Confused By Ending? Great Analysis Found.

ITT: GoT apologists grasping desperately

Jon certainly wanted leadership throughout the whole series (the lady doth protest too much) and the idea of the throne did appeal to him, but he was immature as a man (almost a virgin) and was easily manipulated by all of the women he was attracted to, from the wilding girl to the witch woman and finally the dragon chick... it's only after denayris commits genocide does he bring himself to act and a big factor in that is self preservation as he certainly must have known his days were numbered as he was still a threat to her throne...

Not as bad a Qyburn. Flies squashed by fly squatters have had grander deaths.

Part 1 is seriously repetitive and preachy, about 3 times too long and has 2 ads as well.

But don't miss the overlay at 10:47 about millennials naming their babies Khaleesi. Big whoops LOL.

Part 2 sounds way too much like an academic lecture and has even more ads.

And what's the glib "we all know that" comment around 4:30 about Sansa being "unfairly passed over" for the throne? She reluctantly became Lady of the North, mirroring Stark humility, never asked for more. Somebody who wrote this youtube lecture apparently wasn't satisfied by the tons of women in leadership roles (both good and bad) throughout the series: "more is always better". Give us a break.

The comparison of Lannister/Lancaster and Stark/York is a good insight regarding War of the Roses in actual Brit history, so I think that was an insight into a clear hint by George Martin.

I agree with Renovatio about Jon's slow maturation, which I attributed to being told he was "only a bastard" from infancy and had tentative status. Sansa's rise to a "savvy" politician seems rather sudden but also started late, especially in light of how she trusted Little Finger early on.