriously.
The only thing I CANNOT foresee for the finale is having a man sit on the throne again. Now THAT would make a lot of people angry and even GoT can't handle that.
Lord Baelish was the last interesting character and he's dead now. Great.
I doubt there will even be a throne by the time we get to the finale.
sharethe north is slowly heading towards democracy with Sansa listening to concerns publicly before acting, the Vale has a weak ruler so will have others rule it with Robyn there in name only. The Freys are gone, Edmure Tully is a token ruler, the reach has no-one in place, Dorne has what one of Oberyn's daughters in place who weren't the Sand snakes (the ones younger than Lyanna Mormont) so others will be actually doing the ruling. THe Storm lands - I have no idea but unlikely they are truly behind Cersai. so the chances of them having 7 kingdoms or an iron throne with a monarch that actually reigns is getting less and less likely.
What you may have is the 7 kingdoms becoming independent and each having a parliament and a consitutional monarch or a more obvious federalised state. Basically what Robert's rule had descended into in it's later days.
Always found varys to be more interesting than lil finger....
Night King will sit the iron throne...
Why do you think it would make a lot of people angry? Political correctness?
I can't imagine anyone being more upset than if it ended up being Cersei on the throne...and that just leaves one other choice.
And Littlefinger, had he survived, would've been a dismal leader. He's the one that poisoned the Hand, set up Ned to be killed and set up Tyrion to be blamed as Bran's would be assassin causing Catlyn to charge Tyrion with murder. Littlefinger is the cause of putting in motion all the conflict, war and deaths that span the series. How good is that?
But as others have said and I've already said elsewhere; I'm not expecting the monarchy or the throne itself to exist as it currently does..They're heading toward more of a democracy or at least a different system then they've had in the past.
The best thing about the coming war is that the throne will literally be obliterated..
Technically I do think Jon and Daenery would make a good team (with Tyrion as the hand) but that's too neat and tidy and is never going to happen.
Not having a throne for anybody to sit on is the best ending.
The monarchy may well cease to exist, and I will be sad if it does. No, I'm no monarchist, but I am a realist, and IMHO if the central government of Westeros ceases to exist and they go back to the Seven Kingdoms system, then those seven kingdoms will be constantly warring with each other. In a world without a legal system, where the only way to get justice is to start a war or go to the king, well, having a king cuts down on the number of wars.
And nobody in Westeros has any conception of democracy, don't be silly.
"And nobody in Westeros has any conception of democracy, don't be silly."
You think? I don't think Jon Snow was proclaimed King of the North because everyone was secretly privy to his bloodline and entitlement..Sure, he was known as Ned Starks bastard but it wasn't at Jon's insistence that he rule. It wasn't a given.
Even Daenery, that does feel entitled by blood, has a sense of working for the people rather than just controlling and ruling them.
And are there really seven Kingdoms left that still have the bloodline to rule them? A central government, yes...but how would they go about heading the various houses of those Kingdoms that no longer exist as they once did?
Jon was appointed Kinginthenorth because the lords of the North felt guilty about failing to support him in fighting Bolton, and they were drinking like Vikings. And they aren't the "people", they're the hereditary aristocracy of the region, not common smallfolk, they were the lords, the lairds, the hereditary chieftains, the landowners, the old families, the vassals and bannermen, the upper class. There was nothing democratic about that meeting, in fact the only time democracy has ever been alluded to on the show was when Danerys left Mereen and said the "people shall choose their own leaders". But that didn't ring true, that was something the writers threw in to make it look like Dany wasn't just abandoning the former slaves of Mereen to the Masters who still control most of the region.
So in the absence of being able to root for characters who believe in democracy, we have to judge them on how much they care about the common folk - a pretty rare quality in the Westerosian nobles. For all their flaws Jon and Dany really do care, Jon wants to defend every living human being from the armies of the dead, from the smallfolk under his care to the fucking Lannisters. Dany cares enough to free all the slaves in eastern Essos, although it does beg the question of why a person who cares about the welfare of others is willing to stage an invasion that will kill thousands. But I'm in the process of forgiving her for that, because she does seem to understand that defending the living against the dead is more important than establishing her hereditary rights.
Agree about Dany - she cares but is very much the old system. Her 'people should choose their own leaders' is basically her appoint Daario and hopes he picks advisors from the various parts of Mereen. There is no guarantee he'd do that. Jon was right when he met her, her claim was based on who her dad was. That is not a real reason to make her queen of the homecoming parade let alone the country.
But I do think the North is getting closer to what we think of democracy because how do you think the Western concept of democracy started?
Athenian Democracy was only open to a narrow band of citizens - naturalised males who had completed military training to a certain level and had never been slaves, nor were in debt or in the bad books of the state. In practical terms - the Athenian aristocracy.
Roman Democracy was limited by class
In England the famous Magna Carter wasn't about the rights of the common folk, it was a contract between the King and his nobles and ensured the rights of the Church and Barons. But it was a codified statement that the King got that his power could be limited (even if John did try and throw it in the bin later)
What can be said is that what you see in the North is the start of democracy just not our version of democracy even if Jon himself isn't living up to it. The North doesn't seem to have a small council that meets behind closed doors to make the decisions that are handed down to the their bannermen. With Sansa in charge the decisions are being made with everyone grumbling before hand and after they hear the decision as well. So they gets their say in a big chamber even if it does piss Jon off when he was there. Sure it is the hereditary lords that are there but not all lords have equal power in practical terms (Glover has 500 men, Lyanna 63) but both have great sway when they open their mouths in that chamber.
The North seems to be getting the start of a kind of Parliament
I'm too sleepy to think this out in detail, but IMHO you're romanticizing the political situation in the North a bit.
This isn't the local nobles codifying their legal rights into a law, they're just a bunch of stubborn, independent, plain-spoken, barely civilized cusses who are used to saying exactly what they think. To anybody, even Ramsay Bolton. And I can't imagine the shouting matches in the Winterfell great hall are any sort of regular thing or serve as any sort of council, these minor lords have their own lands to look after with winter coming on and they should expect Jon and Sansa to get on with their jobs while they do their own.
You can think that but I think you are wrong as you are arguing that feudalism is the thing that works best as Jon and Sansa getting on with their job would mean the lords have no right to say anything other than 'where do you want my men and grain?'
But Martin took a lot of stories of history and twisted them for the books. So it isn't a huge jump to see the show doing the same thing.
Tyrion went on about how Dany being childless would be a problem, that breaking the wheel would take more than one generation. Changing the system is a big part of this season. So look at the systems. Dany is short term thinking until she saw the Wight's, Cersai is the old dictatorial system.
But somehow the North even if you don't see it, is moving towards more direct representation even if it isn't of the common people but the lower lords as it gives them more influence in the decisions made with regard to war and logistics and planning of not just their own lands but their neighbours lands.
And yeah the North can go tits up really easily - Jon resigned the Kingship without talking to the lords, he isn't actually Ned's son which is why they gave him the Kingship and that is before we go on about the satisfying death of Littlefinger. But right now that sort of proto parliament/ting can be described as being there especially as Bran is representing the religious part.
All I can say is it will be interesting to see the long term repurcussions of everything especially Littlefinger's death because we've been told Brienne won't be happy - it may filter down to the other lords after it ruminates with them and if that is the case it will mean the lords will influence the laws too. They may depose Jon but keep him as a leader somehow, they may tell Dany to take a jump as she is demanding that they bend to her when her stragety of taking all her babies to go against the Night's King basically cost them the one barrier they had that gave them time to prepare.
You've got a lot kicking around right now, but you can't say that they aren't democratic when you start looking at history and how those systems evolved into our democracy.
Yes, I agree..it takes time for true change but it certainly seems evident that change is coming to Westeros..How else will they "break the wheel"?
And most countries that practice Democracy are really more Republics such as the USA or in the case of the UK, it might be called by some a constitutional Monarchy or a representative democracy. None of this happened overnight.
But the common folk do have a say in who makes the decisions on their behalf.
And every indication I see, outside of Cersei and her present hold on the throne, seems to point in this direction.
If the night king and Cersei are defeated than the structure of the old monarchy will not stand as it did.
Yes the common folk do have a say in the decisions now but until suffrage was spread it was the rich and powerful landowners who counted.
Now in Westeros it can be argued that in the North they are getting to that level as the lower level landowners are having more say so in turn the common people should get their say in time.
If that holds, I can't see the lower level bannermen going back into their boxes after the fight. Why should they? If they held sway in the war against the Nights King why should they let Dany break the wheel in the manner she wants, Jon to be the heir to the seven kingdoms after all the shit they've been through or Cersei to have her autocractic right with a small council?
In the end of the series, we may find that Dany, Jon or Cersai don't make it onto the throne as their bannermen and the people deciding screw all of them. So in the end we may have a King/Queen with no real day to day 'power' whose only real job is to ensure their Hand or Hands (one per Kingdom picked by each Kingdom) does their job.
Not to nitpick, but it isn't clear that Jon abdicated as King in the North simply because he swore fealty to Dany. I believe she was going to let Yara keep her title as Queen of the Iron Islands in exchange for the oath. Going back to season 2, Renly was prepared to allow Robb Stark to remain as KITN under the same terms.
shareThey released this on the bts
http://www.makinggameofthrones.com/production-diary/text-revelations-see-the-significant-letter-and-diary-from-episode-7
Pretty much shows Jon has resigned as King
Very cool, I hadn't see this. Signing as "Warden of the North" is proof positive.
shareI think the word you're looking for is "egalitarian", rather than "democratic". Sure, the lords of the north freely mouth off in Winterfell, but if the Lord of Winterfell or Kinginthenorth says "I'm laying down the law, you obey or I have your head", they will obey. We haven't seen that happen yet, but it will have to when Jon comes back and tells them that they're supporting Queen Danerys and going to war with the Others.
And yes, the North has always been more egalitarian than the rest of Westeros. The bannermen feel free to tell the Warden of the North "Your father was a coont and you're a coont" to his face, the Starks live without pomp or displays of wealth (Sansa proudly tells Queen Cersei she's sewn her own dress at their first meeting), Jon Snow makes a state visit and hadn't realized he should have someone announce him, etc. In the books, someone mentioned that before all this started, every day Ned Stark would invite some bannerman, artisan, or peasant to have dinner with his family in the great hall, and he'd talk to the bannerman, artisan, or peasant about his life and what the Lord of the North ought to do for his people. It's why we like the Starks and want to save the North.
No I'm not looking for the word egalitarian. Being a more egalitarian society doesn't mean a lord of the North in a public gathering of the lords can mouth off at his leige lord without being pissed off his face and get away with it. As shown with Big Jon Humber losing the fingers on his hand when he mouthed off about Rob's tactics.
Glover, Manderly and Yohn Royce all mouthed off and the response from Sansa and Jon wasn't 'like it or well tough shit' it was more 'it's happening ....because' but they still got to complain.
Jon and Sansa are ruling the north with the consent of the lords - that isn't total autocratic rule. The Boltons ruled autocratically and with fear with little obvious input from the lords who were living in fear of them. With Sansa they are obviously voicing their opinions - it means they are influencing each other and the decisions made by the person they have pledged too.
The great hall of Winterfell looks more like a proto parliament as time goes on.
Well Jon and Sansa are in an awkward situation, politically, so much so that they're not going to try to lay down the law to the vassals unless they absolutely have to. Jon was acclaimed Kingingthenorth in a burst of drunken enthusiasm, he has no law, tradition, or bloodline behind him, so in fact he's got exactly as much authority as the lords of the North are willing to allow him. Sansa does have law, tradition, and bloodlines behind her, and if she uses them she'll look like she's undercutting King Jon. So neither one feels secure in their authority, and the North is in a state of political flux at the moment; the bannermen have much more genuine power than they usually do, a situation that might or might not evolve into more democratic institutions in time. (But evolving democratic institutions don't really seem to be part of the story, it's heading more towards the standard Fantasy trope of the true king coming again.)
Jon's going to have to lay down the law when he gets back, or try to. If the zombie apocalypse weren't nigh, he would be in an extremely difficult position.
»Jon was acclaimed Kingingthenorth in a burst of drunken enthusiasm, he has no law, tradition, or bloodline behind him, so in fact he's got exactly as much authority as the lords of the North are willing to allow him.«
Hmmm, Varys would probably reply that _all_ Kings _always_ had only as much authority as the people are willing to allow him. That’s basically what he was saying with his riddle of a king, a priest, a rich and a sellsword.
»it's heading more towards the standard Fantasy trope of the true king coming again.«
Yes, it looks very much like that at the moment.
However, I still hope there’ll be a twist and the ending will be different.
Umber didn't just mouth off, he drew his sword.
shareAbsolutely unforgivable move
Ive been saying for some time that Jon needs to make an example or two
Like when Soprano beat that meathead down in front of everyone else
Remind the lords and generals who is in charge...Jon honestly pisses me off sometimes...
Agreed. No way a man gets the throne. And while Baelish was a worm, he made things interesting and his death leaves almost no one worth watching. To be fair though these writers have made everyone dull
share
<< The biggest s***storm will be if a man ends up on the throne. >>
Wut?
I think viewers like that there's variety as to who's in power, but I've never heard of this show as being an enormous feminist landmark for womens groups with any agenda at stake.
Riots aren't going to break out...
.
»but I've never heard of this show as being an enormous feminist landmark (…)«
What? It had a lot of gratuitous female nudity, isn’t that as feministic as it gets?
»Riots aren't going to break out...«
Oh, they will! Where I live, people are already collecting pitchforks and torches to be fully stocked in case a man ends up on the throne.
;-)
>>What? It had a lot of gratuitous female nudity, isn’t that as feministic as it gets?<<
It HAD a lot of gratuitous female nudity when men ruled, at the beginning. Notice how the last seasons progressively got less and less nudity, as women start to take over?
Why would that upset people? Cersi is a woman and she's on the iron throne now and it hasn't really changed anything.
share