As we inch ever closer to the season 7 premiere, the interviews continue to pour in. Lena Headey chatted with Maisie Williams about hypothetical character crossovers and Cersei Lannister’s “loathsome” conduct next season and Kit Harington described Jon’s frayed relationship with Sansa post-Battle of the Bastards.
Maisie Williams interviewed Lena Headey for the cover story of Net-A-Porter. Their conversation covered quite a lot of ground, from Headey’s rebellious youth to her struggle with post-partum depression but, of course, they also managed to mention Game of Thrones a time or two. According to Headey, Cersei’s gonna be in full Evil Queen mode next season.
“[She’s] lost everything,” she told Williams. “Whatever was good [in her life] has been erased and she’s a horrible cow to one particular character … It’s really quite loathsome.”
After sharing stories about on-set Game of Thrones antics, Williams and Headey asked each other which characters they’d most love to see cross paths. Perhaps unsurprisingly, they agreed that Cersei and Arya would have the most … colorful reunion.
“I think if they ever met again, one of them would end up dead,” Williams said. Headey concurred: “Surely Arya would kill Cersei? Arya’s such a little fiend that she would find a way. Look, she f****** wears people’s faces.”
And who does Headey most want to see on the Iron Throne? (Take a guess.)
“I think she’s already sitting there, isn’t she?” Headey said. 
Kit Harington recently spoke to Entertainment Weekly to discuss season 7 and more or less corroborate what his co-stars have teased thus far:
“Everyone gets a bigger slice of the pie,” he told EW. “Everybody is left is left with more stuff to do. This season is really different than any other season because of the fewer episodes and everything accelerating toward the end.”
A bit juicier, perhaps, is what he had to say about Jon’s relationship with Sansa next season. It looks like the warmth of their highly emotional reunion will have cooled off by the time we see them again in 7×01.
“There is definite tension between them right from the first scene,” he said. “There are the same problems — she questions his decisions and command; he doesn’t listen to her. But as far as where that goes or takes them or how dark it can get, we’ll see. It gets past sibling squabbling, it gets into two people power struggling.”
Harington had to admit, though, that he rather enjoyed the material he was given for season 7.
“It’s a nice change for me this season, he talks more, he’s more sure of himself. He doesn’t just know what he’s got to do but he’s more sure of what he’s saying — whereas before there was always some fear and doubt. I’ve gotten to enjoy not just grunting.”
Cersei!
Love kit interview, more hype.
Can sue or luka or anyone contact some of your good sources to know if the red carpet will happen?
Like, its passing the fell that we wont have it, and something that i dont know, Got had a year without a red carpet?
Yay, more of Jon and Sansa nonsense feud.
Aguero,
Red carpet is 12th of July, one of IGN reporters on twitter confirmed this.
Haha Jon does more than grunting, I love it
Geralt of Rivia,
Perhaps it’s sort of a more low-key red carpet and only people who are gonna be there really know about it to prevent possible leaks
Thank the Old Gods for that! Last season all he did was mope around. Moping in dreary old Castle Black, moping on a bloody battlefield, moping in a boring tent fercryingoutloud! Who the heck mopes in a tent besides boring campers? Granted, there was that time he came back from the dead. But aside from that, mope mope mope! Mopey McMopeSnow they should call him. Lucky for him Sam isn’t around to tell him “You’ve changed, Jon Snow, or should I say Mopey McMopeSnow! Look at me, I’m actually having more sex than you! A LOT more sex! What happened to you, man?!!”
Nine days, twenty-three hours and fifty-five minutes, heh? I’m going to need stronger meds.
Oh goody, can’t wait to see more of this dumb tension between Jon and Sansa. We’ll see what dumb decisions they have Jon make this year, and what undeserved credit they decide to send Sansa’s way.
Catspaw Assassin,
Haha McMopeSnow I love that
So who gets the moo? Jaime?
smh you guys should have included the best part of the lena interview in this article:
Geralt of Rivia,
Oh OK then, thank you.
Mel,
d( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)b
Loving these Lena interviews! I became a mom around the same time as her. She’s so awesome.
She says she’s a horrible cow “towards one character” in particular. Surely it has to be Jaime? Who else would give a F? Everyone else is her enemy or her servant.
I hope this means Jaime *finally* leaves Cersei.
Horrible cow to one particular character?! The only one I can think of is Jaime, unless, oh dread, Septa Unella is still alive. Ick. She loves Qyburn, he’s Hand now, and the Mountain is her hero and savior. Who the heck is left for her to be mean to that we would give a damn about? Only Jaime. Last year she loved him “without you all this is for nothing.” Why would she hate him now, unless of course he’s less-than-easy-going about Tommen. Or has something to say about the Sept. We will know soon. Lena is so earthy and hilarious, on top of being beautiful.
I don’t ever remember Jon grunting, not even in the cave with Ygritte. But then, Jon is my favorite, so every sound from his mouth sounds like music to me. Actually, not only is he more wordy on screen, he seems to be far more outgoing in interviews this pre-season. I’m glad he’s happy with his part. The 16th can’t come soon enough.
Markus Stark,
First that the tension exist because of Sansa, and the tension in season 7 wont take more than 2scenes, and what dumb decision Jon did in s6?
Mel,
Possible but still we’ll get interviews and photos as always. Just if all the main cast members will be there. Emilia is filming, Lena might not want go, she missed a few of those and Maisie probably should be going. I’ve heard that she’s going.
Kaka,
Oh that’s funny! It makes me want to see a Cersei-Arya road show arc.
Ha ha ha! omg only she could say that and make it sound bawdy and elegant at the same time. Thank you for reprinting it.
oops, your comment was open and then you put it in spoiler code, so I will do the same for my reply
That makes sense, but if it is Ellaria, that bitch has it coming, so I don’t care too much.
Thronetender,
Leaks.
Or cleaves Cersei. 😉
Thronetender,
Im sure its not Jaime ahe was refering, euron no as well he dont take shit from anyone (she can full him but not being a cow to him), quyburn or the mountain dont even make sense she bitching them.
Has to be unella or the new prisioners…
I know the tension exists because of Sansa. So what ? What’s your point ? Doesn’t change the fact that it’s dumb.
I don’t know what makes you think the tension in S7 is only going to be 2 scenes, but if you’re basing that on leaks, then I’d ask that you kindly stop discussing spoilers.
Jon’s decision to charge the Bolton cavalry on his own wasn’t exactly genius.
Great, more Jon doesn’t listen to Sansa nonsense. The fact they need to tell us this indicates poor writing by Benioff and Weiss in 610. I don’t remember a single person at the end of 610 who believed Sansa felt anger at Jon or felt upset she didn’t get any credit from Jon or that Sansa felt overlooked by Jon. And why? Because Benioff and Weiss wrote a scene where Jon tells her she deserves the Lord’s chamber and that they wouldn’t have lived without her.
So why do they continue doing this? It makes no sense and in my opinion they indict their own writing ability in this plot arc when they tease something that never happened onscreen.
Aguero,
He provoked Ramsay,he let ramsey get under his skin,he made the wrong choices regarding politics before the battle,he puts the manly pride and supposed honor before reason and intelligence,he is quite dumb actually. They did not have enough people to battle in the first place nevertheless he decided to face them,if it wasn’t for sansa and the knights of the vale rickon would have ended up dead anyway, along sansa,davos,wildlings,jon snow corpses.
Not looking forward to this either. I hope she doesn’t waste too much of Jon’s screen time this season with her nonsense. I want him taking charge and having meaningful scenes and reuniting with the siblings he loves. Him talking more is a good sign. Though we will probably have to wait for the reunions between Jon and Arya and Bran.
Markus Stark,
My point is that is dumb by her parte and is not bad writing since anyone can be dumb with 16.
Wasnt smart but Jon saw his brother killed in front of him, and he never comanded a army before, and Ramsay had a army just of archers, even if he want to go back he could esily being killed with lots of arrows.he did what he felt in the moment and i see reality in that.
Less than 10 days until the season starts and people are still whining about plots and storylines they haven’t yet seen.
LOL!!!
Ramsay’s 20th Good Man,
The Outrage-o-meter is off the scale.
Manly pride and honour? That had nothing to do with the Battle of the Bastards.
They did not have a choice they needed to attack, they didn’t have food to feed the army for long, and a storm was coming. Just after they take Winterfell you see that Jon was right and a snow storm had arrived. They couldn’t remain there just like Stannis couldn’t remain there. Sansa should just have told Jon about the army of Vale, than the whole process could have been very different.
orange,
You have a point. It really displeases me when I spend my valuable time watching an episode only to see the show commentary negate everything I just saw.
I honestly don’t understand why they keep on pushing this narrative. With Dany arriving in Westeros you would think that they would have more interesting subjects to push then a Jon and Sansa feud.
They are just making themselves look like terrible writers. When we meet Sansa she really wants to be the Queen, and she betrays Arya or the Stark family by siding with Joffrey. According to them after six seasons of development Sansa wants to be the Queen, and she would betray her Stark family by siding with Littlefinger. So they are telling us that she hasn’t changed at all after six seasons.
orange,
There was tension in episode 4 and 9 , but not in 10 at all. Just shopie saw Jon didnt giving her credits.
Só the tension was about go and take WF and how. End.
Now the little tension will be about two things that make sense for the two. Both opinins have their good points. Some people will agreed with Sansa more people with Jon. But now the tension is more balanced, not in episode 9 where Jon is 1282728℅ right, now Sansa have a better point than she had.
orange,
“Great, more Jon doesn’t listen to Sansa nonsense. The fact they need to tell us this indicates poor writing by Benioff and Weiss in 610. I don’t remember a single person at the end of 610 who believed Sansa felt anger at Jon or felt upset she didn’t get any credit from Jon or that Sansa felt overlooked by Jon. And why? Because Benioff and Weiss wrote a scene where Jon tells her she deserves the Lord’s chamber and that they wouldn’t have lived without her.”
For what it’s worth, lots of people believe it because in the KITN scene Sansa’s reaction is ambiguous. The people who do believe it dismiss her offer to Jon as a sign of contrition that she hadn’t told him about the Vale. But, the opposite could be true. Personally, I thought her smile faded the moment she heard Lyanna say “I don’t care if he’s a bastard”.
Catspaw Assassin,
Bravo for “Or cleaving Cersei”. You win pun of the day!
That was a really great Lena interview, nice choice to have Maisie be the interviewer too, you can tell from the questions that these two have had some interesting talks, Lena dishing out wisdom… and also nice to hear how ALL the kidos on the show are knobless, lol
although they still threw in the ‘who should be on the throne’ question [it seems mandatory at this point] 🙂
Lena and Maisie were also included in this article
http://people.com/celebrity/sexism-in-hollywood-10-powerful-stories/
orange,
I was apprehensive about Sansa’s true feelings about Jon getting the love she thought she deserved from the Northern lords so you can’t really claimed that one felt this way. If you look at Sansa’s subtle expressions during the King in the North scene you can see where she may have felt slighted. We are talking about feelings and perceptions which sometimes have little to do with facts. Sansa feels Jon is not listening, Sansa feels Jon is not giving her the place/praise she deserves. How she feels doesn’t really need to reflect reality. Specially for someone as entitled as Sansa. So I don’t really see much contradiction in the writing of the show. I am super annoyed at Sansa because I am bias towards Jon but I don’t see how the writers are not being true to her character. Sansa has always wanted to be queen, to have a fairy tale ending, she’s always felt entitled to that type of life. She may have matured and grown in many aspects but has she changed who she is at her core? Her impulse is to be a me person. She betrayed her sister for Joffrey and she betrayed her father because she wanted to stay in Kingslanding. In the books, she knows Sweet Robin is being poisoned slowly and does nothing to help. In the show, she withheld crucial information from her brother because she did not trust him. Sansa is not evil but I don’t think the viewer should be surprised at her selfish tendencies. So in this way, I think the writers have done a good job in not abandoning this trait of hers. Would it be great if there was no tension between siblings? Sure but would it ring true? I mean we are not talking Jon and Arya here.
German,
So tell me how did he provoke Ramsay? You wouldn’t let the killing of your little brother in front of your eyes get under your skin? If so, you are a non-feeling machine. What political choices did he make before battle that were the wrong ones? I don’t remember him making any political choices at all. He KNEW he didn’t have enough men but he also knew they had asked nearly every house in the North and most had refused the call. Where else was he suppose to go beg? If Sansa Stark, legitimate daughter of Ned Stark could not get Lord Glover to fight for them, how was the bastard suppose to do it? Also, Ramsay had Rickon and that is the reason why Jon agreed to fight in the end. To get Rickon back. Time was of the essence, especially because Sansa probably told Jon about Ramsay’s love for torture. Would you expose your little brother to extended torture if you could help it? Had Sansa trusted him with the Vale info, things may have gone differently. Jon may not a great manipulator like Tywin or Roose but guess what? Those brilliant manipulators both died because they were so smart they failed to see the threat standing right next to them.
If Bran or Littlefinger or Howland Reed tell the North who Jon’s parents are..
My guess is Sansa will use this fact to make a claim for Lord of Winterfell…
She could do this without fighting Jon and Jon would probably say to Sansa… “you’re right”… be Lord of Winterfell and lets fight the real enemy.
but it’s a show there’s got to drama… more drama… more conflict.
I hope it’s good whatever happens.
but, Bran is there and wouldn’t he be Lord above both Jon and Sansa… unless they are disinheriting him because he is a cripple…
Danny,
Jon died just as they did. Ironically, for not seeing what was right in front of him. The only difference is that he was brought back.
I’m kinda glad their hyping up this barely there dispute between Jon and Sansa. Leave the bigger arguments underwraps.
Being irrational is part of the fun.
More shitty writing where D&D prop up their favorite golden child Sandra at the expense of characters that are more important than her. What else is new?
Leak
Talk about regression.
Anyway, Lena is queen and I died at the ‘perky tits’ part. Can’t wait for Cersei to be nasty to everyone. Slay!
viki,
Jon is not lord. He is King by acclamation. Succession rules don’t apply. Ned was never king.
Bran should 100% be Lord of Winterfell though. That is his birthright.
But this is the same show that killed a man for being disabled and called him weak, and Sansa is D&D’s favorite, so you better be sure they will ignore Bran like they usually do.
firstone,
Jon is not Lord of Winterfell. He is King. Those are different titles and Jon does not have time to babysit Sansa and stand aside so she can lead in a war she knows nothing about. And he needs this title and authority to rally people to fight and make alliances, as the North might not be strong enough by itself. You can’t do that as a foot soldier, so he won’t be stepping aside so Sandra can play house… or castle lol.
Flayed Potatoes,
For what i read she dont want to punish any of them, like they did to her n kg, she wants to pass the castle of their families to someoneouse, whats not crazy at all if you think, but i would be with Jon, but she does have a point.
As I always say, I am a Sansa/Arya but I am really tired of this Sansa comments/hate I want to talk about more characters, LIKE THE FREAKING AWESOME MAD QUEEN WHO SITS ON THE IRON THRONE.
I am extremely HYPED on what Cersei will do this season 😍, that bitch is gonna SLAY so bad.
I’ve never been particularly fond of Cersei in the books, but there is something about Lena Headey’s magnificent portrayal that made me fall in love with her, her vulnerability, her weaknesses, I prefer show Cersei than Book Cersei, she is amazing; I can’t wait to see what she will do next 😊
Loved both the Headey interviews posted in the last few days (thank you for the links, Flayed Potatoes!), especially the one with Maisie. I do realize they’ve spent a lot of time together and Lena is a mentor to Maisie, but as a former newspaper and radio reporter I find it terribly disappointing that Maisie had far better questions than most “professional” interviewers. (Don’t get me going on the Oscar red carpet.)
But I digress.
Echoing several others’ comments, I do hope that, in an accelerated 7-episode season, there isn’t a lot of Jon vs. Sansa tension. I won’t expound on some of the weaknesses of S6 writing, as others have done so at length. I’ll only add that I’m confounded by the idea of Sansa desiring any sort of power. As far as I’ve been able to determine (in both books and show), Sansa has never wanted it in the way that, say, Cersei wants it, or in the way that Daenerys believes she ought to possess it. She wanted the title of “queen,” but all that meant to her was the glamour of it all as expressed in song and tale: the golden prince, the adoring court, the colorful silks, the sumptuous feasts, the company of elegant people in a cosmopolitan port city. She showed no inclination for playing the Great Game until her own life was on the line, and has demonstrated no facility for playing it; after all, Littlefinger came to her, and she responded to him only because the math seemed hopeless and because that option had already been presented to her on the proverbial silver platter.
So again, why is there any sort of “power struggle” between a young woman who has nothing to her credit but a great name and one well-timed letter, and a young man who has persevered despite his bastard status and having proven that he can unite mortal enemies against a common foe?
Please do not interpret this as “Sansa-bashing,” which I do realize is a far-too-common phenomenon here. I do not dislike Sansa, in either the books or the show. I simply do not see view as a leader, and I fail to see how someone who does not wish to lead, rather than simply hold a glamorous title, should engage in a “power struggle” with someone who, despite having made at least one incredibly stupid, emotionally-charged decision, has proven himself a capable leader.
(pours another shot of whiskey, queues up Bryan Ferry)
Courtesy of freefolk redditer 17_Bob_Trey_O, here’s Sansa and Jon in season 7 with Arya getting a word in at the end…
Thronetender,
Kit says “It’s quite exciting how it ramps up speeds up toward a dangerous climax.”
Leaks:
SerNoName,
I laughed way too hard at that! :”’)
Totally OT: How did “horrible cow” come into our idiom? Cows are pretty much the most docile, skittish domesticated creatures around, unless they’re, er, “mad cows.” I live in an area dominated by dairy farming, timber, and cannabis cultivation (go ahead, laugh)… and I’ve never encountered a “horrible cow.”
Aguero,
Cover your spoilers.
ygritte,
You can say that he has….
I’ll see my way out now.
Flayed Potatoes,
/Jack Daniel’s out nose
Wolfish,
Probably because cows are fat, and the fact that they’re so docile can be associated with stupidity. I’d say it also has to do with certain habits the animals might have.
I think cows are cute 🙁
Wolfish,
Jon will
😛
I never understand why purported fans get on these threads and just trash the show.
Flayed Potatoes,
I think they’re cute too. Seeing them every day is a highlight of living where I do. It probably helps that I couldn’t live without cheese. (I could easily live without steak. Cheese? No way. Whether cow, goat, or sheep, a cheeseless life would be a greatly diminished one.)
Owen Conway,
Oh, most of us aren’t “trashing” it. We love it. We’re just antsy between seasons, and obsessing over every tiny detail that D&D got wrong. Because nothing’s perfect, except for nature. And maybe Vermeer. And Bach. Yeah. The Concerto in D Minor for Two Violins is perfect.
Wolfish,
And the Milka cow is also perfect 😛
Beauty personified.
Since I read the books I wanted some sort of conflict between the Starks and even war between them. So I’m happy that S7 will give me something like that.
I always hated the idea that the Starks will be perfect and happy family when they reunite.
mau,
Do you hate Santa and the Easter Bunny too?
(JK)
Sandra? doesn’t want to play house or castle… Sansa has always wanted to be the Queen and I am sure Sansa wouldn’t mind being The Queen of the North – The lord of Winterfell… I know Bran is first in line but he’s not in Winterfell right now.
This is what wiki says but I am sure you know more…lol
The Lord of Winterfell is the ruler of the stronghold Winterfell, the capital of the North. The capital of the North has always been Winterfell so the ruler of the North, be it the Kings in the North during the North’s time as an independent kingdom or the Lords Paramount of the North on behalf of the Iron Throne, has always also been the Lord of Winterfell.
Wolfish,
Same with bitch. What’s wrong with female dogs? Why isn’t a nasty man called called a dog instead of “son of a bitch”?
I can think of only 2 reasons that make sense on why there’s a disconnect between how many of us perceive Sansa and how the actress and show runners portray her and that is based on what the future could hold which is either 1. Sansa does something heroic after following her political intuition, then gets killed off, or 2. The WW army is red herring and the real war is in the 7 kingdoms between humans and Jon misses the boat by having only focus being White walkers. Maybe this is where the whole “importance of listening to Sansa” stems from? I dunno just grasping at straws lol.
Westeros is a patriarchal society and it seems Jon will be no exception when it comes to heeding advice when it comes from a woman. Cercei’s frustation will be Sansa’s. The old Sansa would have been willing to defer to the men. Not anymore, I don’t think.
Sansa wants the world to be safe for Starks. Her girlish dreams of marrying Joffrey and becoming Queen she now sees as shallow. It’s thanks to Sansa that the returning Starks have Winterfell to come home to. Jon wouldn’t have fought if not for Sansa’s determination. Sansa isn’t given enough credit IMO.
No, she seemed genuinely happy for him and continued smiling right up until she caught sight of the sour look on Littlefinger’s face. Then she started to look worried, because she knows the trouble LF can cause for Jon and everyone else. I believe she was happy that Jon was named KitN, even though she felt she should have gotten a little more credit for saving the day.
firstone,
And the official HBO viewers guide labels KITN and Lord/Lady of Winterfell as two different titles which belong to two different people. So yeah I guess I do know more than a random wiki anyone can edit lol. Or at least HBO does.
And yes the moment Bran steps inside Winterfell, he should be Lord of Winterfell, as is his right.
Lords Paramount are named by the crown, so the crown has the right to name anyone from any house (see: Boltons). It so happens that Starks were the ones who were awarded, but it’s not an inherited position. And the North just seceded from the crown, so at this point they will follow their own system of governing.
Season 1 Sansa has always wanted to be queen, until she realized post season 1 that these things don’t matter and that family is much more important. Big difference. To have her back to wanting to be queen is a regression of her character, and makes her look petty af considering there’s an ice zombie apocalypse coming and her family doesn’t want to harm her in any way (so really playing power games and trying to undermine them is not productive).
Markus Stark,
youre fun at a party
hahaha
Queenofthrones,
I think she means Septa Unella. Woman to Woman type thing?
Meg,
Except Jon gave her credit during the battlement scene and listened to and followed her advice about recruiting the Blackfish and Tully army. Does she want a statue built in her honor? Should Jon climb up the steps to Winterfell’s towers barefoot and on his knees to show you all that he is grateful? I don’t get it. He has consistently been respectful towards women in both book and show canon, so this Jon is sexist argument is a reach. He’s asked both Sansa and Melisandre for advice lol, even going to Mel’s tent specifically for that purpose (as he found it strange she was not at the strategy meeting).
ygritte,
I don’t know… the show has been pushing the story that the WW war matters more than petty squabbles over power since season 1 (see Mormont’s line in episode 10 iirc). So to have that suddenly change would be terrible writing/storytelling. Maybe they just have different priorities. You can’t exactly fight over power if an army of ice zombies kills you.
Aguero,
I agree with you. Another thing the fandom is split on.
So be it.
Owen Conway,
If you look at the comments under the recent “101 Greatest Moments” posts, you’ll see that just about everybody adores the show. It’s just that tiny scratches and dents stand out, and it’s human nature to want to point them out and buff them out.
Boudica,
But, maybe shes not supposed to change.
I don’t understand why people don’t see this. Maybe this is who she really is. Shes had moments where she said I am a Stark, this is my home… etc, but maybe, this is who she is… she wants to be Queen now, and she will do and side with who ever to get things her way.
Danny,
YESSSSS
this x 1000
Kind of what I was trying to say in my previous comment.
Danny,
THIS
Why are you talking about statues?
From the above article. “There are the same problems — she questions his decisions and command; he doesn’t listen to her. But as far as where that goes or takes them or how dark it can get, we’ll see. It gets past sibling squabbling, it gets into two people power struggling.”
From this I deduce that Sansa tries to have input and Jon ignores it.
Men can be respectful towards women and still be sexist. It’s called benevolent sexism.
Well framed. I’m always on the lookout for symmetry and “bookends”, but I really hope S7 Sansa isn’t a reboot of S1 Sansa. (Unless it means Nymeria can come back and mangle LF’s arm. And make him cry. )
Night Queen confirmed!
Ramsay’s 20th Good Man,
My pearls shall be clutched !
You are entirely correct ! Sansa is not a leader, by any stretch of the imagination, and Jon is, unquestionably so.
However, and I believe this is where the power struggle may percolate up, being a monarch is not about leading but about ruling. And both those functions are quite different both in scope and in principles, I think.
Leaders often emerge in time of crisis, when people require guidance to know where to go and what to do. People in position of leadership therefore need to be aspirational and charismatic, holding onto a certain dimension of ideological purity in order to provide their followers with a sense of purpose and certainty amid the chaos, an intuition that victory is possible. Leaders are perpetually on the move, from one struggle to the the next, from one mission to the other. Perennity is not their forte since they have to chase after the next battlefront.
Rulers, conversely, need to be pragmatic animals and hold onto power in order to put in place the policies they defend. They have to compromise and argue, relentlessly so. Their focus is not on conquest but on stability and establishment. While leaders can commit their followers to deeds they (the followers) do not necessarily agree with, rulers cannot afford such luxury since their power comes from their ability to satisfy those below them.
The opposition between these two jobs has been a driving force in the books and show alike. It was spelt out by Renly’s question to Ned (a question the Stark patriarch never answered, by the way) : “do you still believe good soldiers (leaders) make good kings (rulers) ?”. For all his faults and unspeakable arrogance, the youngest Baratheon understood the distinction and saw that both qualities did not necessarily reside in the same people.
Robert Baratheon, Robb Stark, Daenerys Targaryen, Ned Stark (up for debate) and Stannis Baratheon are all amazing leaders (Daenerys is head and shoulders above the rest) but subpar rulers.
Conversely, Tyrion Lannister, Varys, Petyr Baelish, Olenna Tyrell and Tywin Lannister are so-so leaders, at best, but remarkable rulers.
Jon is a superb leader. He has all the natural abilities and talents required : youth, beauty, charisma, intelligence, dedication, principles, etc. But is he a natural-born ruler ?
His stint as Lord Commander can make one hesitate to answer positively. Like the fantastic leader he is, Jon elicited support and devotion from a majority of his brothers when the election was held which allowed him to get the job. But after that… He proved unable to convince his men that his single most important policy, ie letting the Wildlings south of the Wall, was the right idea even though it bloody well was !
Now, I know that many blame the mutiny on Thorne’s resentment or the Brothers’ inherent racism / xenophobia / nationalism however I am afraid I cannot fully subscribe to this analysis. The Crows were unquestionably prejudiced against the Free Folk but their prejudice was far from completely unwarranted. They were not like people who despise and hate foreigners on principle because foreign = bad. The Wildlings and Westeros had been at war for centuries. Every single Free Folk incursion into Westeros ended in pillage and massacre, including of civilians; the Crows had good reasons to worry about letting them in !
It was Jon’s job as ruler to address his men’s fears and reservations head on. Why is allowing the Free Folk in less dangerous than leaving them where they are ? What is the exact dangerosity of Wights ? How can one be sure the Free Folk won’t keep on attacking villages and/or Night’s Watch bases once south of the Wall ? Most of them being nomadic, how is giving them a section of the Gift going to help since they have no experience of agriculture ? Are they really going to provide meaningful support in the war against the “real enemy” ?
All those questions, and many more, should have been anticipated and answered by the ruler. These worries should have been taken into serious consideration and countered with policy. Unfortunately, it is not what happened.
Faced with those concerns, Jon did not behave like a ruler but like a leader, relying mostly on trust and allegiance regardless of circumstances.
Ollie, a young boy who worshipped Jon and had every reason under the sun to hate the Free Folk, came to his Lord Commander for an explanation, willing to be convinced, and what did he get ? A vaguely patronising pat on the shoulder and a true-but-exquisitely-bland “trust me, Wildlings are people, some are good, some are bad”. Thanks Dr Seuss !
The poor kid was so committed to understanding Jon’s decision, so reluctant to betray him, that he later went to Sam, hoping Tarly would be able to make him see his Commander’s logic. However, Sam is a follower, a disciple, so his sole justification was “we have to trust Jon even if we do not understand his actions”. The Lord Commander works in mysterious ways… Spoken like a true cultist.
And we know how that ended up. Jon got stabbed to death and most of the Night’s Watch brothers approved of the treason once it was done… The White Wolf himself understood that perfectly; that is why he said he had failed and why he decided to leave the Watch.
Jon is a thoroughly remarkable leader but he still very much has to learn how to be a decent ruler. He needs to listen to opposition and feed from it instead of viewing it as a threat, a lack of trust. For “trust in me” is not a political currency and, as such, not a king’s argument, I am afraid.
I do believe Jon can and will figure it out. But he is not there yet.
(*bathes in gin*)
Calm down, everyone! Why do you get angered/frustrated so easily by mere interviews? Where is the hype and positivity that was constantly present last year? I really hope I didn’t overestimate the site…
ACME,
Some terrific points.
A good ruler also knows their limitations and will seek advice. This is where Dany has the advantage over Jon at this point, I think. She’s learned to heed counsel from more experienced people.
Flayed Potatoes,
Jon is not sexist ! Who said such a weird thing ? Of course, he wants to protect the people he loves and, as such, would disapprove of any family member of his putting him/herself in harm’s way (as Jojen very rightly told Bran) but he would not hold a woman back more than a man.
I believe the theme of credit in regards to the Battle of the Bastards might be better appreciated if viewed through the prism of another battle that shares the same acronym : the Battle of the Blackwater.
Blackwater was won thanks to two forces : Tywin’s and Tyrion’s. Both were indispensable. Had it been just Tyrion, he would not have had the resources to fight Stannis’s remaining forces on land and King’s Landing would have fallen; had it been just Tywin, he would have shown up too late and the middle Baratheon would have seized the city by the time he arrived.
Yet, after the battle, only one of them got public recognition. Tywin was allowed to enter the throne room on horseback and received a medal while his son’s role was politically ignored and only given private acknowledgment, both Cersei and the Old Lion giving Tyrion credit for his intelligent use of wildfire.
The exact same dynamics applies to the Battle of the Bastards. Jon’s forces and Sansa’s forces were necessary to win. However, only one of them received public gratification while the other had to make do with a solely private nod.
If we can empathise with Tyrion’s frustration in the aftermath of his battle, maybe we can do the same for Sansa’s ?
On a completely different note, I have not really paid attention to the leaks but
I agree wholeheartedly with you that punishing children for their father’s crimes would be appalling and idiotic. However, I have come to wonder : are the children being victimised or is it their House ?
If it is the kids, it is simply lamentable and inexplicable.
Conversely, I can see a political justification for taking away the remaining Umbers’/Karstarks’ birthright, possibly exiling them to a different part of the North, and gifting their titles, castle and lands to someone else as reward for said someone’s faithful service (“Tormund of House Giantsbane, Lord of Last Hearth” has a lovely ring to it 😛 )
This way, the children would not be victimised, taken hostage or used as pawns but their House, as a political entity, would be finished, thereby reminding everyone treason is a costly venture and ensuring that an unquestionably loyal lord is in place in the former traitors’ stead. That would be a sensible policy, I believe.
Or you know, maybe Jon might just feel that his decisions are better for the North than Sansa’s, a conviction that is dependent not on Sansa’s gender, but rather on her principles. Jon still adheres to the Stark way of doing things and Sansa obviously doesn’t. So it might just be a clash of principles or a clash of objectives, so maybe hold on before crying sexism every time he disagrees with her.
ghost of winterfell,
The Stark way of doing things got Ned beheaded. The Stark way of doing things got Jon murdered.
We actually don’t know what principles Sansa adheres to yet. But hopefully she has a better grasp of political maneuverings than her male relatives because it will be needed.
Jon may well feel his decisions are better, but in the above quote Kit Harington doesn’t say that Jon listens to Sansa but does his own thing anyway. It distinctly says he doesn’t listen to her.
I didn’t mention the word sexist. Flayed potatoes did. I said Westeros is a patriarchal society. Jon is a product of this society. It was patriarchy at work when he didn’t consult Sansa about Ramsay in the war plans. He didn’t consider that Sansa would have anything to contribute despite having lived with the man.
Meg,
I agree wholeheartedly with you in regard to seeking advice (as per Tywin’s grossly underrated discussion with Tommen about the value of wisdom in kings… Gods, I miss Tywin !)
Nevertheless, I am not quite certain Daenerys has that much of an advantage over Jon on this point. She has indeed learnt to listen but the way in which her advisors address her leaves me somewhat hesitant. The cult-like atmosphere of Daenerys’s government is, quite frankly, worrying and the fact that the only argument her “ministers” seem capable of formulating when trying to hold her back is “don’t forget your father was insane” (with the implied threat that she might become so too) is a tad distressing.
The Mother of Dragons can and should face more frontal and honest opposition from her collaborators. She has the backbone for it and would greatly benefit from it.
Daenerys does not need to be believed in; she needs to be argued with, I think.
Jon has been shown to listen to some of his advisors, be it Thorne, Davos or Tormund. And he proved capable of identifying when he failed. That is all extremely positive. However, he appears to require for contestation to be worded in a certain way not to balk at it. Anything too confrontational and he shuts down. This is quite problematic. So is his single-minded focus on trust.
ghost of winterfell,
I agree entirely with your central point but my vile mind forces me say that, if “the Stark way of doing things” is Ned Stark’s way of doing things, I sincerely hope Jon ditches it in the immediate future. Please, please, pretty please ! For Jon’s own sake 😉
Meg,
Or you know he didn’t want to talk to his sister about her rapist??He doesn’t want to upset her.And considering she was quite capable of talking before he didn’t know she wanted three invitations,a red carpet and a podium before talking.Not that her advice was worth shit but anyway.
ACME,
Actually I don’t think it’s Ned or the Stark’s way.I think it is his way and I fully agree with him in season 7.
ACME,
I’d say Jon is pretty good at turning enemies into friends based on what we’ve seen in the books and show 🙂
Meg,
Except Jon knows his limitations and has sought, welcomed and applied advice from Tyrion, Sam, Maester Aemon, Mel, Davos and even Sansa throughout the entire show. He knows when he has ‘failed’, as he himself has said on the show. It’s also up to the advisers to give well… good advice. “I don’t know. I don’t know anything about battles” is not good advice, whatever she said about Ramsay is vague, recruiting the Blackfish is good advice and they tried just that. “Good now go fail again”… I don’t know how good or bad this is lol. Maester Aemon advised him to go ahead with saving the wildlings after Jon discussed it with the NW (there is a scene where he is explaining things to them as much as fans seem to forget it). Jon has been following advice, learning his limitations, and listening since he met Tyrion in season 1 lol.
Did Sansa want three invitations, a red carpet and a podium? I don’t recall that happening in the show. Um, maybe because it didn’t.
Is being asked what Sansa knows about how a man thinks the same as being asked for rape details? I don’t think it is.
Sansa did the right thing by not speaking up until the war council had broken up. It’s called edifying the leader and not calling his judgement into question in front of his subordinates. However, if Jon had asked her for input, then it wouldn’t have been challenging his competence since he had asked for it.
Her advice was valuable – Ramsay doesn’t fall for traps, he lays them. And she was right. She also told Jon they wouldn’t get Rickon back. She was right about that too.
Not saying that Jon couldn’t have done anything different (and still be Jon) but to say Sansa’s advice was shit when it obviously wasn’t is ludicrous.
Jenny,
Also a good point, as we saw in the brief exchange they had before Ramsay arrived at the parlay.
I love for Jon to do shit his way instead of people viewing him as a Ned-bot and projecting Ned’s personality onto him.
And I really don’t get some people: on one hand they want Sansa to take initiative herself, but on the other hand they want other characters to take the initiative for her. Pick one, you can’t have both lmao.
According to the above article, he doesn’t listen to Sansa and the last time he didn’t do that it nearly ended in disaster.
Flayed Potatoes,
The show itself is projecting Jon as a Ned bot though…
ghost of winterfell,
Yeah I know 🙁
ghost of winterfell,
Flayed Potatoes,
Jenny,
Hell hath no fury like a Jon stan scorned.
Meg,
Everybody was talking in the war council.They were not in front of the troops she can disagree with him then look at any council scene in the show.She had no reason to think she couldn’t talk.And the advice was pointless.Don’t do what he wants you to do,well thanks sis I will just let my little brother,the rightful heir to Winterfell die in front of me without lifting a finger,the main reason you used to convince me to fight in the first place,no problem.On the other hand when I explicitly ask you if you have a hidden army somewhere don’t say anything because Yolo lol.
Flayed Potatoes,
I honestly don’t think they dislike him.They are very keen on making him the underdog though.I think the simillarities to Ned are in lieu of the parentage reveal to emphasize what blow it would be to Jon.Now I think there might be echos of Robb in Jon in season 7 but just on the surface.The situations are very different.
Flayed Potatoes,
ACME,
The show seems keen on portraying Jon as Ned Stark 2.0, so who knows.
Meg,
Because Sansa is alwasy right, so he has to do whatever she says? I’m not yet convinced that Sansa knows anything at all about northern politics, not to mention the WWs. So far, Jon listened to practically anybody, but in the end, he made his own decisions. English is not my first language, so I may be wrong here, but the “Jon doesn’t listen to Sansa” for me doesn’t mean he is not interested in her opinion in anything, but that after all, he doesn’t do whatever Sansa was suggesting, because he wasn’t convinced.
Above someone agrued that Jon is not a good ruler, because he failed to convince his men about the nessessity of cooperating with the Wildlings. Here, it seems that Sansa failes to convince the only person around her who loves her genuinely. So why should anyone think she would be a better ruler than Jon?
But I don’t want to make early assumptions, I wait to see how it plays out and what are those advices that Jon apperently ignores. If I agree with them ( and think Jon should have taken them), then you are right. But if I agree with Jon on those occasions, then I won’t see why he should have taken her advice instead of doing whatever he planned to. Not listening to Sansa would be a good thing then.
(and I won’t care about hindsight. One can make the right decision, which can turn out to be not-so good in hindsight – but the point is, the characters don’t know what will happen – unless they address the exact consequences a certain action might have.)
Juri,
Eh, they got nothin’ on the Sansa stans who storm her threads over the slightest criticism and try to tone police or patronizingly “explain” the show to her detractors. Different opinions. Weird, huh? At least they focus the conversation on the character instead of passive-aggressively dragging other posters for the mere act of disagreeing with them. But I guess that’s where emotional maturity comes in.
Meg,
And as we all know, if a person is right about one thing (even if they offer up jack when asked about it directly), they are right about everything else henceforth. I’m so sure that this show has been spending six seasons establishing Jon as a character who needs only to blindly follow the advice of others and is totally wrong for prioritizing unity and preparedness in the face of what’s to come. Like that time nobody wanted to listen to him about Castle Black’s defenses, only for him to be proven right in WotW, or when nobody wanted to listen to him about bringing the Wildlings south of the Wall to avoid adding to the NK’s army, only for him to be proven right in Hardhome.
Is it that far outside the realm of possibility for you that maybe, just maybe, Jon may be right in his priorities here too? Or does BotB mean that Jon has to defer every decision he makes to Sansa from now on? Btw, Kit has also said in interviews that Jon does listen to Sansa more this season, so pick whichever contradiction works better for you I guess. Kind of like how Sophie keeps alternating between Sansa only caring about family and Sansa being out for herself, depending on the day. We need to take these interviews very, very, seriously.
Your lack of self-awareness is almost cute.
Flayed Potatoes,
Whatever bias they may or may not have against him, it didn’t stop them from portraying him as being in the right during Seasons 4 and 5, to the point where Thorne stated outright that he should have listened to him. Plus he keeps on earning respect left and right, whether they give an explanation for the sudden loyalty or not (Joer, Mance, Stannis, Tormund, Davos, his NW loyalists, Lyanna, Glover, etc.), while people who dislike him tend to just sort of die. They definitely don’t hate him, they’re just not above using him to prop up their pets.
Right on cue. Thank you for proving my point. Do you have anything of substance to contribute, or is ad hominem all you’ve got?
elybe,
Right back at you.
As a Sansa lover, I agree at that point she should have told Jon, there is a chance for the AOV, she could of told him she didn’t trust LF, didn’t want his hopes to sway him or dash him; Jon may have argued it’s to dangerous for her to go, but she would argue that they need those men and she give up her honor or pride to get them etc,etc.
I disagree with you that even if Jon waited a few hours for Sansa to arrive that the outcome would be different; Sansa and Jon did not control that situation, Ramsey did 100%.
I think Sansa felt Rickon was either dead at the parley or felt Ramsey would kill him before the battle, she wasn’t there for Jon’s Kobayashi Maru test ,but if she was she would have told Jon the same thing that Tormond echoed to us the viewer and what many other viewers said to themselves; DON’T!!!
It was a no win situation, Sansa had the right decision, she just assumed Ramsey already killed Rickon when Shaggy’s head was tossed, no matter how long Jon tried to wait it wasn’t going his way because the GODS! ( D & D ) wrote it that way.
This is where honor wasn’t going to save the day, unfortunately for Rickon.
Meg,
“According to the above article, he doesn’t listen to Sansa and the last time he didn’t do that it nearly ended in disaster.”
He would have listened AND acted if she had she told him the one crucial thing she knew: That a fresh army of Vale soldiers might be arriving soon. She willfully held it back. She gave decent vague insight into Ramsay and his likely methods. And whinged about not being asked first. And said she knew nothing about battles (too true). She was lucky he had her there at the War Council; most commanders wouldn’t.
“We actually don’t know what principles Sansa adheres to yet. But hopefully she has a better grasp of political maneuverings than her male relatives because it will be needed.”
We do. She adheres to Littlefinger’s principles because they’re likely to succeed. She’s chosen him as her mentor, is aping his ruthlessness, and manipulating people to her heart’s content to get what she wants. She’s been doing a benign version of this since Season 1, when she begged her mum to let her marry Joffrey, and then sided with him against her sister twice, once when the sword-wielding Joffrey threatened to gut Arya. Sansa also believes in survival (good) and personal power (bad). People here have commented the contradiction that according to ST, Sansa picks a fight with Jon but is pro-family. I think that’s because–if they’re even alive–young Bran the cripple and Arya the younger sister are little threat to her power. In her mind and Littlefingers, only Sansa should rule the North.
elybe,
He reminds me of another poster whose comments were limited to complaining about/ picking arguments with other posters, with words like “Jon stan” “Dany stan” being used a lot.
It’s a fair point, though I would argue that Jon’s real issue was his naivete. He presented an argument that any rational person would have been expected to accept. Where he went wrong was he underestimated the degree to which people would allow their fears and prejudices to rule their decision-making. Had he realised that presenting the facts wasn’t cutting it – and that those same people might desire his demise, arguably the stupidest thing they could do considering the stakes – he might have spent more time winning them over.
But even then, how much time could Jon have reasonably spent arguing with bigoted idiots? He had an exhausted, decimated Night’s Watch to revive and fortify, thousands of Wildlings to resettle, a hostile Warden of the North, and an impending zombie invasion. He was one of the few men with the skills and experience necessary to manage the crisis. His time was severely limited. He could have tasked some trusted men to do the “selling” for him, but even then, some people were just not going to be reasoned with. I think Jon did the best he could with an increasingly impossible situation.
Once again I find us on the same wavelength, Wolfish – I had come here specifically to post about the same thing. ‘Cow’ seems to be an inexplicably popular slur for a woman among Britons, and not necessarily in the only pejorative ways that an American would be likely to use it (to mean ‘fat’ or ‘couch potato’). Why punish such a naturally placid creature with comparisons to the likes of a power-mad, homicidal queen? What did the poor cows do to deserve such a fate?
ghost of winterfell,
Are we talking Starks of Ned, or Starks of old?
Ned’s honor is a Arryn derivative, Sansa’s seems like a Stark of old, pragmatic and if need be ruthless, one may be better in time of peace and another in time of war.
Jon shows he be good in time of war, and Sansa does show hints she be good when she gets older.
So far Ned’s way got the loyalty, but Ned’s way won’t work for the second front , namely the Southern one, it will or should work for the Northern front, Sansa still sees the South as a threat which she is more likely correct on she also agrees the WW are a threat but may see Jon’s being easy on the Umbers and Karstarks as a future problem, nothing I’ve seen has Sansa wanting the children’s heads, but she and Lady Mormont may feel forfeiture of title and lands is appropriate and necessary as a warning to keep others in line, that’s the OLD way.
Both are basing decisions on their life history, Jon as a bastard a LC and someone who died and was brought back; Sansa as a born royal but also as a POW who saw her dad beheaded in front of her and other actions, some sexist others just plain evil.
ghost of winterfell,
The username factory has been so active lately that it’s hard to keep track.
Abbie,
Jon saw and understood the threat. But what was he suppose to do about it? He was in the right, the mutineers were in the wrong, even if you understand where they are coming from. It is in the math, math doesn’t lie. He told them: dead wildlings=wight=our destruction. How else was he suppose to explain it any better? With time? There’s no time, the walkers are marching. Whereas both Tywin and Roose created their muderers by being negligent. Tywin, smart and brilliant Tywin, refused to see that Tyrion was everything he could wish in a son (with added decency usually lacking in the Lannister gene pool) and not content with simply ignoring him, he proceeded to be a major ahole to him time and time again until Tyrion could not take it anymore. And Roose knew he had a monster in his hands because he himself was a monster with more self control, yet he let his son run free until he sent him his own regards.
While all three were “betrayed” by people who “shouldn’t have” betray them, I don’t think you can compare the situations. Roose and Tywin were blinded by their ego, Jon wasn’t, he knew he faced opposition, he tried to explain, they failed to understand. What other viable options were left to him?
I swear, if this Sansa-haters-versus-Sansa-defenders debate goes on much longer, I am challenging both sides to the Fish-Slapping Dance. Smek, smek; smek, smek.
Firannion,
I say Trial by Combat is the way to go. Use the most vocal Sansa hater vs. the most vocal Sansa lover. Let’s settle this the old way. No one else needs to suffer.
It could be the main event at Con of Thrones next year
Which side would have the bigger fish? Please make sure there’s joyous music accompanying it!
No one can agree with any character for season 7, both can be right both could be wrong or any combination so we should wait for season 7 to air.
Whoever manages to recruit the Ironborn, I suppose. We should make a rule up front disallowing the use of a kraken as a fish substitute.
Thronetender,
I’m thinking maybe Ellaria becomes Frankenmoutain’s toy 2.0 a la Septa Unella.
Jenny,
I know little to nothing about Season 7!Jon’s way so I will gladly take your word for it.
The only thing I do know is that, if it is very similar to Season 5!Jon’s approach, I will get mad at it ^^
I know it is going to sound horrible but yes, this is precisely what Jon should have done. Or, at worst, he should have sent someone else to get Rickon, some regular soldier whose life he could to sacrifice.
Again, I do realise that what I just wrote is dreadful but being king/general is no picnic. Rulers do not get to be emotional for too many lives depend on them. “Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown” indeed. There are such things as no-win scenarii and acknowledging that is a fundamental part of rulership.
Accepting that Rickon was beyond saving, that the youngest Stark was as good as dead no matter what, was crucial for Jon to stick to his battle plan and thus optimise his (and his men’s) chances of survival.
Monstrous ? Yep.
Necessary ? Unfortunately, yep as well.
I cannot quite agree with that, I am afraid.
The “the Crows are bigoted idiots who cannot be reasoned with” point does not quite cut it for me, I am sorry to say. Jon’s argumentation was too vague, too broad. He did not paint a picture for those of his brothers who had never encountered the Wights. A direct, frank description of the threat would have been a vast improvement over the somewhat poetic evocation Jon decided to go for.
He also failed to take into account that he was ruling over a house divided; he was elected Lord Commander by a margin of one vote ! He should have known that half of his men had reservations about him to start with. As such, he should have sought to address Thorne privately and convince him above all else, using him as a relay to reach those of his men who had voted for Alliser.
Furthermore, Jon provided close to no assurance in regards to the organisational challenges of allowing the Free Folk south of the Wall thereby dismissing any objective and justified worry his men might have been about the reality of the transition.
You very rightly ask how much time Jon could have reasonably been expected to argue his point. It is indeed a genuinely fair concern for time was of the essence. Yet my answer is “more than five minutes”. Neither Jon nor his surrogates really tried to advocate for his decision. Sam, arguably the most diplomatic and intellectual of the bunch, had zero explanation to provide Olly aside from “trust Jon” and some vague fortune cookie line about how, sometimes, one has to do things that others do not understand. A gorgeous blend of vaguely condescending hogwash and devotional speech !
The Lord Commander and his close advisors simply expected the Crows to fall in line.
A natural assumption for a leader; a devastating move for a ruler.
Firannion,
Fellow Asterix reader in da house ?
You are very right.
Though, one cannot ignore that Jon does use Ned as a template, even in the books. He aspires to be like his “father” in so many ways that showing him trying to adhere to the Stark patriarch’s principles no matter what is not that out of character for him.
Flayed Potatoes,
But surely, there are other soldiers or families who deserve acknowledgment for their participation in the Battle of the Bastards… I do understand, and to an extent, agree with your point about letting bygones be bygones and moving on with the help of former enemies. That is indeed indispensable, you are completely right.
However, I think we also have to take into account that medieval politics is, at its core, a transgenerational reward/punishment system.
The Umber/Karstark kids have a birthright because one of their ancestors, at some point in history, proved loyal and valuable to the right person (probably a Stark). That ancestor was then granted a title that has been passed down from descendant to descendant ever since, thereby providing said descendants with a lifestyle 99.8% of the Westerosi population can only dream of. If one can reap the benefits of the loyalty of one’s ancestors, why shouldn’t one also face the consequences of their treason ?
If honours can be inherited, why can’t dishonour also be part of the legacy ?
Kings have to feed the dogs : reward those who are loyal and punish those who are not. That is why I think taking away the Umbers’/Karstarks’ birthright might be a justifiable move, as long as it is not paired with any other punishment. Those children are innocent and should not be deprived of welfare, solace or comfort solely because their dad/uncle was a douche. But replacing their House with a new one, that could make sense to me.
ACME,
Tbh Jonny boy is one of the few characters on the show who knows when to punish and when to be merciful. His decision regarding Mel was a great mixture of both. Jon already pardoned the other houses whose new heads did not participate in the war. It makes sense to pardon the Umbers and Karstarks too, as Alys and TinyJon (or whatever his name will be lol) did not participate in the war (and unlike Manderley and Lord Glover they did not have a say in their family’s decision).
I wonder if Rickon was Tinyjon’s play mate while he was hiding at Last Hearth. 🙁
ACME,
Tormund should be covered in silks and satin and perfumed with the finest fragrances. Maybe Brienne will notice him 😛
ACME,
Um how much clearer than if they don’t come this way when they die they become zombies and come for our asses tenfold can he be?.They didn’t even wait to see how the wildings were acting after they passed the wall.Just went for Jon.Anyway I will grant you than he should have been more persuasive there try a bit harder to explain.We can’t agree on BotB.Jon couldn’t just stand by as Rickon was killed.He is not Stannis.And I don’t think that is more wise than running for him.That would have looked even worse to the army.I honestly wish that Sansa would have been in the same place as Jon just to see what she would have done when her baby brother was running towards her and how it would have looked if she did nothing like she advocated.
Jenny,
Honestly he was very clear. I don’t know what more they want. We got the scene with the NW (linked), the scene with Jon and Olly (linked), Hardhome. I think even Sam tried to explain things.
Many fans always justify some plot hole or forgotten thing by saying “they talked about it off screen” (like how they say Sansa and Jon discussed Jon’s resurrection and Arya/Bran/Rickon being alive off screen, so we apparently don’t need to actually see them talk about these things). But somehow this reasoning does not extend to Jon explaining the Wildling situation, even though we actually have several scenes where Jon explains this. So why can’t they assume he continued to explain off screen what he said on screen? Just how many more scenes did people want of Jon saying the same thing? I love me some Jon, but there are other storylines on the show that need screen time too lol.
Flayed Potatoes,
ACME,
I know you hold the opinion that Jon was too “vague” and “broad” in his description of the WW threat and what would happen if the NW didn’t unite with the wildlings, but Jon’s language in the video Flayed Potatoes linked to seems pretty direct and explicit to me. Do you have any suggestions for how Jon might have reworded his pitch in either scene to make it clearer to his audience?
Meg,
Excellent point. We often (not always) use “loyal dog” as a compliment, but “bitch” has long had negative connotations. I’m going to guess that its use as a derogatory word originated as a label for “promiscuous” women, since a bitch in heat will, er, take all comers. And while that’s completely acceptable behavior for the male of the species, especially in the years during which he’s “sowing his wild oats”…
But don’t get me going.
ACME,
Excellent points all (as always!), which leave me with just one question: Having established that Sansa is definitely not a leader, does she have the capacity to be a good ruler?
My immediate response (high noon and I’m still on my first cup of coffee, because Friday) is “no,” because 1) from what I’ve read and seen, Sansa seems to desire power, but over what and whom is still unclear (and it ought to be clear to either a leader or a ruler); and 2) Sansa has shown little skill for communicating effectively with people of her own class (see: complete failure to convince a single Northern lord to take up the Stark cause) and no desire to communicate with, much less serve, the majority of people who are ruled (the lower classes).
Oh, wait. I do have another question. What kind of gin?
Firannion,
I have no idea, and have not found any satisfactory answers online!
I might have a few 😉
a) Paint a picture.
Instead of relying on implied connivence with Edd (“You were at the Fist of the First Men. If we abandon them, you know what they become.” Edd knows, no many others do), Jon should have made his friend describe what he saw, depict the Wights : the colour of their eyes, the disturbing way in which they move, the sounds their dislocated jaws make, their smell (if they have one), etc. Have Edd explain, in glorious details, how ravenous and unstoppable those creatures are, how quickly they advance, how randomly and ruthlessly they attack. What they do to people when they get to them. Jon could also have added a few specifics about the White Walkers, their dangerosity, their seeming planning ability… Paint a picture, paint it hard, paint it vividly. The Lord Commander should have given his fellow Crows nightmares so they visualised and understood the threat. Olly had technicolour memories of what the Wildings did to his family; Jon should have countered those with equally striking imagery. Winter is coming is a catchphrase, not an argument.
b) Ally with Thorne
Thorne had received half of the Brothers’ vote, he therefore had a lot of sway among the man. Jon should have factored that in and tried to reach out to him directly, meet privately and address every single reservation his former opponent had. Point by point. Convincing Thorne would have meant persuading his followers.
c) Let the Wildlings speak for themselves
Tormund was not too far away at the time, if I remember correctly. Jon should have brought him in to explain why he and his people want to settle south of the Wall, what they are afraid of, what they are willing to sacrifice (the free-roaming, the nomadic lifestyle, the pillaging, etc.) in order to escape what lurks in the “real” north.
d) Prepare the circumstances of the Free Folk’s arrival.
It is all nice and well to say that the Wildlings will no longer pillage if they are given farming lands (nice move, Sam !) but, to the best of our and the Crows’ understanding, most Free Folk are nomadic and therefore have little to no idea on how to cultivate crops. Giving them farming lands, expecting them to spontaneously sprout the agricultural knowledge to grow the food necessary for their sustenance, amounts to providing a starving man with a can of tuna but no opener and then telling him “there you go, you can eat now”. Jon could have mentioned the possibility of a deal with local farmers and villagers whereby, if they agreed to help the Wildlings out (teach them how to farm, how to live a settled existence, etc.), they would receive some benefits (resources from the Watch or more lands in the Gift, for example).
Details and specifics, two of the devil’s favourite residences, were nowhere to be found in Jon’s argumentation. It was all broad, vague and evocative. No clear vision of the new threat, no defusing of the old one, no anticipation of any future problem.
We, the viewers, do find Jon’s speeches very convincing because he saw what he saw. We already know him to be right. However, if we try to put ourselves in the shoes of those of his men who witnessed nothing, if we endeavour to listen to Jon “out of context” so to speak, the blind spots, misses and lack of persuasive power are quite striking, I believe.
I understand and share your frustration with the Crows’ decision but why would they have waited ?
Jon should have struck a deal, obtained all the assurances and guarantees possible from the Free Folk before presenting the idea to his men.
As was, what Jon ended up announcing to his brothers of the Watch sounded awfully like some random gamble : “let’s allow the Wildlings in and see what happens ! Sure, so far, every time they have entered Westeros, they have pillaged and killed the country’s inhabitants and attacked every Night’s Watch base they could find but you know, they had their reasons and they are people too. Some of them are jolly nice ! I’m sure they’ll behave this time around. Plus, if we do not let them in, they will turn into something you have never either seen or heard of but I promise you it is very bad. Right, Edd ? Oh, and Winter is coming. Peace out” That was not the sales pitch of the century, was it ? ^^
Of course, the Night’s Watch did not wait to see what would happen. They had every reason under the sun to (wrongly) believe they already knew what the outcome would be. That belief should have been fought tooth and nail; it sadly wasn’t.
I am afraid I really cannot agree on that point.
What would it have looked like hadn’t Davos rushed the army to Jon’s rescue ? The troops would have witnessed their general being puréed into oblivion by Ramsay’s cavalry and all that, for what ? I cannot believe that would have been better for the soldiers’ moral than seeing Jon hold his ground and/or send one of his men to get Rickon (to no avail, of course)
Ha ha ! Oh, the images you have conjured up in my mind… (This time, Brienne shall be the Beauty 😛 )
Flayed Potatoes,
In regards to the balance of power in the North, you are totally right but I was not advocating for an already-existing House to be given the Umbers’/Karstarks’ title and/or lands; I would rather see a brand new House be created to replace them. Davos was elevated out of his lowborn status by Stannis as a reward for his service to the Baratheon’s cause. There must be other lowborns who fought alongside Jon and served him well who deserve the same shot at social mobility. It could even prove aspirational for many commoners in the North (serve the Starks well and you and your kids may benefit greatly from it) and necessarily threatening for the already-established nobility (everything you hold dear can be taken away from you so get crackin’ in the loyalty front 😛 )
Speaking of the Northern lords, we also have to take into account the fact that they may want the Karstarks/Umbers to be punished… They have already proven themselves to be delightfully hypocritical so I would not put it past them to call for the children of treacherous Houses to be severely penalised while conveniently forgetting their own passive treason… If Jon refuses, he could be viewed as a weak and overly permissive ruler which might threaten his authority over the region. Removing the kids’ birthright may be a satisfactory compromise : give the nobility a version of what it wants (without compromising the children’s safety or welfare) while also providing the Northern lords with something to remember: they, too, will get punished if they do not toe the line
Yours is, as per usual, a brilliant angle and, to be honest, I am left speechless. Literally. My usually verbose self has zero answer to this question 😉
I truly wish I did but I do not have a single clue. Had I been asked in early Season 1 (or while I was reading the first couple of chapters of the first book) whether Tyrion would make a good ruler, I probably would have answered : “What ? The snarky functional alcoholic with daddy (and mommy and sister !) issues who can’t keep it in his pants and enjoys insulting people at random ? Hmm… Let me think”. ^^
Yet, once given the job as Hand of the King, he rose to the occasion and proved more than capable not only to rule but to learn more and better himself as he kept going. As he said so himself, Tyrion discovered he enjoyed governing and was good at it by doing it.
Conversely, characters who were “engineered” and expected to rule (Joffrey, Young Griff, Robb, etc.) do not seem to demonstrate any remarkable ability in this area,
Good rulers come in all shapes, sizes and personality traits, I feel. Olenna, Tywin, Tyrion, Baelish, Varys… All are very different from one another; all are driven by very dissimilar forces and impulses. They are all talented in the art of government but go about it in very distinct ways. I find it extremely hard to predict beforehand how someone will react to the heady scent of decisionary power and the Dante-inspired hellish circles of responsibility, both of which have to be viewed through the added prism of circumstances (after all, it is easier to be a good ruler when in a position of strength).
So, I have not even the smallest shadow of an idea as to whether Sansa would be a good ruler or not. She could be utterly dreadful, she could be absolutely great, she could be anything in between.
Oh, only the best kind ! The kind that can be advantageously replaced by white spirit and/or industrial-strength detergent 😛
ACME,
For some reason, I suddenly have a burning desire to watch Jon give a PowerPoint presentation or TED talk on the White Walkers. Interesting points on Thorne, but I’m not sure how receptive the NW would have been to the wildlings advocating for themselves, plus there are time constraints limiting Jon’s ability to see some of these measures through. I’m not sure if you’ve read the books, but Jon actually does strike deals with the heads of the wildling families to ensure their compliance and good behaviour, even taking 100 child hostages from the various clans. We weren’t shown this on screen and it could very well have been cut for time, but it’s very much in line with his canonically established leadership style to take these practical measures into account in GRRM’s world. Perhaps another area where his character suffered in the transition from book to screen.
elybe,
You are entirely correct to point that Jon’s approach in the books is somewhat more comprehensive, at least on the Free Folk front. He does get guarantees from them thanks to the hostages.
As for allowing the Free Folk to argue their own case, you are right to argue it may not have worked. But I still believe Jon should have tried it. Go hard or go home (but don’t go to Hardhome, that sucks !)
All of that being said, I have to confess I find even Book!Jon’s treatment of the Wildlings/Others crisis (and of the pink letter disaster) lacking and I am tempted to believe it very much was George RR Martin’s intention. After all, Jon is a young leader who is trying his hand at governing and that cannot go smoothly, by any rule of logic or history.
So, while I cannot deny the show’s representation of Jon is full of shortcuts (damn you, limited screentime ! ^^), it is still very faithful to the spirit of the character in the books, I believe.
Jenny,
No, he’s not in front of his troops, but he’s still in front on men he leads. Men who need to have confidence in him.
And yes, she did have reason to not to speak up in front of them. One I’ve already mentioned. And two, it’s the roles men and women have in a patriarchal society and Sansa has been brought up to be a take a traditional role – and that’s to be deferential to men, in public at least. She was respectful of him – I don’t know why that is a bad thing from your POV.
The advice was useful and if it was a less emotive situation, Jon would have seen it was an attempt by Ramsay to manipulate him and stick to his battle plan.
You seem to think that if you support one character in something, it somehow means you don’t see the other characters POV or that it demonises them in some way. It is possible to see both POVs.
Jon couldn’t have done anything else and still be true to his nature. Sansa had experience with how good Ramsay is at psychological manipulation. She also saw what he did to Theon.
Whether you think she should have told Jon about the Vale army or not, it still served as insurance against Jon falling for any of Ramsay’s tricks. If he had known about the Vale army it would have drawn him into it too. Jon didn’t stick the to battle plan he had. It doesn’t follow that knowing the Vale army was behind the hill would somehow how have stopped him from doing that.
ACME,
I gotta say as much as I love Jon, I do agree with you. I unlike masses of other people never hated Olly, all I saw was a terrified traumatized little boy who didn’t understand what Jon was doing and when he asked about it his feelings and concerns were pushed under the rug by Jon and Sam so Thorne had a easy time manipulating Olly, all he really had to say was Jon was one of the wildlings, he spent time with them, even had relations with them and his gonna help them to do more people what they did to you parents and you need to help us stop them and save people.
I really hope Jon has learnt from this and when he tries to convince southern houses of the threat he goes more your route instead of “Winter is coming, the darkness comes with it, so do I have your support in coming North and defeating the White Walkers with me?” The southerners would laugh in his face, they believe the WW are nothing but a fairytale to frighten northern children, so I really am hoping Jon puts forward a really strong case that stops them in their steps
I would love to be a cheesetarian, but for the fact it would kill me. Mmm cheese.
What kind? Dairy cows? Holstein? The Holsteins are the stereotypical dairy cow, on the cartons, black-and-white spotted. My dad is a beef cattle farmer. We used to have pretty Angus, Hereford, and British Cross growing up, but now he has ugly cows. Seriously. The Highland Cow is my absolute favorite! I just about died from their cuteness and couldn’t believe they were real – wouldn’t have had I not first met them in a field.
I’ve found I can live without almost anything, surprisingly.
Sansa: “We HAVE to save Rickon!”
Jon: “I just want to be someplace warm for once…”
Sansa: “If you won’t do it, I’ll do it myself!!!”
Jon: “You and what ar…..fine.”
****
Sansa: “Rickon’s already dead.”
Jon: “I swear to god, I do not get paid enough for this shit.”
Stark Raven’Rad,
You have no way of knowing what would have happened if Sansa had told Jon about the Vale army. Sansa didn’t “whinge” about not being asked, she pointed it out and didn’t belabor it.
The argument can be condensed to the following – Jon stuffs up, therefore it’s Sansa’s fault. Jon failed to implement his own battle plan. Small army, big army, largest army in the world – Jon failed to implement his own battle plan.
He’s lucky there was back-up. He was lucky there was someone who had his back to protect him from whatever Ramsay had planned.
This is not a criticism of Jon. He couldn’t have done otherwise and still be true to his character. It was simply that Jon was no match for Ramsay when it comes to physiological warfare. Jon makes the same mistake Ned did – he assumes others operate according to the same set of rules that he does. This is demonstrated when he naively assumes that Ramsay could be shamed into single combat with him and that his men would care. Jon has been dealing with a different enemy and a different ethos (ie the brotherhood of the wildlings and the Night Watch). That’s why he needed to listen to Sansa. Sansa could be no clearer than not to do what Ramsay wanted him to do and that they weren’t getting Rickon back. A clearer thinking Jon (who had taken Sansa’s advice on board) would have deduced that Ramsay wanted Jon to break and attempt to save his brother. And that’s what Jon did. Again, not a criticism of the character. But it remains a fact, he did not implement his own battle plan.
We do not know what Sansa’s principles are. We are also don’t know what will motivate future behaviors. Your speculation just shows a prejudice against the character, not facts. If she’s learned from Littlefinger it’s probably subtlety, not to show your hand, and to trust no one. How she uses it is still to be seen.
So to save Jon, Sansa had to do something she didn’t want – and that’s to be beholden to Littlefinger. Now he will have to be dealt with. If we go by past behavior, Jon won’t be a match for Littlefinger either. He’ll need Sansa. If Sansa is smart, she’ll pretend to go along with Littlefinger, or at the least, not give him cause to suspect she’s against him.
There’s also no evidence that Sansa wants to be Queen of the North. On the contrary, she ceded the lords bedchamber to Jon.
This is a straw man argument. No where have I said that Jon can’t make correct decisions and Sansa can’t do anything but. But we do have one example that shows that in some cases Sansa’s life experience has given her advantages that Jon’s experiences haven’t.
Jon is a straight-up character like his father/uncle. Sansa has learned subtlety. Her different approach to the same problem is something that Jon would be wise to consider. If he ignores Sansa and what she brings to the table it will cause resentment.
You must be joking about what’s said in interviews needs to be taken seriously. These people are obliged to give nothing away. Sophie has thrown curve balls before so why should this pre-season be any different.
Aszusz
Straw man argument. I didn’t say that Sansa is always right. I said that there is at least one time that Sansa was right.
Jon and Sansa have a different skill set due to their different life experiences. Jon will see things one way, and Sansa another. If Jon ignores Sansa’s input he is a fool. Sansa bring a different perspective and a different solution to the same problem which may or may not be the best thing to do. She’s at least worth listening to and if he doesn’t it will cause resentment.
The right thing isn’t always the wise thing. Consider Dany and the fighting pits. From Dany’s POV they were wrong – yet it caused dissatisfaction when she had them closed because the citizens didn’t feel their culture was respected. Tyrion later tells her that she did the right thing despite her misgivings. As a ruler, Jon will need to learn this lesson too.
Pigeon,
Bummer!!! I could give up meat, but not cheese. Hell, no. And fortunately, I digest most of it well. 🙂
Ginevra,
Mostly dairy; I see a lot of Holsteins and Jerseys. What was once the oldest dairy cooperative in the U.S. (est. 1929) is just 15 miles south of where we live; after its last GM stole a bunch of money it was forced to file for bankruptcy, and is now owned by Foster Farms. However, the main operations and storage facilities are still located here.
Oh I do too, I was trying to imply that if I could eat ONLY cheese twould be a wonderful thing. Until I died of scurvy or lack of other bothersome necessary nutrients. 😉
I love this so much!
And I love that the bankrupt cows were adopted by their Foster Farmily!
elybe,
That’s another one of those things I thought was supposed to be assumed by that audience. I would have liked to see more communication regarding their experience at Hardhome but we were left to believe it must have happened off screen.
Edit: And I now see that very thing was touched upon and in depth by another poster just above, sorry for the redundancy.
Mel,
I agree. I have no doubt Jon will grow more forceful and assertive as the urgency of the situation and his own self-confidence ratchet up.
I cannot wait for him to leave the broad aspirational statements behind and sink his teeth into some precise, pragmatic advocacy and policy-making. Politics is a contact sport. Go Jon go !
Hee hee ! That’s a bloody good one ! 😛
Shall I be petty ? Ah come on, it is Saturday, I am going to treat myself !
Sansa : “Don’t do what Ramsay wants”
Jon : “Well duh ! Thanks Captain Obvious ! ”
****
Jon (does exactly what Ramsay wants)
Sansa : *-*
Meg,
what show were YOU watching?
Jon asked her for advice and all that she came up with was “dont do what he expects”
yeah, thats earth shattering good advice there……..
Sansa is an idiot, always has been, always will be. And all this BS stems from Sophie doing interviews and trying to make herself sound smart and failing (actors by and large are very VERY stupid people) and 2) make her character sound important.
You cannot pay attention to what the actors say in interviews. That way leads to madness.
Pigeon,
Ginevra,
LOL!!!
I agree you can’t pay attention to what actors say in interviews particularly if it involves future episodes as the actors are obliged to give nothing away. So if they do, it can’t be trusted. Sophie, I think, likes to have fun with the audience. In fact, I mentioned that in a one of my posts in this thread.
As for the rest of what you say, I can’t help but wonder if YOU have been watching the show. None of Ramsay’s victims could tell you anything but not to do what Ramsay wants you to do – because if they saw it coming they wouldn’t have done it. Would Theon have been fooled into thinking Ramsay was his rescuer rather than his torturer? Would the Iron Born from Moat Calin have believed they’d be given amnesty? Would Sansa have married Ramsay? Would Lady Bolton have walked into the kennels? All any of them could say is don’t trust Ramsay – don’t do what he wants you to do.
But let’s unpack what Sansa told Jon and what it means in the context of the show.
Valuable advice #1 – Ramsay doesn’t fall for traps (ie. he knows what you will do) and won’t fall for yours.
Jon had just made his plans to draw Ramsay into a trap. Sansa saw the naivety of this because she knows Ramsay is always one step ahead and knows how his victims think. Ramsay isn’t stupid, he’d know that a smaller force would have to resist being surrounded in order to have a chance of winning and would plan on drawing the enemy into battle first so they could be surrounded instead. And what happens? Ramsay has a trap to counteract it.
Valuable advice #2 – we won’t get Rickon back.
That morning she had seen Ramsay and the head of Rickon’s direwolf. Sansa, who knows the man, knew in that instant that Ramsay wouldn’t let Rickon live. I don’t think I need to explain the significance of the death of a Stark direwolf. She explains to Jon why Ramsay won’t allow Rickon to live. She knows how insecure Ramsay feels about his legitimacy (in fact, she planted the seed).
Valuable advice #3 – don’t do what Ramsay wants you to do.
If Jon had been able to divorce himself from his emotions, it wouldn’t have been hard to see that Ramsay was trying to goad him into breaking his battle plan of making Ramsay come to him. It’s obvious to other observers (Tormand) what he’s doing. And when Rickon is dead, Jon again does exactly what Ramsay wanted him to do and that’s charge at him. And his army does what armies do – they follow their leader.
Now this isn’t a criticism of Jon – he did the only thing the character could do and still be Jon. Ramsay knew exactly what to do to push Jon’s buttons. He had met Jon the morning before and would have deduced that this man operates to a certain moral code and would react accordingly.
Jon was lucky he had back-up. Judging by Sansa’s reluctance to tell Jon about the Vale army she either anticipated that Jon would fall for Ramsay’s trap, OR she didn’t want to use the Vale army unless she had to. Because now they have a snake in their midst in control of a large army (Littlefinger) and they are beholden to him.