Headscratchers / Game Of Thrones Season Eight

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

Jon riding Rhaegal

• Only a Targaryen can ride a dragon and Dany isn't stunned that Jon could? Shouldn't that have been a clue that something was different about him?
  • Where is it said that "only a Targaryen can ride a dragon"?
  • Nowhere. In fact, it was an important plot point that Targs do not have any innate ability to control dragons - they've possessed a dragon raising and taming technique, which is now dead with them. At least it was this way until suddenly it wasn't and Dany got an innate magical ability to perfectly control dragons out of nowhere.
  • The show-writers explicitly say "Only Targaryens ride dragons" in their "Inside the Episode" and call Jon "a bit slow on the uptake" for not realizing the implications. What they don't address is why Dany would expect that he could or be so "slow on the uptake" herself.
  • The showrunners may say that, but nothing in-universe has indicated that "only Targaryens ride dragons". So far, Daenerys' affinity with dragons and fire has been implied to be a personal quality of hers, not something every Targaryen shares. (Viserys certainly wasn't fireproof.) So there's no reason to think either Daenerys or Jon would find his dragon-riding ability to be a sign of something.

Sam and Jon’s super awkward Targaryen revelation

• Is it really harder to believe that “Honorable Ned” lied, instead of cheating on his wife and fathering a bastard out of wedlock? (Jon: “My father, who is the most honorable man I ever met, are you saying he lied to me all my life?”)
  • Cheating would've been a one-time occurrence, and it's excused by saying they were at war, and could die at any moment, so Ned succumbed to momentary weakness, but took responsibility for his transgression, came clear to his wife and took care of his bastard. Lying to someone their entire life is different. Of course, Jon is still being an idiot here. Sam has to literally spell out to him that "He did it to protect you, Robert would've murdered you, you dumb doodoohead", so even lying to him was the honorable thing to do.
    • In Jon's defense, this is a major life-changing revelation, so it's understandable that he's not thinking it through logically.
    • Plus, the "Ned cheated" lie is something that Jon and the rest of the Starks have had years to accept. It was part of the family dynamic since they were all born. Suddenly learning the truth gives them a new lie that they have to come to terms with. They're bound to balk at first.

Sandor and Arya's reunion

• Did Sandor suffer a memory loss or something? Arya didn't "leave him to die" - she refused to kill him. He was asking her, provoking her, screaming "kill me" at the top of his lungs, but she just walked away! Be it Cruel Mercy or genuine one, she left him to live!
  • I think Arya's feelings toward Sandor are complicated, and that bears out in both the book and the series. She hates him on some level, but likes him on another level. She refuses to give him a mercy kill both to make him suffer and because she doesn't want to kill him. It's the paradox of the human heart.
• What was Sandor's "cripples and cocksuckers" line about? Was he just being randomly rude to Gendry, or was he referring to something prior?
  • What I assume it referred to is that people in the forges are either incapable (cripple) or unwilling (cocksucker) to fight. Remember, he's seen Gendry in action already. I figure he's trying to goad Gendry into joining the fighters in the armies.
  • He's just being rude. It provides a convenient excuse for Arya to stick up for Gendry, providing a good line for her to reveal her presence and adding some flavor to her interaction with both of them. She's defending Gendry, whom she likes, and being antagonistic toward Sandor, whom she has a rocky history with, all while showing that she's more mature and confident than when she last parted ways with both. Also, it's a good point to remind the audience that Sandor is still a rather miserable asshole even if he's now fighting for the good guys.
  • He was injured when she left him, and at the moment neither of them could be certain he would live.

What is going on with Bran?

• Assumption of outright Omniscient Morality License or Blue-and-Orange Morality aside, what the hell is Bran thinking? He doesn't warn anyone about Cersei's betrayal, he waits for... some time to tell everyone about the dead breaching the Wall, he does nothing to help the people of Last Hearth... I'm honestly curious, whose side is he on at this moment?
  • Judging by the recent episode, "A Knight of the Seven Kingdoms", Bran said he is the Night King's target and decided he will use himself as bait to lure the Night King out of the open so that Jon's army can kill him, putting an end to the Army of the Dead. I think it shows that he's still on the side of living for now....(unless we ascribe to the "Bran is/will be the Night King" theories). I think he left the people of Last Hearth to die so that he would let the Night King come to him. It's cruel of him to do it but given he left Hodor to hold the door until the wights kill him. He never tells anyone of Cersei's betrayal (because Dany eventually figured it out after seeing Jaime all by himself) and never tell his siblings about Jaime pushing him off the tower because neither of those are important to him anymore. He probably know that his time is up and I won't be surprised if he dies on the next episode.
  • Speaking of his plan. So, he'll be sitting in the Godswood, all in the open, the NK swoops in on his dragon and torches him. And everyone else. If Dany's dragons try to interfere, he shanks them with the spears, then swoops in and torches everyone. How is that supposed to work, again?
  • How do we know that the NK will torch Bran? Do we even know what exactly does the NK want with Bran? Also roasting the living defeats the purpose of killing the living and turning them into wights unless they're going to be ice-fire wights. Not to mention, it's very anti-climatic.
  • Well, Bran claims NK wants to kill him to destroy the world's memory or some shift like that, I don't even know anymore. As for using the dragon, that would allow NK to bypass all the defences, seeing how there's not a single Scorpion in sight. As usual, I'm trying to envision a rational solution (I know I shouldn't) and inevitably come to the conclusion, that the characters a blissfully ignoring it and are completely unprepared for it. And even disregarding the dragon, even if NK wants to personally cut Bran's throat, what exactly is stopping him from first murdering every other human with overwhelming numbers of wights and regular WWs?
  • The fact he's got overwhelming numbers is really the only reason this plan might work. If it was a closer fight he might be disinclined to risk it, but as it is he's at enough of an advantage that taking out the one person who might be able to oppose him quickly is too tempting to ignore, especially as Bran will be loitering threateningly on his flank seemingly hiding in wait for something. And the army of the living has siege weapons and deployed archers, so with his one dragon the Night King would be served better by moving close to the ground and engaging Bran at short range, rather than hang in the sky like a giant target.
  • Bran's location might also be an issue for the Night King. Bran's explicitly hiding in the Godswood, which has some sort of power over the White Walkers. The Night King might not be able to harm the trees, which would necessitate a more targeted strike.

Jon's revelation

• Dany brings up a good point when Jon tells him about his parentage. He's heard it from his brother Bran and best friend Sam and there's no proof, unless Sam snagged the diary they were reading. Who's going to believe him when the truth gets out?
  • Well, this only becomes an issue if Jon decides to reveal this knowledge to the general public and declare his claim for the throne. But would he? I don't think so. He's in love with Dany, and he never wanted to be the king that much, even merely the king in the north, let alone THE king, so it doesn't look like he's eager to sabotage Dany's career. Besides, if they marry, it would put him in a position of power anyway (What will he be called, by the way - a king? a prince? a consort?). Now, we all know who would be eager to sabotage Dany - Sam. He will likely either prod Jon to reveal the truth and claim the throne for himself, or reveal it himself, with or without proof, just for the sake of seeding dissent and undermining Dany. In other words, Sam is shaping up to become the new Littlefinger. Let's hope that he does, because that would be awesome.
  • I wouldn't be so quick to say 'oh they're in love, they'll get married'. Daenerys may have been raised thinking she'll eventually commit incest, but Jon was not. I'm thinking he may not be so eager to be with her, now he knows she's his aunt. Also, Jon may not want to take the throne but may have to if Daenerys goes full Mad Queen, which is getting likelier and likelier.
  • Another thing to keep in mind is that Season 8 has alluding to the possibility that Daenerys isn't as virtuous as people (or herself) seem to think. Just even the thought of another person having a more legitimate claim to the Throne than she, even if he is a romantic interest, could be enough to set Dany's paranoia over the edge.
  • And yet, everyone who hears this story believes it and no one brings up how hard it would be to convince the lords of Westeros that Bran's vision is real and not a blatant excuse for a Northern power grab. In the books, even "Aegon VI", who looks like a Targaryen (whether he is one or not), knew he'd nonetheless have to marry Dany to give his claim to the throne and his story of miraculous survival legitimacy, because she's the one living person who no one doubts is a Targaryen. Not to mention the reasons Jon's better claim isn't as necessarily cut and dry as everyone acts like it is - Rhaegar had no legitimate grounds to annul his marriage to Elia (and the idea the High Septon could disappear from King's Landing to officiate Rhaegar and Lyanna's wedding in Dorne and come back with no one noticing is absurd), in the books at least Aerys disinherited Rhaegar's children in favor of Viserys after Rhaegar died, Daenerys's forces are all loyal to her personally and not because she's Aerys's daughter, etc.. This has all been oversimplified, dumbed down or glossed over.

Jaime insulting Brienne

• "We have never had a conversation that lasted this long without you insulting me." Do I remember wrong or was the last time Jaime insulted Brienne during the bathroom scene back in Season 3, when he was half-delirious, and he immediately apologised and they had a ton of perfectly respectable conversations afterwards?

Jaime's trial

• First of all, was Dany not supposed to know about the Aerys' Wildfire incident? It looked like that, what's with everyone having to vouch for Jaime before she spares him. But Tyrion had told her. Back in Meereen, when she was planning to burn down slavers' cities, he told her all about it, to remind her that she's turning into her father. Did she forget?
  • That doesn't mean that she automatically trusts the man who has fought for her enemies all his life, especially since she's given another reminder why the Lannisters aren't exactly known for being trustworthy.
  • Jaime killing her father might also be a symbolic issue for her. Jaime's basically the last man alive who was directly responsible for the fall of the Targaryens. Robert killed Rhaegar and took the crown, Ned and Jon Arryn supported him, Tywin sacked King's Landing and Jaime stabbed Aerys in the back. The last person she can vent a lifetime of resentment on is standing right in front of her with no one to defend him.
  • But then Brienne and others vouching for Jaime shouldn't have changed her mind, since nothing they say could possibly influence that irrational motive.
• Second, regarding Bran. Why is it treated as such a big deal that Bran kept silent about it? Both Jaime and Cersei had revealed the truth about it to Catelyn and Ned respectively. There was no reason for Jaime to believe that Stark children wouldn't know about it. On the other hand, he rode north to join, basically, a hopeless battle. He's clearly not that much concerned with his survival, while executing would've been a pointless waste of manpower. Besides, least we forget, there's an option for even worst criminals in Westeros - Night Watch. The Lord Commander is right there, Jaime could take the black and redeem himself fighting the undead.
  • Because people aren't always sensible and rational. Both Jon and Daenerys can be impulsive, and Sansa and Arya are extremely protective of their family. They'd have to trust Jaime to keep his oath, and the revelation would be yet another black mark against him.
  • If Sansa, Arya, and Jon had known, it would have been the first thing they brought up to ascertain that Jaime can't be trusted. Also, Jaime pushing an innocent child out of a window was what started the war in the first place, the same war he was trying to prevent. We saw how Sansa treated Littlefinger after learning that he had hired an assassin to kill Bran in a coma. Also, why should they trust Jaime? He sired Joffrey, who killed Ned, and enabled the Lannisters to take over King's Landing. His father ordered the Red Wedding, and Jaime wears one of the blades that used to be Ned's sword. For all they know, this is another Fake Defector Lannister plot that could lead to a winter's version of the Red Wedding. Brienne had to vouch for Jaime because he's done and enabled so many terrible things, but she wouldn't be able to explain away him attempting to murder Bran in cold blood.

The Vale's loyalty to Sansa

• The Knights of the Vale are apparently still in Winterfell and supporting Sansa in S8? But why? The first crime Littlefinger was charged with during his trial was Lysa's murder. Didn't Sansa vouch for him when it happened? But during the trial she clearly knows he's guilty. Shouldn't the Knights have realised she had lied about their Lady's murder and upped sticks back to the Vale? Why would they still support her?
  • Lord Royce never liked or trusted Littlefinger so it's not too much of a stretch for him to think that Sansa was being manipulated by him the whole time. And, she's still the legitimate daughter of Ned Stark and Catelyn Tully, which buys her a lot of loyalty from the Lords who were loyal to those families. She has the right last name, Littlefinger didn't.
  • Sansa was the one who blew the whistle on Littlefinger in front of Lord Royce. This was after Littlefinger had been abusing his power for quite a while, and it was the last straw. Lord Royce probably had this image in his head of poor innocent Sansa being forced to lie for a man who then forces her into a marriage with a despicable dishonorable serial killer. So the situation looks very much like Sansa confessing the truth as soon as it was safe to do so.
  • Seeing how there was nothing Littlefinger could've done, had Sansa blown the whistle on him immediately, I don't see how Royce could possibly regard her as an innocent party. Neither was there any way for Petyr to force her into marrying Ramsay. At the very least these events would warrant some serious questions, which Sansa wouldn't be able to answer to his satisfaction. Somehow I doubt that "I trusted the snake that framed me for regicide more than the allies of my mother" and "I let him convince me that I could deceive Ramsay because I deceived you" would suffice. Disliking Littlefinger matters very little when the only reason he could abuse that power was Sansa. He absolutely should see her for the conniving power-hungry witch she is and hate them both.
  • The main reason to the Vale's loyalty to Sansa and the knights still being in Winterfell is that the Lord of the Vale is Sansa's cousin. He probably ordered them to help her.

Dragonfire not melting the Night King

• Valyrian steel works on the Night King, yet the thing that makes Valyrian steel special is that dragonfire is magically infused into the metal. It's not an alloy that just happens to have magical properties. Its fire-ness is what makes it effective against White Walkers, as creatures of ice, in the first place.

Arya vs. Night King

• Where did she come from? Seriously, WHERE? I don't care if she's super-fast or super-stealthy (she's not), she had to have jumped from literally the front of the entire horde! After somehow sneaking past all of them. Did Bran teleport her in? Was that wiff of hair from one of the Walkers supposed to indicate that? Because I cannot honestly conceive any other option what would be even remotely plausible. And no, she couldn't have been hiding on the tree, there was no time for her to get there.
  • She is quite stealthy actually. That's what the library scene was there to establish - that Arya can move about quickly and quietly enough so as not to draw attention from crowds of wights in the same location. We don't see what Arya does or how she gets there, so there are multiple possibilities of what she could have done. Could her magical talents have allowed her to steal the face of a wight and look like one of them?
  • Even if we're being insanely generous and allow that it's possible, all the wights and WWs were staying in a tight crowd, about a dozen feet away from Bran and NK. Arya emerged directly behind his back, leaping from somewhere below. The only way to do that would've been to disguise herself as one of the fallen Ironborn who defended Bran, and that's a bit of a stretch even with her magical talents of offscreen magic.
  • Since the Faceless Men can change the size of their body and even their voice while wearing their masks, there's clearly a magical element to their art. So maybe they also have a way of sneaking upon opponents while using some kind of supernatural stealth? In Harrenhal, Jaqen H'ghar was able to sneak upon several soldiers and kill them without anyone noticing anything. And in the first episode of this season, Arya surprised Jon by appearing to Godswood out of nowhere, even though the place was empty and Jon should've heard or seen her coming; note that Jon was standing pretty much in the same spot as the NK while Arya snuck upon him.
  • Both those cases were defined by a conspicuous lack of a thick wall of people surrounding the spot. "quite stealthy actually" - uhuh, which must be why she screams when she leaps at the NK.
  • A thick wall of people surrounding the spot is a benefit. There's nothing more suited for sneaking through than a crowd, especially when they're all focused on a big distraction in front of them. And she only screams when she gets close enough for it not to matter, and it's a death or glory thing anyway. Why not add a little kiai to focus her strike? She's also a rather scared, slightly concussed young woman about to attack an eldritch abomination who's preparing to kill her brother, I would forgive a tiny bit of emotional breaking as she goes in for the strike.
  • If you look at the scene right after the White Walkers explode into pieces, you can see that a large mass of wights was standing right behind them. Since the focus of the NK and the White Walkers was entirely on Bran, they wouldn't have noticed Arya among the wights (especially if she was using some kind supernatural stealth) until she was close enough to run past the Walkers and jump for the NK.
    • "when they're all focused on a big distraction" - NK was focused on Bran. If he did't keep everyone else on a lookout, then why even bring them in? To witness his glory? They're his puppets! "Why not add a little kiai" - to make sure NK doesn't dodge, snap her neck or throw her away. "a rather scared, slightly concussed young woman" - she cannot be that and a super-assassin capable of super-speed, invisibility and ultra-regeneration, at the same time. Please pick one. And by the by, if she can do all that, then why was she cowering in fear of a few wights, desperately running away from them and in need of being saved by a regular guy on the verge of panic himself, just a few moments ago? On a tangent, I'm honestly curious how Cersei and Euron are going to present a whatsoever threat now. I mean, we know they're just going to ignore Arya's superpowers for the remainder of the series, but what the possible declared excuse could be?
  • Yes, the white walkers were there to witness his glory. If you hadn't noticed the incredibly theatrical side to the Night King, you haven't been paying attention. And even the dead seem at least somewhat sentient in a fashion, and nothing suggests that the white walkers aren't completely independent. And Arya is scared of a few wights because she broke her primary weapon and is clearly not physically up to actually fighting anymore, but stealth isn't particularly physically challenging, and her actual strike was a fairly simply trick. As for Cersei and Euron, they're still a threat because Cersei actually has bodyguards, good ones. The Mountain is likely completely impervious to anything Arya can dish out, and Euron probably deals with people trying to assassinate him once a week.
  • Running through a tight mob of super-natural hostiles (as opposed to sneaking through an indifferent crowd of people) without a single one noticing her and then performing an olympic-grade leap is as far from a "fairly simple trick" as it can go. She would have to literally push them aside! I don't think even a sight of a boy being killed would suffice to distract every last one of them from that.

Characters conspicuously absent

• Where was Lord Royce during the battle? He is probably the most experienced commander present at Winterfell, so should be the best candidate to command the infantry. He shows up in the background in the preview of episode 4, so we can be sure he wasn't killed or left the castle. Also, in episode 2 Maester Wolkan announces the arrival of Theon, but he is nowhere to be seen in the next episode. Shouldn't he be in the crypt together with the rest of the non-combatants?
  • I don't know if you meant to speak about someone other than Theon, but he's been in every episode this season. Ep 1, he saved his sister from Euron and decided to head to Winterfell, Episode 2, he arrived at Winterfell and was Glomped by Sansa, Episode 3, he pledged to be in the Godswood helping to defend Bran and later shared a moment with Sansa during the "Jenny of Oldstones" segment. Finally in Episode 4, Theon took his place in the Godswood helping to defend Bran, had a touching moment with Bran where he apologized and Bran forgave him, and finally charged the Night King while defending Bran, which got him (Theon) killed. So, I don't know why you say he's 'conspicuously absent'. Sure, he mightn't have gotten as much screen time as you (or others) personally would have liked, and that's fine, but he's not been absent either.
    • It's not about Theon. Once again, Yohn Royce and Wolkan were at Winterfell in episode 2. They are nowhere to be seen during episode 3, even though the episode 4 preview shows Lord Royce present outside Winterfell.
    • Ah, sorry. I messed up with the pronouns. For a Doyalist answer, there's no point to pay the actors for episodes they don't need to be there for. For the Watsonian answer: They're there somewhere? I guess?
  • Given his total absence, Yohn Royce might not be participating in the main battle. Most of the knights are also absent. Given the Vale's strength is in its cavalry and don't really excel in defending against sieges, they might be elsewhere, harassing the dead who are splitting off from the main force. Honestly as an old man mostly known for his skills as a general, putting him in the melee would be stupid.
  • Now that episode 4 has been released, Royce does less than expected. He is the commander of the Knights of the Vale and he is briefly shown present for the meeting where they discuss the strategy for taking King's Landing, but he says nothing and there is no mention of what the Knights will do. Are they participating in the assault? Going back to the Vale? Varys even mentions in passing that "the new Prince of Dorne" supports Dany, yet no discussion of their main allies?

Sansa has no bodyguards?

• Sansa is the Lady of Winterfell and by her own admittance no kind of fighter. So why doesn't she have any dedicated bodyguards to protect her person? Aside from the fact that having a couple of trained fighters with dragonglass by her side in the crypts would mean that the wights emerging from the graves could be eliminated with little risk, she should also have guards to protect her against assassination attempt from Cersei's side.
  • Sansa likely would refuse any able-bodied person to be with her if they could instead fight against the Night King's forces. And I'd think anyone who would have been commissioned to perform an assassination would have far more pressing concerns, with the undead just outside.
    • The bodyguard thing applies to every scene where she is at Winterfell prior to the battle. She never seems to have any dedicated protectors.
  • Doesn't Brienne act as a protector when Sansa believes her life is in danger?
  • Why would anyone be trying to assassinate her at this point in the series? Jon is King in the North, he bends the knee to Daenerys and Sansa merely offers advice on council matters along with the other northern lords and ladies. There are also two other living Stark children, so assassinating Sansa isn't going to do much. And for all we know, weapons are refused at council and their food is tested for poison, and other precautions are taken that we just don't see because it's not relevant to the plot.
    • Indeed. I mean, it's not like there's a certain vengeful queen who, for all Sansa knows, still blames her for the death of her son, is it? Actually, that would've been a useful piece of information Jaime could've shared to take this particular worry off her back.

Strategic blunders on the battle of Long Night

• The battle had many strategic mistakes:
  • Sending the Dothraki into a blind charge. The enemy army doesn't need light, and so are pretty much invisible in the deep of the night, and yet they sent their entire cavalry to charge into the void. That's absurdly dumb, it's no surprise at all that the entire force got wiped out in seconds. The fact they had no dragonglass weapons or fire until Mel appeared in the eleventh hour makes the whole thing even more stupid, they wouldn't even be able to kill a single wight.
    • I had the same reaction to the cavalry charge, but let's play devil's advocate and consider how it was likely supposed to go:
    • They expected the dead to be in a loose crowd. The usual answer to a cavalry charge is a braced infantry line, so, on paper, that gives the Dothraki an advantage
    • They expected the Dothraki to be able to move quickly through said loose crowd, hacking them down with impunity and then withdrawing, maybe having taken out some White Walkers along the way, if they're lucky
    • Instead they got what we can describe as a meat wall. We were all surprised by the tsunami of the dead, so the defenders probably were, too. In Total War terms, instead of charging a bunch of unbraced swordsmen in loose formation, they charged into a new and never-before-seen version of the shield wall that consists of tightly-packed and ravenous dead.
    • There weren't many other options for the Dothraki. The enemy army was so huge and so unbreakable that flanking was basically impossible, and they would've quickly run out of room to skirmish at range. Light cavalry had basically no place in this battle, so the points outlined above were their best compromise. Nobody expected the Army of the Dead to be packed so dense, which changed everything.
    • A. Why would they expect the dead to be a loose crowd? They're being controlled by intelligent beings, why wouldn't they use them effectively? "We were all surprised by the tsunami of the dead" - no, we were not. What else was going to happen? B. "weren't many other options for the Dothraki" - dismount them and have them defend the castle along with the Unsullied like they should've done from the very beginning? Send them out in days advance and harass the dead with DG arrows? "Nobody expected" - right, it's not like they have air recon in form of dragons and warged ravens.
    • Only a few of the characters had fought the Night King's troops before, and even then, it was a smaller army of wights. They simply didn't know how many wights the NK had in his command, so they didn't think he would have enough of them to form a literal flesh wall.
    • None of this addresses the fact that charging at what you can't see is an absurdly bad idea. It doesn't take a strategic genius to know that, and there are many ways in which the NK could stop a charge like that. And then add to that the fact that they had no effective weapons. If the wights were a loose crowd and the Dothraki managed to pass through hit-and-run them, it would still amount to nothing when you can't kill a zombie. Melisandre showing up and giving them fire wasn't planned, it just happened by chance, and they were already prepared to charge. And they do have an idea about the size of the NK's army, as Jon knows he wiped out the wildlings, and they have been informed that they also wiped out any norther settlement north of Winterfell. They have no reason to believe they have anything close to a numeric advantage there.
    • Jon outright says in Season Seven, "A Dragon, a Wolf, and an About-Face," he estimates the Wight army to be at least 100,000 strong. Furthermore, when devising their plan prior, look at how many pieces they use to represent the Wights. It's more than several times the size of their entire army. It makes no logical sense anyone would assume Jon's assessment inaccurate when he's the only one with experience fighting them. Flanking the Wights once they engage the infantry forces would have been far superior. Sure, they may still have been overwhelmed but at least they would be more efficient than charging blindly into a void.
    • The Dothraki having no effective weapons until Melisandre shows up is probably just a writing oversight; for all the tactical blunders the heroes made, I doubt the writers would ever actually have the Dothraki charge at the wights with all but useless weapons.
    • The out-of-universe reason for the Dothraki's Leeroy Jenkins was that the writers wanted to give the Wights the upper hand and invoke The Worf Effect. Plus, wiping out all the heroes' cavalry is one less element of the battle the writers or audience have to keep track of.
  • This scene is actually accurate to how the books describe Dothraki tactics; charge at the enemy and overwhelm them through numbers and momentum. And the results we see here are exactly what would happen if light cavalry employed such tactics on an enemy force even somewhat organized or larger. The remaining question is how did the Dothraki last this long, let alone become one of the most feared forces in the world using these tactics? Doylistically, Neither George RR Martin nor the writers of the series understood how cavalry really fights. Watsonian: Despite being based on the Mongols, the Dothraki must've never fought organized armies and just stuck to pillaging smaller tribes and villages, building a reputation for brutality and technically never having been defeated until the Dothraki believed their own hype. They told Winterfell's commanders that they'd use their tried and true tactic against the Wights and win for sure, and they believed them.
    • Except that a major defeat the Dothraki had suffered against a much smaller organised force is a well-known historical fact in-universe, and it's the cornestone of the reputation of the Unsullied - you know, the second half of Dany's army.
  • Having the Unsullied do a shield wall on the outside of Winterfell. You know what's more effective than a shield wall? A stone wall.
    • Wasn't the shield wall there as a stalling tactic when Daenerys couldn't see the signal to light the trench? The Unsullied were buying more time so that the archers on the battlements could light the fire with their arrows - which would take much longer than using a dragon. So if some wights inevitably made it past before it was lit, it would keep them at bay so they weren't storming the battlements and preventing the archers from lighting the fire.
    • Speaking of, why were those moats even paid that much attention? It should've been obvious that the dead would simply cover them, with dirt, snow or logs, if not with themselves. Or hell, they could've just waited for an hour or so, until the fire dies out. Anyway, the chief question is the same as with the Dothraki - why were the Unsullied out of the castle?
  • Keeping archers in Bran's defense. What use are archers in the close quarters of the godswood? They pretty much fight at point blank, and only manage to not get overrun because the script dictates that the wights go at them almost one at a time, rather than all at once. That's where a shield wall would be more efficient.
    • Their plan, as explained in the previous episode, was to lure the Night's King to Godswood and kill him there. Seems like they hoped their armies would keep the land-bound wights and white walkers occupied long enough, so the Nigh King would attack Godswood solo, flying on Viserion. In that case the fire arrows would have been their best chance against a flying zombie dragon.
  • And, because the good guys aren't the only ones being stupid, why did the Night King show himself at all? He would have won if he wasn't there. Just let your zombies overrun the castle, send your dragon to control the air, have the other walkers raise the dead and threaten the dragons with lances and if you really want to personally kill the three-eyed raven, send one of the other walkers to retrieve him alive.
    • Hindsight is a great thing. Literally every time the Night King has appeared, it's been a Curb-Stomp Battle on his part. Quite simply, he got cocky. He had Winterfell conquered. Viserion was seeing to the fighters still standing. The wights were taking care of anyone in the crypts. He had dispatched all of Bran's guards and had no reason to think of any last minute curveballs. Arya has trained to become as stealthy as possible - which the library scene demonstrated. The Night King is not a robot programmed to make choices that are always 100% reliably logical. He is a living being, capable of being wrong and flawed. In this case his flaw was his arrogance, and thinking he was safe. And if you're able to withstand a stream of dragon fire, being cocky is understandable.
    • When you're a One-Hit-Point Wonder like him, the only admissible amount of enemies in your immediate vicinity is zero. Period. And in all prior occasions he took this into account - he only descended to Hardhome and entered the T-ER cave after they were completely scoured. At the lake he deliberately left himself open to the dragons, yes, but kept his army between him and the humans. There was still fighting throughout the castle. Forget the bullshift invisible girls - what about archers? What about traps? What makes him think Bran isn't hiding a Wildfire bomb with Valyrian Steel and Dragon Glass shrapnel in his wheelchair? Hell, I'm surprised he didn't. That would've been a much more certain way than the bullshift invisible girl.
    • There may also have been a reason why the Night King wanted to kill Bran personally... say, if by doing so, the Night King gains the Three-Eyed Raven's powers (with the Night King being just too late to kill the original T-ER back in season 6 before he transferred his powers to Bran). In every other instance, the weak points of the Army of the Dead stayed out of harm's way for the most part, because why allow your unstoppable army of countless zombies to be neutralized?
    • We're getting into the realm of pure esoteric speculation, but why would he even want them? He apparently just wants to kill all humans and "erase the memory of the world", I'd say he has all the powers he needs for that.

What was Bran doing when he warged the ravens?

• During the battle on Winterfell, Bran suddenly warged a bunch of ravens, as if he was finally going to somehow help in the fight, and then... did nothing at all. What was he trying to do?
  • Since they knew the Night King has a dragon, and that he normally likes to stay behind the lines, the plan was always to lure him to Bran, hoping that his beef with the Three-Eyed-Raven would make him want to come and kill Bran personally, hence giving them a shot at him they otherwise wouldn't have. So Bran used the birds let the NK know where he was, and after that he just had to sit there and hope the rest of the plan would work... And it did!
  • But they say the NK already knew where he was thanks to the mark.
  • Maybe the NK knew roughly where Bran was, but not his exact location? Or maybe Bran used the birds to taunt the NK ("Come and get me!"), so that he would come down with his dragon, knowing that they had little chance of defeating him while he was flying up in the air?
    • Granted, but that in no way guarantees that the NK will go straight to him instead of scouring the castle first like any intelligent being ever would do, or that he wouldn't order the wights to drag Bran out to him.

How did Tyrion knew about Jon?

• Prior to the fourth episode, the only people who knew about Jon's parentage are Bran, Sam, Jon himself and Dany. Then, Dany told Jon to have Sam and Bran swore secrecy on the parentage. On the next day, Jon let Bran tell Sansa and Arya about it because he stressed out of them not liking Dany. Then, Tyrion also knew about the parentage which shocked Sansa. How did he knew? He's not there at the Godswood obviously. Did Varys knew too and told Tyrion about it?
  • Tyrion did not "shock Sansa" by knowing it. He didn't know when they had their talk, and the direct implication is that she told him offscreen right after the conversation as we saw ended.

Why mention Dorne all of a sudden?

• Varys suddenly mentions that the new Prince of Dorne supports Dany. This is an odd addition given the complete neglect of Dorne since Ellaria's death. At the same time, Gendry got legitimised as a Baratheon, but there is no mention of any reaction from the Stormlands. Tarth is considered part of the Stormlands, why not request support from Brienne's father? The remaining nobles from the Reach bent the knee to Dany after the battle of the loot train, can't they raise additional troops?
  • The Stormlands lost most their forces on the Blackwater, and they haven't had the leadership since then to reorganize. As for the Reach, I believe those are just Tarly and Lannister soldiers, a few knights, maybe. Granted, they disappeared soon after which can't be explained.

Is the pro Daenerys camp a bit tone deaf in regards to the White Walker threat?

The White Walker threat is pretty unique, militarily speaking. They require no supply lines and their reserves grow with the more territory they take. It isn't like a regular campaign where an invasion force can be defeat through attrition. So wasn't fighting the White Walkers ultimately in Daenerys' interest as well as the North's? Had the North fought with only the Vale for aid and been defeated, the Night King would have then gained several tens of thousands more to his army, and moved south to repeat the process. By the time the Night King got to Daenerys, he'd have possibly millions of dead in his army and she'd be doomed as well.

• It's mostly just Dany herself who acts like what she did was a favour rather than the most pressing issue she had, and like it was not her problem otherwise, rather than a risk to everyone in the continent. It serves to show that she and Cersei are not so different, which seems to be a point the series is driving hard this season.
• Well, yes, it was a favor. She could've let the dead scour Winterfell. Yeah, it probably would've made fighting harder for her, although not by much, because how many people were even there? Ten thousands at most. On the other hand, she would've spared her any future problems with the North.
  • When you intend to rule over people, protecting them is not really a favour at all. One of the myriad of titles a King/Queen of the Seven Kingdoms takes is Protector of the Realm, it isn't a favour, it's her duty. The fact she treats it otherwise just shows she's a bad ruler, and that's very intentional on the writers' part.
  • And the one before that says: "Lord/Lady of the Seven Kingdoms". If the North refuses to submit, then she's under no obligation to protect it. Now, mind you, I'm in no way "pro-Daenerys", I'm convinced she's betrayed her ideals and is absolutely not fit to rule, but in this particular case she has the high ground. Just because defeating the dead was mandatory in general, doesn't mean the North isn't obliged to her for lending her strength to them.
  • Oh, what a shock, it turned out that showing some bloody gratitude to a long-suffering mentally unstable girl with a pet WMD might've been a good idea, while neglecting her, taking her help for granted, betraying her trust and generally pissing her off was fooking stupid.
  • So what you are saying is that because Daenerys is mentally unstable and has dragons, everyone should have kissed her arse so they dont get burned alive? Yeah, that sounds an awful lot like a tyrant. Also, everyone is long-suffering by this point and as others have pointed out, Daenerys is declaring herself the protector of the realm so it is kind of given that she would, you know, protect the realm. And neglecting her? What does that even mean? Not paying her attention 24/7?
  • Actually, the spirit of the question was "Is Dany kind of egotistical for expecting an ass kissing?" and if anything, the answer is "Oh, she is beyond egotistical".
• Daenerys lent two armies - the Unsullied and the Dothraki, as well as two dragons. That did give the northern forces more - especially two sets of armies known for their strength and discipline. The dragon fire also did clear off lots more wights than usual. Daenerys also fought personally on the front lines and tried to battle the Night King herself. Even when she was forced onto the ground, she still picked up a sword and fought off the wights as best she could. Her campaign was initially to go to King's Landing, depose Cersei and take the throne herself. She put that campaign on hold to lend support to the north while they were battling the White Walkers. Daenerys does more for the war effort than the eventual Queen of the North who just sits in the crypts and grumbles.
• So... As I see it, there are two sides to this issue. On the one hand, yes, it was Daenerys' duty to show up there with her armies and save the people she is the queen of. On the other hand, Northerners didn't act like she was their actual queen, did they?! I am not saying she should've abandoned them, what I am saying is that Northerners are assholes for not giving her at least some credit for doing her job - unlike that other queen which, by the way, they would still have to fight even if Daenerys wasn't in the picture. Got a problem with Jon bending the knee despite Sansa and the lords who put him on the throne not wanting it? Then it's Jon's fault, not Daenerys'. The only person who actually gives him some "credit" for the whole mess is Sansa, and even she is more pissed at her for... I don't know, demanding he bends the knee like the lord he in her eyes is (remember, she has no idea why North declared independence and no reason to actually recognize it).

What is Bronn thinking?

• I certainly see the appeal of getting the castle, but his methods don't make sense to me. Owning lands and a title only do you any good as long as you're friends with the ruling regime. So if he'd carried out his mission, and Cersei granted him lordship, yeah, sure, I can see that. But what's the point of getting them by antagonising the people who would be in a position to accuse him of threatening the Hand of the Queen, strip him of all his titles and holdings and execute him?! He'd seen with his own eyes how easily castles are given and taken away! He has no allies or an army, and a crossbow, even such an awesome one, doesn't look like a sufficient deterrent against the entire might of the crown born against him. I'd have understood if he'd demanded a ton of gold to sail off to Essos, buy himself a castle and forget all about this malarky, but he's hell bent on staying where he's most likely to die and do all he can to assure this outcome.
• Also, why is he suddenly turning on Cersei at all? She's winning! Dany's armies are decimated, her authority is shaky, and the recent events should've convinced him how poor a strategist and a politician she is. As for the dragons, sure, they're a significant threat no matter what, but he'd have to know about the new ballistas, and that KL now has a fair chance against them.
  • I think that's why he's not joining them. He's in a slightly desperate position at present, and is attempting to play both parties. If Jaime and Tyrion die, he can go back to Cersei. If Cersei dies, he counts on Tyrion's sense of honor to reward him.
    • But he's not playing them, he's pissing them both off! By seeing Tyrion alive Cersei will know that Bronn'd failed, and besides, what's stopping Tyrion from spilling the beans on him, like he did about Cersei's baby? As for the second... Tyrion's what now?
    • I do think he's making a mistake, but Bronn's kinda in a shitty position. As noted, Cersei is winning so he's not going to join Dany, and he's equally unsure if Tyrion and Jaime aren't going to lose favor with her and get themselves burned on a dragonfire pyre or something. At the same time he doesn't really want to shoot the pair of them, especially since Dany might end up winning. So he throws together the best plan he's got, try and stay neutral on both parties. I don't doubt that he would join one side or another instantly once it's clearer which side is going to win, but at this point he can't put his cards on the table.
    • Well, shoot Dany as well. Clearly there're no guards, or they're all dead-drunk, if a man can waltz around with a loaded crossbow like that without even bothering with a disguise. Also, threatening to kill people doesn't equal staying neutral with them. "he would join one side or another" - how? He'd failed/betrayed Cersei, and threatened Dany's Hand. Why would either of them accept, let alone reward, him now? It's not like Tyrion could grant him Highgarden in secret, is it.
    • They were out drinking in a random tavern, having clearly ditched any guards they were assigned, and it's hardly unusual for armed men to be walking about. And Cersei isn't the Three Eyed Raven, she has no idea Bronn is even in the same post code as his targets. He'll only 'betray' her when he's seen wearing Targaryen colors, or openly failing to shoot them. And why would they reward him? Because he's saved their lives about 30'000'000 times now, and he would finally like a little gratitude! The Lannisters always pay their debts? Well right now they owe him enough to make the Iron Bank see double, and have reneged on paying him a single coin for so long he's quite within his right to go taking a bat to their kneecaps. Waving a crossbow at them and punching Tyrion in the face is positively polite. And if they do betray him, he might not get out of it alive but he'll make damn sure he'll take a pair of blond oathbreakers out with him.
    • "drinking in a random tavern" Why would they? Also what random tavern? Do you see a single one on any shots around Winterfell? "hardly unusual" Yes, it is. Bronn's isn't wearing the colors of any of the militaries that are supposed to be around, and with that many dignitaries present the security should be extra-tight. "He'll only 'betray'" - which is why it was "betray/fail". Tyrion is alive, meaning Bronn had failed. And it matters nothing at all how many times he'd saved them or what he was promised, because obviously only the monarch can grant him the Highgarden. Tyrion's position with Dany was already shaky, so why would she have given him anything other than the chopping block?

Why not kill them all?

• The queen, her Hand and her Spymaster are standing in the open, completely unprotected from enemy fire, and the opposing ruler has even less reasons to keep them alive than last time. Why didn't Cersei just open fire on them or sent a contingent of horsemen through the gates to slaughter them all? If Drogon was there, sure, that's a problem, but that was easily solvable by not being there in person. I would assume that Dany and her retinue came first, and then Cersei appeared on the wall, so there's not much they could've done had she not have appeared, sending her army out instead. And in any case Cersei has to deal with Drogon sooner or later, and surely killing his rider would make him less of a threat, since there'd be no one to guide him. If anything, surely she'd want to kill Tyrion, at the very least to keep his mouth shut about her baby, which, what a shock, he instantly blabbed about, undermining her deception of Euron.
  • Presumably everyone but Tyrion were out of range of her archers, and they had all the ballistas set to shoot at Drogon at the slightest opportunity (and Drogon was even further behind, out of their range as well). Had she sent cavalry or infantry out, she'd be forsaking her defensive position for little to no gain. Drogon would be able to just roast them from a distance before they even got close to the Unsullied.
    • Regarding the ballistas, it doesn't look that much further than when Euron zeroed a flying target from a bobbling ship. Second, what do you mean "for little to no gain"?! Like in the dragon pit last season, this is almost the entire enemy HQ we're talking about. She kills them, she mostly won.
• At the very least, why doesn't she kill Tyrion whom she'd earlier already put a hit on?
  • Well, A reason we could give would be that if she kills them all there, the people might see that as dishonorable. I mean, it was all set up like it was supposed to be a negotiated cease fire. However, this is the same family that planned the Red Wedding (sure, the Freys took most of the blame in-universe, but still) and that has a KINGSLAYER in their court (Again, it's more than meets the eye, and the kingslayer is in Winterfell at this point, but the people don't know that). So... Rule of Drama ? Maybe?
    • What people, those archers on the wall? Also, it wasn't a ceasefire negotiation - it was a demand to surrender from a conqueror.
  • In most scenes like this, the implication is that the person seemingly holding all the cards (Cersei) figures that the person who showed up unarmed in spite of this (Tyrion) would only do so if they have either some massive, unknown leverage over them, or something monstrously important to tell them. The former proved untrue, the latter only slightly less so from Cersei's POV, and it's out of character for her to be that cautious, but it wouldn't be the first or the last time Rule of Drama takes hold.

What is wrong with Varys?

• Last season he blackmouthed Robert was his disinterest in ruling, now he's promoting Jon for the same reason.
  • He was critical of Robert because Robert often just abandoned his duties, going on extended hunting trips, etc. But Jon is different, because while his disinterest in power ensures he won't become a despot like Cersei, Jon (unlike Robert) does have a strong sense of duty. So Varys feels that even if Jon would be reluctant to become a king, once he was crowned he would be a dutiful and fair ruler.
    • Without considering that gaining the throne but losing his love would make Jon a broken shell of a ruler, just like Robert.
    • It's also not that either-or of "duty bound king" vs "lazy bastard king." IIRC, Robert took the throne out of a sense of duty, when he was really a warrior who wanted to either returned home, or join a sellsword company. When he was king, while he was a hedonistic spendthrift, he first did what duty would require of him and appointed a competent Hand to do the actual ruling. Even if Jon sees his kingly duties as extending beyond what's nominally required of your position (keep the peace, prevent too many from starving to death), we were lead to believe Varys threw his support behind Dany because she went above and beyond to change the world for the better.
• He says Jon is strong enough to be king, and yet that he'll be a henpecked husband.
  • Varys said no such thing. He pointed out that Jon has the charisma and authority of a natural leader, but if he was made a co-ruler with Daenerys, his love for her would make him bend to her will. Those two points don't contradict each other.
    • Speaking of, where's this coming from? From the day they met, Jon was always the domineering one. He got away with refusing to bend the knee, she turned to him for war advice, and he talked her out of attacking KL, she failed to keep him from going on the wight hunt, and then she rushed to save him, he convinced her to lend her forces to Winterfell, she conceded to spare Jaime, and the worst she did to keep him from disclosing an undermining secret was tearfully beg him not to tell anyone. Which he instantly ignored. She's horrible at bending him to her will!
    • Oh yes, he was so domineering when she held him prisoner on her island, without access to his ships and refused to help him until he had risked his life beyond the wall. Of course he ignored her- it wasn't her decision to make and Sansa and Arya have a right to know the truth about their father and brother.
    • A prisoner she let walk around the island, met with personally and without guards, turned to for war council and let go upon hearing: "I don't have to ask your permission to go." I rest my case. Also, I don't remember if it was ever stated explicitely, but she was his queen. It 'was her decision by default.
• He's utterly disappointed in Dany, because... she wants to assault King's Landing, even though taking KL was the plan from the very beginning, and heavy civilian casualties, whether from an assault or a siege, are inevitable. Oh sure, he could've advised her to burn Cersei's court down at the Dragon Pit and be done with it, when she had the chance, but nooooooo, apparently that would've been a much worse atrocity than burning or starving thousands of people! Hell, what is even his plan? Whether it's Jon or Dany, first the new ruler would have to depose the old one!
  • Varys feels that the old ruler should and could be deposed without unnecessary civilian casualties. Sure, he could be wrong about that, but Varys's solidarity with the common people has always been a defining character trait, so it's not unsurprising this is the one principle on which he will not compromise.
  • I didn't hear him protest the siege plan. So he's ok with starving people and driving them to cannibalism, but not burning them?
    • A siege at least gives the people a chance to pressure Cersei to surrender or outright revolt, especially if Daenerys offers mercy to those that would surrender.
    • So, there will be a riot, which Cersei, being Cersei, will no doubt ruthlessy quell, causing massive casualties. Was that Varys' plan? Make people (of whom he supposedly cares so much) do the dirty work? Also, if he kills Dany, they lose the Dothraki and the Unsullied who'd at the very best go back to Essos, and at worst (and most likely) turn against them. What will his "rightful claim" be worth then?
• Seriously? Their blood tie is a problem to him or would be to Jon? Despite the long awaited opening of the Starbucks branch in Winterfell, I thought this was still supposed to be a pseudo-medieval setting. In Europe marriage between aunts and nephews in royalty wasn't unheard of up to the XIX century, you cannot tell me it's treated the same thing as brother/sister here!
  • This is not Europe but a fantasy world. Clearly, since Tyrion doesn't argue against Varys's claim that the North wouldn't approve a nephew-aunt marriage, we're supposed to accept Varys is telling the truth. So if there's an issue, it's not with Varys's character but with the fantasy setting of the series in general.
  • In the books at least it isn't an issue as niece/uncle marriage has happened at least twice in the Stark family tree.
  • Clearly the North has more sense than you're giving it credit for, and Varys is talking out of his ass.
  • The problem is not just incest, but that there's a very long history of it amongst Targaryens already which has resulted in several hereditary diseases and mental illnesses. Dany herself is a ticking time bomb and if she ever had a child with Jon, it means Westeros can look forward to two generations of mad rulers. Add to that also their genetic ability to ride dragons, and you are effectively securing another dynasty of nutjobs who stay in power by inflicting mass destruction against all who oppose them. Jon, by himself, is not as vulnerable as Daenerys because his father beat the odds (from what we can tell) and his mother is not at risk. If he has children with anyone but Daenerys, they're perfectly safe as long as he sticks to the 'no incest' rule. He alone can take the throne on the same basis Dany is trying, and he is the only one who will provide long term stability and sanity.
    • That's not the point Varys actually makes about the incest, though. And speaking of Rhaegar, eloping with a teenager who is the daughter of one Lord Paramount and fiancée of another and annulling your marriage to the sister of the Prince of Dorne (with whom you have two young children), inevitably pissing off three out of seven kingdoms, isn't the sanest thing, so I wouldn't be too sure he beat the odds if I were Varys.
    • Also, "they're perfectly safe"? Implying that incest and/or being of Targaryen descent are the only ways to get a poor ruler?

Pet the puppy, Jon!

• All joking aside, why would Jon abandon Ghost at all? Isn't the direwolf supposed to be something akin to a spirit animal for him? I don't think it was ever established that direwolves don't feel well in the south, and I think it was a strong theme throughout the story, that separating from their direwolves spells ill for Starks.
  • My guess is that the writers wanted them to be separated exactly for the implications it has towards Jon's Stark heritage, but couldn't really find a good reason for him to make the decision. There really is no real reason for him to abandon Ghost, even Ned let both his daughters take their wolves to the capital, back when they weren't even properly trained yet (and although that did in fact not end well for either wolf, it was not because they don't do well in the south, but because Cersei was, well, Cersei).
  • Realistically, it was due to budgetary reasons. That's the explanation according to the director, at least, as it would have required several CGI shots to make Ghost look his proper size in comparison to Jon. Whether that's a good reason or not is up to debate!

He's the last MALE heir!

• Why does everyone keep mentioning Jon's gender as though his claim to the throne is based on it? He's ahead of Dany because he's Rhaegar's child and titles typically pass to children before siblings, not because he's a man. Even if Jon and Dany were the same gender, he'd still have a better claim than she.
  • Rhaegar was never king, his father was (keep in mind that Rhaegar died before Aerys, so that's the case even if one believes the title is passed on the moment of death, and a coronation ceremony isn't necessary). So the crown would pass onto Aerys's eldest surviving child, in a system where gender isn't a factor, and that is Dany. But since gender is a factor, it would pass onto male grandkids before a female daughter, which in this case is Jon. The line of succession for Aerys was Rhaegar, then Viserys, then Aegon (Rhaegar's firstborn, not Jon), then Jon and then Dany (Rhaegar's second child, a daughter, would then come after Dany). That's not taking into account the bias against ruling queens that exists in Westeros, where the common line of succession is often ignored to keep a woman from sitting on the Iron Throne, in which case any hypothetical surviving brother of Aerys would also skip ahead of Dany.
    • Not necessarily correct. Using the British monarchy as a real life example, William is 2nd in line to the throne ahead of Charles's (his dad's) brothers and sister. This is despite Charles never having been king.
    • Or to use a more medieval example: Edward the Black Prince died a year before his father Edward III, so when Edward III himself died the throne passes to the Black Prince's eldest son Richard II, which closely matches the Aerys-Rhaegar-Jon Snow succession. Also, upon Aerys II's death his eldest surviving child was Viserys not Dany which is why he and Dany both consider him "Viserys III" in the books. Viserys might've had a claim against his nephew Jon due to the interval between Aerys' death and Jon's birth, but Dany has no such claim.
    • Westeros doesn't necessarily follow the exact same succession rules as England, or any other country, did. And they specifically have an aversion to females sitting on the throne, so pretty much any male with the Targaryen surname would come before Dany, and some Martells and Baratheons (if any had survived) could also make a strong claim against her. Entire civil wars have happened surrounding the issue, and this case would be no different.
    • Granted, it could be different in the show, but not only is it not different in the source material where Tyrion explicitly says Young Griff—who claims the same genealogical status as Jon Snow—has a better claim than Dany, but there's been no indication that it was different until this episode most obviously because Stannis felt the need to offer his brother Renly the title of heir-apparent over his daughter Shireen.
    • I always assumed that Stannis offering to name Renly his heir was less about Shireen's place in the line of succession and more about Renly currently being in open revolt. A traitor trying to usurp the throne would probably be punted down to the bottom of the line. I took Stannis offering to name Renly heir as his gruff (as usual) attempt to show his brother that if he laid down arms and joined him, then Stannis would consider the point moot and all would be forgiven. The proverbial olive branch. However, if we want to get a clearer picture of how succession works in Game of Thrones, we can look back at the scene in Season 1 with Loras and Renly. Renly directly states that he is fourth in line for the throne. The only way this can be true is if male heirs are given priority over female ones, even if the female is a more direct descendant of the last king. If all of Robert's children are in the running ahead of him, the line of succession would be Joffrey->Tommen->Myrcella->Stannis, with Renly being fifth, not fourth. While Shireen's place in the line is dubious due to her greyscale, if she was eligible it places her ahead of Renly still, making him sixth in line. The only way Renly's statement can be true is if the method of succession first takes the former king's male (legitimate) children, then the male members of their immediate family (and their male children), and only when all those options have been exhausted, then look to the female children, and presumably then at the bastards. One can assume a legitimized bastard would place somewhere between legitimate male and female children as evidenced by Ramsay and Catelyn's fears of Jon, presumably depending on their standing within the family, but as we don't have any examples of a legitimized bastard with surviving male uncles, we cannot approximate their location within the line of succession. So this leaves the line of succession to the throne at the beginning to be Joffrey->Tommen->Stannis->Renly->Myrcella->Shireen->Robert's Bastards, which leaves Renly, as he claimed, at fourth in the line.
    • Judging by the misogyny and patriarchal way of thinking about inheritance seen in both this series and House of the Dragon, it's clear female children wouldn't even be considered as heirs to the crown unless every male claimant was dead (A few examples: Sansa being made Queen of the North only after Robb and Rickon are dead, Jon takes the black again, and Bran removes himself from consideration as the new Three-Eyed Raven. Daenerys is also not considered a valid choice to take back the Iron Throne until both Viserys and her unborn son are dead and an entire war is fought over Rhaenyra Targaryen's claim to the throne over her younger half-brother.) Therefore, the line of succession while Robert was King would've been Joffrey > Tommen > Stannis > Renly > any legitimized male bastards of Robert's (of which none existed), which supports Renly's statement that he was fourth in line.

Bells that ring when you yield

• Notwithstanding the fact that ringing the bells was never in fact the signal for surrender in this universe, why would it ever be considered as such? The belltower is way outside the Red Keep, how is the monarch even supposed to sound it, if the Keep is already besieged, and on the other hand, what's stopping the invaders from sounding it themselves to confuse or dispirit the defending troops? Why would the signal for surrender be anything other than opening the gates, striking the banners, throwing down their weapons and having the city leader greet the invader leader and submit to them?
  • As mentioned, in real world history the bell was supposed to be rung before the city's walls fell. Once the walls were breached, the city was fair game and surrender did not have to be accepted. Regardless, the intention was there. The Lannisters had laid down arms or were fleeing, the city was pretty much defenceless, and the bell ringing is indeed a massively dispiriting thing for all the remaining defenders to hear. Whether the enemy or the defending army are ringing it, it means the city has basically fallen. And also clear is the fact that while Daenerys did not have to accept surrender (and many historical figures in the Go T universe have gotten where they are through scorched earth tactics) it is a douchy and highly hypocritical thing to do.
  • How is it hypocritical? You've just stated the rules, and the rules are indeed clear - surrender only means something if it happens before the assault begins. To "surrender" after Dany has already taken out all the ballistas which were shooting at her and has stormed the city - that is the real hypocricy. Hell, I'm surprised the D who explained the scene didn't use that as the justification for her decision instead of that nonsense about her being triggered by the sight of the Red Keep.
  • Dany had spent a lot of time talking about liberation of the common folk and how she was better than her father and the other nobles. The fact that her first reaction to pretty much everything that offends her is 'kill it with fire' kinda makes those words ring hollow.
  • If by "offend" you mean "resist her at every turn", "kill her allies", "cheer for and side with mass murderers just because they oppose her", and "shoot at her with 10-feet long sharp poles", then yeah, sure.
  • While killing the enemy soldiers might not be something too many would fault her for given the values of the society, indiscriminately killing everyone, including all the common folk, the same types of people whose rights she was championing for years before, causes her to lose whatever moral high ground she had.

I looked, and behold, a white horse

• What was a horse doing in the middle of a fire-blasted city? Horses are notoriously fearful of fire, you'd think any one lucky enough to survive the inferno would be running wildly in the general direction of as far away as possible, not standing calmly in the street. It didn't look particularly wounded. I heard a suggestion that it belonged to the leader of the Golden Company, but that would mean she ran into the burning city, which is even more backwards.
  • It's a bizarre sequence all round, for a good while I thought it was some kind of dream. The best guess I can give is 'divine providence' which isn't exactly that strange at this point
  • Seems kinda pointless. She doesn't ride it away from the inferno, she doesn't ride it all the way to Dany to kill her - she just rides it for a bit, then apparently gets off and walks back... eh?

Of Mountains and Men

• Why are Gregor's actions treated as rebelling against Cersei? Sandor was there blocking their path. Let's say Gregor stayed by Cersei's side, as she demanded. Then what? They still need to pass Sandor, who's just dispatched all her other guards like carving through a cake, and he will obviously attack Gregor anyway, except now Cersei is in danger of getting in the way. So he did the only thing he could - he attacked Sandor. What was Qyburn's problem exactly? I mean, Cersei didn't demand that her other guards "stay by her side", did she?
  • I think Qyburn was mostly concerned that Gregor just disobeyed a direct order. And I think the implication is that they don't have time for a fight right now, as the keep is literally falling apart around them. Trying to negotiate, disable or even surrender to the Hound is infinitely preferable to an extended melee with one of the top five swordsmen in the country, which will almost certainly lead to all of them suffering death by dragonfire.
    • "just disobeyed a direct order" - well, yes, but the order made no goddamn sense. If we give some credit to Gregor, he might've realised Cersei isn't thinking straight. Again, she didn't mind her other guards attacking Sandor, she didn't try to negotiate, not that I can think of what they could possibly be negotiating about in this situation. If he came to take Cersei prisoner, you'd think he'd have announced that. And disabling Sandor still means attacking him, which is what Gregor went to do, so no, I still don't see what was their problem. You'd think the dialogue would've gone something like this: "C: Are you here for me? S: No, for him. You two can fuck off and die elsewhere. C: [to Gregor] Finish him quickly and catch up with us. G: [Nods]. С and Q: [Leave]."
  • The fact that the other Queensguard went first keeps being brought up, but I don't think the fact that they just saw four knights being turned into mincemeat is a good argument for letting their only remaining defender charge in without due consideration.
    • Like what?
  • It was a bit more than disobeying an order, Gregor just showed a sign of still having his own will, for the first time since becoming a zombie. Presumably, zombie Gregor should not take any action without an order, and he clearly was breaking this rule. Then they tried to reassert themselves, and he turned on them completely.
    • Except earlier he'd attacked the Sparrow monk without any orders, so it seems he had dispensation to protect his queen on his own accord, which makes sense - you don't always have time to give such an order. And even earlier he'd given Jaime a hard look after the man questioned his cognitive abilities, so I don't think he was ever considered completely mindless or apathetic.
• By the way, we know that Sandor is obsessed with killing his brother. But since when does Gregor gives a damn about him? Yeah, they fought at the jousting back in season 1, but I'm pretty sure it was just in the heat of the moment. Other than that, I'd be very surprised if Gregor even remembered why Sandor was so upset with him. Case in point, just the last season, at the meeting in the Pit of Madness, they came face to face, and Gregor... just ignored him. Completely. What has changed?
  • Gregor had just spent a good ten minutes watching innocent people die horribly. That sort of shit turns him on.

Missandei's possessions

• Would Missandei (or Dany) have really kept her slave collar for all those years? You'd think she would've dumped or burned the damn thing the moment she took it off, not took it across the ocean like the family heirloom.
  • I think the idea was that she saw it as a symbol of her liberation and kept it because of that. It does seem kind of stupid that it would be the only thing she owned, though.
  • Huh. You'd think Dany would've been the symbol of her liberation.
  • Dany is a person, not an item. She can't take Dany with her wherever she goes (which, had things ended better for her, may have eventually involved leaving Dany's service). That's not to say Missandei doesn't love and admire Daenerys, just that she wanted a personal keepsake. That's what the broken collar is supposed to be.
  • It's not uncommon for people to keep items that previously held negative connotations for them. For example, many people who have been shot keep the bullets they were shot with as keepsakes and reminders, even if there is no logical basis for them to do so.

Tyrion being an Unperson

How is it even possible that Tyrion isn't included in "The Song of Ice and Fire". I get it's a joke and that he is probably being intentionally forgotten for being one of the causes of all of this and being a dwarf, but... WHAT?! He's Hand of the King again and will be for what's likely to be decades. Half of the events of the story wouldn't have happened without him. Who the hell would replace him in the story to explain everything that's happened? Hell, if the point is to make him look bad or have him forgotten, then not including Tyrion will make him look even better! Half the horrible things that happened on the continent could easily be blamed on him in a case of history being simplified and making things look more black and white than it really was. However, if you take all his actions out of the history of the war, all that will be left is what is likely to be decades of reform and prosperity after the war is over. This is especially glaring since Sam, one of the nicest guys of the show, will probably write about that part of the history. The Maester who left Tyrion out of "The Song of Ice and Fire" basically just whitewashed Tyrion's history and will ensure that everyone will love Tyrion long after he's gone.

• Tyrion is a powerful man as you said, and most of his work has been behind the scenes. Tywin's death was probably noted to be at the hand of an 'assassin', and everything else he did can be easily misattributed. Indeed even at the time he never got credit for saving King's Landing from Stannis.
• I would also argue that it was because the histories were being written while under Lannister rule: the Lannisters would have sufficient reason to suppress or erase Tyrion's contributions. Such things happen in the real world with depressing regularity.
• It can also be a jab at how disconnected the Maesters are from reality, given how they had all the evidence they needed to know of the existence of the Night King but willfully ignored it because it didn't fit in with their beliefs.
• Ok. So you ignore Tyrion's three terms as hand under different rulers. You ignore that his capture by Catelyn practically started the war of the five kings. You ignore his implication in Joffrey's murder and his role in Tywin's, somehow. But how do they explain the death of Oberyn Martell, which led to the death of Myrcella and the Dornish allying with Daenerys? This maester is quite literally one of the worst historians ever, since so many key parts of this history book will be vague so that he doesn't have to acknowledge a dwarf.
  • Oberyn's death would probably actually be the easiest of the mentioned examples to explain without bringing up Tyrion. If the book could apparently just say Tywin was killed by an assassin, it could probably just say that Oberyn died in a duel against the Mountain because he wanted to avenge his sister and then everything else arose from that. This was the one of the examples in which Tyrion was the least directly involved, so it should be less of a stretch than the others. As for it leading to the Dornish allying with Daenerys, given that Ellaria and the Sand Snakes were quickly captured and killed and the Dornish army didn't fight in a single battle and were rendered a nonentity for the rest of the war, that didn't amount to much in the grand scheme of things.

Isn't the Wall in the North?

• So Jon's punishment for killing Daenerys is that he's sent back to the Night's Watch (which itself is kind of a headscratcher). But Sansa has declared the North an independent Kingdom, which Bran and the other Lords recognized. So, since the North has seceded, and the Wall is in their lands, wouldn't it fall under her jurisdiction? Is it okay for the Six Kingdoms to keep dumping their criminals there now that it's a foreign nation? And couldn't Sansa herself just pardon Jon, since she's a Queen?
  • I suppose Jon would prefer to stay in the NW himself. Free Folk adore him, and the tensions between them are supposedly gone, and he would surely want to stay as far away from the throne as humanly possible. And I suppose NW as a place of honorable exile for criminals and undesirables will always have its use.
  • I'm not entirely sure they ever intended Jon's punishment to be serious. It was pretty much a polite way of telling him to bugger off, and it exiles him from the kingdom one way or another.
  • It was probably also a double-blind to the Unsullied. They have not spent much time in the North, and the time they did spend there painted it as a dreary and miserable place. Further, they already know that the Night's Watch is historically used like a penal legion. It was probably sold to them as a serious punishment, when the majority of those issuing it knew better. By the time the Unsullied would deduce otherwise, Jon would be far enough away, and the fight taken out of them, for it to be an issue.
    • You can make the case that most people didn't really want to punish Jon and so sending him to the Night's Watch was just a "punishment" devised to stop Grey Worm killing Jon and then starting a war. But why would Yara Greyjoy fall for it so easily? Wouldn't she be questioning what the point of the Night's Watch even is, now that the Walkers are dead and the Free Folk are pretty much allies?
    • Well, for hundreds of years of the Night's Watch's existence, no one south of the neck believed the White Walkers were ever really a thing to start with, nor did they consider the wildlings to be a real threat to anyone except northern peasant villages. The Night's Watch exists because it's a convenient place to send unwanted & bastard sons & prisoners that are politically inconvenient to execute; first time Jon took the black he was the former, now he's the latter. It's also worth pointing out that it's doubtful that anyone south of the wall truly believes the whole, "free folk are pretty much allies" thing is going to last any length of time at all; they all think of the wildlings as barbarian savages, rapers & raiders & killers - and they're not entirely wrong about that. And Yara, probably better than any of the assembled lords, would recognize how hard it is to get a culture that was used to raiding & pillaging to stop from going back to that, given that the Ironborn keep trying to bring back their own 'old way". And now that there's a massive hole in the wall which means that the wildlings don't even have to climb over, a lot of people are probably going to think that the Night's Watch is more necessary than it's been in centuries.
• Officially, at least, and made more clear in the books is that the Night's Watch is wholly independent from the North and the Seven Kingdoms, and the entire Wall and a large strip of land immediately south of it is privately owned by the Night's Watch.
  • Also, criminals and political undesirables were being sent to the Night's Watch long before Aegon's conquest, as far back as Nymeria's conquest of Dorne.

Yes, Tyrion, please keep reminding Bran about his crippling!

• Bran clearly doesn't mind, sure, but still, isn't it pretty douchy for Tyrion to call him Brandon the Broken? Brandon the Wise/Seer/Raven or something like that I'd understood, but why would he want to commemorate the terrible crime his apparently beloved brother had committed?
  • Because Lannisters are medically incapable of shutting the hell up. This is certainly not the first time Tyrion's evidenced this lack of tact.
  • Because it all fits into the narrative Tyrion weaved to justify Bran becoming king of the Six Kingdoms. Being a cripple who managed to claw his way to the throne will naturally have a title that reflects this. It would also serve as a way to make him seem more sympathetic in the eyes of the common folk.
  • Well, Tyrion himself is always reminding everyone that he's "the imp", more than anyone else uses the title against him. He believes that by taking it and making it his own, he takes away the power of people to belittle him (no pun intended) with words. "Never forget what you are. The rest of the world will not. Wear it like armor, and it can never be used to hurt you", after all.
  • Yes, but that was still the name made for him by others, and he was clearly called that a lot. This reasoning doesn't work if he is the one inventing the slur. Also, "more sympathetic in the eyes of the common folk"? Unlikely. These are medieval times. Fitness to rule was strongly correlated with physical fitness. Remember, Tyrion himself notices that had he been born in a common family, he would've been killed. Those people had no sympathy for physical disability.

Jon's skewed priorities

• Yes, Dany has put on a very scary dress, that shot with "her" dragon wings was also pretty scary, and her speech was a very scary reference to things none of the people present had any idea of. BUT. None of that changes one very simple fact. Drogon. How the hell did Jon know the dragon wouldn't torch him and then everyone else after he murders his mother?
  • I think it's been pretty much confirmed since the Battle of the Bastards that Jon is deeply stupid and/or suicidal. He also seemed pretty much convinced that Drogon would eat him, he certainly didn't do much to stop him.
  • Jon may have thought that him dying was worth ending the threat of Daenerys.
    • 'Key, what about everybody else? You cannot tell me he honestly expected Drogon to be satisfied with killing just him and not going on a genocidal rampage.
    • Dragons are animals, not humans. Jon should certainly expect to be killed in retribution, but there's nothing to indicate that the dragon would go on a rampage afterwards, at worst he would proceed on living like a wild beast, which is way less dangerous than he was as Dany's weapon.
  • It's also indicates one of Jon's strengths, believe it or not: his willingness to go straight to and do things that are uncomfortable and dangerous, simply because he must. Duty above everything else, and all that.
    • 'Key, what about everybody else? If he's wrong, everybody is absolutely screwed. And dead.
    • And if he doesn't kill Daenerys then everybody is absolutely screwed, and probably dead anyways. She was making it abundantly clear that she was fully intending to instigate a reign of terror over Westeros and Jon was proving completely incapable of talking her out of it. So Jon's choices were a). Do nothing and let Daenerys wage her war of conquest, which will leaves hundreds if not thousands dead, or b). Kill Daenerys, which will end her campaign, and hope Drogon doesn't go on a killing spree. Not the most ideal outcome, but certainly preferable to the former.
    • Nope. This isn't based on anything. I know it's very easy to miss behind the horrifying imagery and heavy-handed symbolism, but in Westerosi's views, Dany's actions were completely justified. The city refused to surrender to her when it mattered, making it a fair game. They condemnded themselves with the first bolt they shot at her. As for the further conquest, yes, sure she was planning on it, so what? So did her ancestors. Somehow it didn't end up with world in flames despite many more dragons at their disposal. Both Tyrion, Varys and Jon knew from the very beginning she was planning on rulling the Seven Kingdoms. This means conquest where necessary. If they imagined it would go nice, smooth and bloodless, then they're deluded fools, not her.
    • From a Westerosi standpoint? Sure, sacking cities who resisted, even once they pose no immediate threat, is nothing new. It probably isn't looked upon as morally right, though, so Tyrion and Jon have reason to be cautious going forwards. From a modern standpoint (that [[Audiance Surrogate Tyrion and Jon]] apparently adopted for the final season,) the citizens of Kings Landing did not make the choice to resist Dany. True, they inexplicably seemed to support Cersei despite her constant abuse of them by never rebelling, cheering for Euron's parade, and flocking to the Red Keep as the city came under siege, but the most their support likely ever materially amounted to was "not deposing Cersei themselves" (and later their own deaths when they stayed in a city about to be sieged), which isn't a capital offense, and even if it was, Dany showed years earlier that with a loyal army, you can simply kill everyone with a modicum of a hand in the oppresive system power while leaving the children unharmed. Tyrion convinces Jon that she won't just conquer the Seven Kingdoms through conventional war, she'll Rape, Pillage, and Burn until she's dead. It doesn't make sense for them to conclude this, but it is their mindset.
    • Drogon showing intelligence by sparing Jon, burning the Iron Throne, and flying far away is a hold-over from the books, where they're often shown or implied to be more than animals. Since the show took Dragons in the opposite direction, however, Drogon doing this, and Jon expecting Drogon not to act like an animal and become a dangerous predator of the skies is thus an Ass Pull.
  • More to the point, how the heck did he know assassinating the queen wouldn't start a bloody civil war that would get his family killed?
  • Absolutely. The Dothraki and the Ironborn are left unchecked to rape and pillage, the Unsullied's last command was to wage global war, and all of them (plus Daario, once the news reach the BoD) should be thirsting to avenge Dany, the Iron Bank will pine for the repayment of the debts left by Cersei and Stannis, Dorne will demand independence and (probably) Tyrion's head, and there's no way in hell the Reach and the Stormlands will accept a cutthroat and a bastard as their rulers without a fight.
    • Not killing Dany just means a civil war is later down the line when all the kingdoms get pissed off at yet another loony Targaeryan monarch. Better to sort it out now while everyone's tired of fighting. And again, Jon probably just wasn't thinking that far ahead. It's been a rough year for him, including his own death.
    • Except he didn't "sort out" anything. He didn't secure support from either the Unsullied, the Dothraki, the Dornish, the Ironborn, the Bay of Dragons, OR Drogon, all of whom were either fiercely loyal to Dany or at least strongly supporting her, and none of whom looked squeemish enough to give that much of a damn about KL. Meaning that killing her at that point should've achieved nothing but pissing all of the above off, and at best losing their support in face of a potential invasion (which is what we've got), and at worst, having them be the invaders. Either way, an inevitable war. Versus some conjectural rebellion against Dany in the future, which is absolutely not guaranteed to even come.
    • The only reason the Unsullied and the Dothraki are fighting are because they follow their queen. By taking Dany out of the equation, the two armies have nothing in common to fight for, nothing to unite them, and no common leader to command them around a mutual goal. The Dornish don't know Dany that well, nor care that much about her claim. They were only allied with her because Ellaria and the Sand Snakes had staged a coup in Dorne and felt she was their best way to get back at the Lannisters (and Cersei, Jaime, Ellaria, and the Snakes are all dead). And as has been mentioned previously, Drogon is a wild animal with no "agenda" or understanding of revenge. Jon made the best decision he could for the people in the few moments he had. And it worked out, so he clearly made the right decision.

Why didn't Grey Worm kill Jon?

• The moment Grey Worm, the Unsullied and the Dothraki realized that Jon had murdered Dany, he should've been killed on the spot, especially when Grey Worm already shown a very hostile attitude towards Jon. Why was Jon kept alive, as even the threat of the Northerners taking retribution wouldn't seem that intimidating being outnumbered two to one.
  • It's possible that he was discovered by both Northerners and Unsullied at the same time. Grey Worm also has demonstrated a growing awareness of political realities the longer he is in command. He probably recognized that, considering the vulnerable position of the Unsullied, it would be better to hold Jon Snow for the time being until they could 'officially' act. Additionally, it's implied that, for all their talk, the Unsullied are in a disadvantageous position with the Northerners who remained. They may be great soldiers without fear, but they are't stupid. They may have kept Jon alive simply as a hostage to hold the Northerners off until a better position could be negotiated.
  • Still Jon would have been extremely apologetic about the act and almost certain to offer no resistance, which takes a lot of the satisfaction out of any kind of instant revenge. Hell, I'll offer good odds that he outright went and told Grey Worm what he did, and offered himself up right there and then. By the time Grey Worm would have confirmed that it was true (which is a task in itself, as the only evidence to the act is a bloodstain) things would have got complicated enough that just locking him away until they work out what to do was really the only option.
  • Also, despite the brutality that he has shown in recent episodes, Grey Worm at his core is still a lawful individual, and with the absence of Daenerys giving him direct orders, opted to give Jon a proper trial or investigation before doing anything to him.
  • "the Unsullied are in a disadvantageous position with the Northerners who remained." - how? They have the largest and by far the best trained force. The Northerners didn't even unanimously obey Jon during the fight, they're little more than a mob now. The Unsullied could've easily wiped them out. "things would have got complicated enough" - how? Jon has confessed, what else is there to confirm or investigate? "which takes a lot of the satisfaction" - GW isn't Ramsay, he wouldn't be in it for the thrill, only justice. "a proper trial" - with the majority of judges being the relatives or friends of the accused?
  • Largest force in Westeros? How? The Unsullied are stated on screen to be below 4,000 men in number after the battle of Ice and Fire, that's a number likely exceeded by the Stark bannermen alone. They serve as Dany's vanguard so we see a lot of them, but they are vastly outnumbered in overall terms.
    • Which bannermen? The ones slaughtered at the Red Wedding, the ones slaughtered in the Battle of Bastards, or the ones slaughtered in the Battle for the Dawn? Regardless, we also have to take into account "half the Dothraki" which amounts to thousands or tens of thousands of men.

What happened to the Dothraki?

• After Jon kills Dany, the Dothraki simply disappear with no one even mentioning where they've gone off to. Even in their diminished state they'd be a serious threat to run loose around Westeros.
  • Some probably returned back to Essos. Others probably took up the offer to live in Westeros, and are beginning to integrate (much like the Mongols or Turks did in lands they emigrated to or conquered).
  • Dothraki were seen on the docks as the ships were leaving, so it's presumed that most of them returned to Essos.
• By the way, aren't they honor-bound to avenge their Khaleesi? Fine, maybe don't kill yourself afterwards, but to just let Jon go? It's even weirder for them than for the Unsullied.
  • Not really? Dany KILLED their former Khals, and they didn't see any great need to avenge them. It's displayed pretty damn clearly when Khal Drogo died that the Dothraki are loyal to strength. Dead people aren't particularly strong.
  • But in that case what is even the point of bloodriders? Why would any Khal appoint them, if he knew that they would simply go to serve their killer? On the other hand, I could see the Dothraki differentiate between besting the khal in an honest combat and assassinating them. Dany kinda did the former - she went against an entire room of khals, and she killed them with, basically, her bare hands. Even with her fire immunity she could've still easily died. That's badass. Jon murdered her in the most craven and underhanded way possible - after declaring his loyalty to her and bringing her into his embrace. That's Night Watch coup's... nay, that's Ramsay Bolton's level of treachery!
  • If we've learned one thing from the show, it's that honor's fun, but when push comes to shove most will choose self preservation. She might have named the bloodriders and it was cool and all, but actually riding out and dying for a dead woman on some foreign soil with no guarantee of any reward? Once the first few decided it wasn't worth it, even the more dedicated would soon have second thoughts too.
  • What do you mean, no guarantee of reward? They have the entire kingdom to pillage, and noone to hold them in check. Who's going to oppose them? Knights of the Vale? The Dornish? Fat chance - they'll just hole up their respective passes and hold tight while the horde tears what remains of Crownlands, Riverrun and the Reach apart.
  • The Starks could take the Dothraki alone at this point, and the Knights of the Vale would flatten them. They're not in Essos anymore, even with years of devastating war the Dothraki could simply be drowned in bodies by even the most barren areas of Westeros. We've already seen that the Dothraki can't handle armored knights.
  • You mean that one time a bloodrider fought Jorah in a solo duel on foot? How is it whatsoever relevant to an issue of a thousand-strong horde rampaging across countryside? Knights of the Vale would probably beat them, sure... if they can catch up to them. Except why would they bother, instead of simply retreating to the Vale, blocking the mountain passages and living happily ever after? Less people to come begging them for food later. Starks? They're completely spent, and again, would would they bother fighting the Dothraki instead of retreating North, safe behind the swamps of the Neck? So who's going to drown them in bodies? Peasants with sharp sticks?

Why did Jon need to be revived?

• It wasn't even him who killed the Night King.
  • Killed Dany though. And his input into the battle against the dead might well have been decisive, as he both directed Rhaegal well, distracted Viserion, and the Night King seemed fairly confident Jon was the only real threat to him and therefore disregarded other, smaller, opponents. He was also fairly decisive in getting Dany on board in the first place, and keeping her on board.
  • Bran pretty much straight up confirmed that it was Jon's destiny to be in the right place and time to kill Daenerys before she became a complete tyrant.
  • Except, of course, that if he hadn't been there (or if Dany'd dropped the Idiot Ball and had guards), Arya would've done it just the same.
  • Also it was Jon being King in the North that alerted Arya to come home.
  • Except, of course, that if he hadn't been there, she would've assassinated Cersei, sparing everyone a ton of troubles, and then returned home just the same.

What about Dorne and the Iron Islands?

• With the North declaring itself an independent kingdom, there's now precedent for secession from Westeros. Perhaps the middle kingdoms are culturally homogenous enough to remain united, but why haven't Dorne and the Iron Islands pushed for their own independence? Wasn't that one of Yara's conditions for supporting Daenerys in the first place?
  • Questions of minor political allegiances seem somewhat out of the scope of the episode. Honestly it's never stated that these things 'didn't' happen, Sansa was just the only one with the balls to do it before even crowning a new king.
  • It's highly likely (based on Yara's expression) that the Iron Islands will rebel, given that's sort of a cyclical thing with them. As for Dorne, it depends entirely on their Prince. While they were independent longer than any other Kingdom, they also did very well for themselves when they finally did unify. Overall, it benefited them significantly to be part of the Seven Kingdoms, and the new Prince could see more advantage to staying in the Six Kingdoms (for the time being) than striking out on their own again.
  • Honestly I see both the Iron Islands and Dorne holding out to see what the various factions have to offer. In all practical terms neither is going to be under any kind of real authority for years, so they have time to weight their options. Personally I feel Yara would be inclined to at least form a loose alliance with the north, who she's rather more kindly inclined towards.
  • It could be possible that, even if they aren't granted independence later, they may be given greater autonomy, which might appease them.
  • The Iron Islands were never really part of the Seven Kingdoms from the start (and they are not one of the actual "Seven" Kingdoms), and were only kept in line through threat of force from both the Targaryens and King Robert. It's highly likely that Yara would petition for independence unless Bran was able to convince her the benefits of staying in the Six Kingdoms.
    • The Iron Islands were very much part of the Seven Kingdoms. Theon's father was Lord Balon Greyjoy, even if he tried to crown himself king twice during his lifetime. The fact they were kept in check by threat of force doesn't make them any more autonomous than a kingdom that surrendered, or forged an alliance by marriage.
  • "neither is going to be under any kind of real authority for years," Why? Dorne is the only kingdom with a fresh army. Yara is the only one with a fleet (and it seems, that thanks to the new Master of Coin it will remain that way). They should be the only ones with any real authority. Them and the Vale. All the other factions should be exhausted and spent from constant warfare.
  • That's what I mean. The Crown is mostly powerless, so throwing in your allegiance with them doesn't really effect your autonomy in any way, and you're in a position to pretty much bully any concessions you want out of them. Pretty much like the Lannisters were the power behind Robert.
  • You still have to pay taxes to the Crown, and with KL burned, I suppose the rates would skyrocket. Also the Westerlands were an integral part of the mainland, unlike Dorne and Iron Islands. Neither should have any interest in staying in the fold, especially with the throne held by the house that had betrayed and murdered the queen they'd both declared for.
  • Also, "Personally I feel Yara would be inclined to at least form a loose alliance with the north, who she's rather more kindly inclined towards." - What? The Ironborn in general and Yara in particular have pillaged the North! Now that Daenerys is gone, so is Yara's pledge to stop reaving. And who's gonna be the prime target? The North, of course, whose rulers are also responsible for murdering the queen she'd declared for. And thanks to Sansa's brilliant power move, it will be far more difficult for her to get help against them.

Grey Worm's unseen military coup

• The time it would have taken for the high lords of Westeros to gather and decide the fate of Tyrion and Jon Snow would have taken weeks, possibly a month or more. With Grey Worm as the highest-ranking member of Dany's forces and facilitating the lords' meeting, was he effectively ruling Westeros during that interim period?
  • Probably not: he's shown a growing awareness of politics, but no interest in exercising it beyond command of his army. Plus, with the Northern Army essentially bottling up the Unsullied, they were probably simply sitting in a stalemate.
  • At that point being ruler of Westeros means very little anyway. His throne room hasn't got a roof or throne, his capital is mostly inhabited by smoldering corpses and bored soldiers, all the ravens have flown away, and no one under his command even speaks the same language as the people he's ruling. Practically speaking everyone's pretty much ruling themselves, which honestly isn't much different than before. It wasn't like Cersei commanded vast political power beyond the walls of her city.
  • At that point, Grey Worm wasn't really a ruler in a true sense. He was simply a military officer holding a very high value hostage. As Tyrion pointed out, the lords of Westeros were the true power of the land and it's ultimately them that pick Bran as king, with Grey Worm having absolutely no say in the outcome.
  • The show gives too much importance to King's Landing on the last few seasons, and specially now. Grey Worm was in complete control of the city (or rather, what remained of it), but that by no means is the same as controlling the Seven Kingdoms, and it's implied that while the negotiations took place, the city was under siege by the northerners (their army never moved back North, and Sansa flat out threatens Grey Worm with immediate retaliation), so even his grip on that was flimsy at best. He knows that if a couple other Great Lords decide to move in favour of the Starks, he's completely screwed, even if some others decide to help him in turn.

Is it really so great north of the wall

• Why is the show suddenly trying to play up the north of the Wall as some marvelous land of freedom and the true home of the Free Folk? It's a frozen wasteland! Remember? "So cold your cock will freeze off when you go for a piss"? The Free Folk were stranded there, and they were trying to get south for centuries, regardless of the White Walker threat. Now they're finally allowed to live in the south and are given lands, and they might stop having to barely survive and start actually thriving, and they go BACK, even though there's just a handful of them left? Somehow I think it will take more than one (completely out-of-season) sprout to significantly change the landscape and make it more habitable.
  • I don't think it's as bad as people make it out to be. There's quite a bit of snobbery in the popular depiction of wildlings, but ultimately it's not that dissimilar from the kind of snobbery the south feels for the north. Oh it's cold and snows a lot, how terrible. Clearly the only reason they could have to invade south is because their own lands suck. I note that there's plenty of people who live beyond the Arctic Circle in the real world, and they're perfectly happy there. The Inuit were perfectly happy for millennia, and in fact the influence of modern society drastically drove their quality of life downwards.
  • Also, it's implied that the lands beyond the Wall were supernaturally cold because of the influence of the Night King, and now that he's dead, the climate will return to normal again. So even though it will obviously still be colder than in the South, they will have summers again. In the real world, the area around the Arctic Circle does have proper summers, you have to go way more to the north to get to places where the snow never melts.
  • Just like the Unsullied, the Wildings aren't interested in land and titles and have no wish to get tangled in Westerosi politics. The Wildlings had been living beyond the Wall for millennia with no issue, and the only reason they were migrating south in the first place was because of the White Walkers chasing them out. With the threat of the White Walkers gone, the Wildlings are free to return to their own homelands away from Westerosi lords who would ask them to bend the knee.
    • They've been trying to escape from beyond the Wall for millennia. You know, six invasions? White Walkers couldn't have possible been an issue all that time.
    • They might not have wanted to stay. They might have just wanted their gold and women.

Why are Bran, Sansa, and Arya all at the final meeting?

• In the series finale you have a meeting of the Houses arranged to appoint the new King for Westeros. Each House is represented by one Lord or Lady... Except for House Stark, which is represented by Bran, Sansa, and Arya. Shouldn't the other heads of the Houses protest against this, as it gives the Starks thrice as big a representation as anyone else, especially if they have to vote on the matter?
  • They should absolutely only get one vote - Sansa's, she's the head of the house. However, that meeting makes no sense anyway. It's clearly not a gathering of all houses, since there're hundreds of them. The decision to elect the king is made on the spot, nobody arranged or authorised these people to do so. Gendry is there, even though he was legitimised and made a lord by a dead claimant who was never properly crowned and was branded a monster anyway, so I'm pretty sure Stormlands wouldn't respect him. Brienne is there, even though I don't recall her father being declared dead. Davos is there, despite only being a knight. Sansa insults Edmure for no reason and with no authority.
  • Arya and Bran don't vote at that meeting, and unlike Sansa, no-one looks to them to do so. They may have not been entitled to, just invited there as a courtesy to give their opinions as the architects of the Winterfell victory.
  • Davos lampshades how people with no place deciding anything are seemingly getting votes, but that doesn't make it illegitimate. All the major houses are represented, and a bunch of war heroes throwing their opinion into the pot only makes it more decisive.
  • It doesn't seem like all the major Houses are represented, as no one seems to be there to represent House Tyrell. It could be that one of the unnamed Lords in the meeting is the current head of the Tyrells, but that merely begs the question why this Lord would've subsequently yielded his dominion to Bronn.
  • House Tyrell is super dead. Appropriate, since they were elevated to rulership by the Targaryens, and eventually fell into ruin with them too. With the Florents and the Tarlys effectively wiped out too, looking for an appropriate heir is more involved a process than they really have time for.
  • Fifteen people vote (14) or abstain (Sansa) at that meeting, including the leaders of the 7 kingdoms (Sansa, Edmure, Robin, Gendry, Prince of Dorne, plus maybe Tyrion and someone voting for the Reach, whether that's Sam or Bronn's proxy) and Iron Islands (Yara). Yohn Royce would maybe count as Robin's Lord Protector, Brienne perhaps as Kingsguard Commander. If Bronn's proxy was one of them, maybe Sam's vote is as Grand Maester. As for the other 3 or 4, maybe they're the rest of the Kingsguard.
  • In Gendry's case, all the legitimate members of House Baratheon are dead, so even if they didn't accept Daenerys' legitimization of him, the other Stormland lords may have decided that since he's the son of the former Head, albeit illegitimate, they may have chosen him due to lack of alternatives. Plus he fought in the Battle of Winterfell, which is an added benefit.
  • Gendry was legitimised by Daenerys in episode 4.
  • Yes, but the previous point was arguing that since Daenerys was quickly killed and not properly crowned, the Stormland lords might not have acknowledged her legitimization of Gendry and thus questioned why he was at the meeting. The other point was an alternative solution.
  • Just because Dany wasn't properly crowned doesn't mean she wasn't the legitimate monarch (unless Westeros has a specific law to that effect, which wasn't stated in the show). Queen Elizabeth II's reign started the day her dad the previous king died, not the day a year later when she was crowned.
  • Regarding Daenerys' legitimacy, her claim was that she was the daughter of a king who was killed and whose dynasty was overthrown. The kingdom accepted Robert as new monarch and Daenerys was seen as an invader. Furthermore, not all the kingdoms recognized her and she was killed before she could consolidate power over the whole continent, so many wouldn't regard her as a legitimate monarch and therefore wouldn't accept any decrees she made, just as Gendry's legitimization, as valid. To quote this video, it seems unlikely that the Stormlanders would accept Gendry as their lord if all he did was walk up to Storm's End and say "Hello, I'm Gendry. I'm Robert Baratheon's bastard who was legitimized by Daenerys Stormborn, the tyrant who just burned down King's Lading. I'll have my major lordship now." Plus, the continent had been had war for years over who the legitimate monarch was and Daenerys claim was one of many, not to mention she burned King's Landing, so most would regard her as a tyrant. It's not comparable to Queen Elizabeth II, who was the daughter of the currently reigning king, whose status as heir and succession was never questioned, and who succeeded during peacetime. In addition, British coronations are more a formality, and are held a year later due to being a Constitutional monarchy, where the monarch is a figurehead, so there’s no immediate rush to crown them and it allows times for the complex ceremony to be planned and organized. It’s also considered bad form to have the pomp and ceremony of a coronation while still in mourning for the previous monarch.
  • "since he's the son of the former Head" Which, btw, he has precisely zero ways to prove, since the only people who could've at least vouched for him (Ned and Mel) are dead. As far as everybody else is concerned, he's a nobody, a smallfolk, which, as it was oh so wittily put by our noble heroes makes him equal to a dog.
  • Being a war hero on good terms with the leaders of the realm counts for a damn lot. Nobody cares that Horatio Nelson or El Cid's fathers were commoners. John Hawkwood might well have played up his 'commoner' origins for the mythic qualities it lended him, and certainly wasn't nobility.
  • What leaders? He appears at the meeting already the lord, when there was no king. Northerners should distrust him as Dany's stooge. And war hero? Really? He fought in one battle that went completely unnoticed by absolutely everyone south of Winterfell, but so did a ton of other people, and he didn't do anything of notice there either. "other Stormland lords... chosen him due to lack of alternatives." - there were alternatives. Any one of them. If Gendry'd even shown his face there, he'd been instantly killed. Period. I know it's easy to forget, but castles and lands a worth a lot. No one in their right mind would just give them away to a random kid because of hearsay.
  • Sansa Stark is the only leader that really matters a damn anymore. Robin Arryn would jump on her command, Edmure Tully pretty much shrivels at one pointed comment from his niece, the last Lannister left is clearly smitten, Yara is inclined to be sympathetic to the Starks and certainly is smart enough to align with the winners (as well as support a plan that gives her more power). And a perfect chance to place two claimants to extinct houses who are loyal to Tyrion and Arya respectively only makes her position more clear. No one really gives a damn about Dorne, as sitting out almost the entire war, getting their entire leadership killed in embarrassing ways, and losing pretty much every engagement they participated in does not leave them in a particularly powerful position for negotiation. She helps set up the entire political landscape of Westeros and then declares herself independent because she can.
• In fact, why isn't there immediately a civil war and a coup by pro-Dany forces? They amount to Dorne (the only army that is not battle-weary or depleted), Ironborn (the only navy on the continent), the Unsullied and the Dothraki (the most elite/dreaded forces in the world). The "good guys" have... what? The knights of the Vale? A considerable force, sure, but at best a match to all the above. Just, please, don't tell me "oh, they're tired of war" or "they've finally realised that war brings nothing but horrors". Joking aside, War. Never. Changes. The tensions and grudges didn't go anywhere. Yara and Dorne should absolutely push for independence, the Unsullied should be eager to avenge their queen and liberator, the Dothraki, now unchecked, should instantly revert to their pillaging ways
  • Neither the Unsullied or Dothraki will fight without leadership, and Grey Worm has no interest in personally taking over Westeros. They're also heavily depleted by being at the vanguard of the battle against the dead, and not being able to replenish their numbers. They're in a foreign country, any man with working arms can pick up a sword for the North, where as every Unsullied solider that dies isn't coming back.
  • Well, obviously the Dothraki would've instantly elected the new Khal, and you'd think Grey Worm'd be very interested in avenging his queen and savior and carrying out her last order to the best of his abilities or die trying. That's what he was made for. The only person who could've offered him another meaning in life was dead.
• Also, why is anyone listening to Tyrion? I get the joke - it's impossible to shut him up, and he'll talk his way out of any lethal situation, fine. But, objectively people present should either despise him, hate him with passion, or know him only from his ignominious reputation. He has brought his prior queen to ruin and is tangentially responsible for the KL massacre. He's the last scion of the hated house, and a kinslayer.
  • Because Sansa says so, and everyone is clearly listening to her.
  • Ok, let me rephrase the question: why is anyone listening to Sansa? Objectively, Robin Arryn parted ways with her on bad terms and should kinda hate her for causing the death of his mother and killing his beloved uncle Petyr under some really shady circumstances. Lord Royce should despise her for lying to him and nearly getting him killed by Littlefinger. She insulted Tyrion and Edmure (again for no reason whatsoever), Yara should absolutely hate the Starks for murdering the queen who'd offered her independence, Prince of Dorne shouldn't give two shits about her, Sam and Gendry barely know her, Davos had no significant interaction with her, and both the Reach and the Stormlands should hate this entire gang for trying to force a sellsword and a nobody as their leaders. Aside from her siblings, Brienne is the only one who would really listen to Sansa.
  • Royce can conveniently (and not unjustifiably) blame all that on Littlefinger, thus ensuring he's at the right side of a competent ruler who can return stability and prosperity to the realm. Robin fancies the crap out of Sansa, and she's made sure Royce is both loyal to her and his guardian. It's clearly established that while the boys have been running around fighting and arguing she's been building up a significant logistical chain, powerbase, and economy, which is something none of the others possesses. Edmure has been a prisoner and a puppet for years, Tyrion is discredited, Sam, Davos, and Gendry may have have interacted much with her specifically, but they've been pretty close to other Starks and would likely support her as well, and everyone else has been thoroughly depleted of competence through liberal backstabbing. After that, everyone else is just backing a winner.

The boat that goes west of Westeros

• It's mentioned in the earlier seasons, and again in the series finale, that no one knows what's west of Westeros. This would imply that no one has ever sailed there, or at least no one has sailed there and returned to tell what they found. Yet Arya is seen boarding a seemingly regular ship that's headed to the west. There's no explanation for where the boat came from, who owns it, or how they managed to recruit a full crew for such an incredibly dangerous journey?
  • The sails are adorned with a direwolf sigil, so apparently the ship belongs to her. As for the crew, the world never had a shortage of daring and/or desperate men willing to go on dangerous endeavors if the pay is right.
  • Is it said exactly how long afterwards it is that Arya sets sail? Sure in the end montage it's happening at the same time as Sansa's coronation, Jon returning to The Wall etc - but months could have passed. As a lady of House Stark and sister to the king, she could have requested a ship or fleet of her own that could be built in that time. And isn't she known as the woman who killed the Night King? I wouldn't be surprised if loads of sailors jumped at the chance to travel with such a legendary figure.

The North won't bow to a Stark?

• Sansa's argument is that the North fought too hard and lost too much to ever bend the knee again. Yet in this instance the North isn't being asked to bend the knee to a Southern House, but House Stark of the North. That makes no sense to me at all, especially since the North does bend knee to a Stark with Sansa being the Queen in the North.
  • "Bending the knee" is merely symbolism, the main point of contention is that the North doesn't want to be a part of a larger kingdom rather than become independent, so it's not really important who rules in King's Landing. If the North were to remain a part of the Seven Kingdoms, Bran would still inevitably have to make compromises that will benefit the other parts of Westeros, he can't just play favourites with the North unless he wants to anger the other Lords and Ladies. Also, as was pointed out before Sansa's final speech, Bran can't have children and the next King will be chosen like Bran was, so he may be anywhere from Westeros. Even if a Stark is the King now, the next King is not necessarily from the North, and might not be in favour of the North seceding. It makes sense for Sansa to claim independence now, when old power structures of Westeros are in turmoil, and when the other kingdoms owe an enormous debt to the North for stopping the Night King's invasion, so their secession won't be met with much opposition.
  • To put it simply, Sansa isn't talking about bending the knee to Bran specifically, but to the idea of the crown in general.
  • "We know no king but the King in the North whose name is Stark!"

How exactly did Bronn end up becoming Lord of the Reach?

• Okay, Jaime and Tyrion promised him the Reach, but given that soon afterwards Jaime was dead and Tyrion imprisoned for treason, it's not like they had much say in the matter. Are we supposed to believe that the Tyrells had no nephews or cousins or other more distant relatives who would have a much better claim for the Lordship of the Reach than this random outsider?
  • Tyrion hadn't even got out the list of possible recruits for the Small Council when Bran recommended Bronn for master of coin, and politely suggested Tyrion should give the man what he's owed already.
    • I'll have to stop you right there: "Bran recommended Bronn". Why? Unless Bran is actually possessed by the TER, who's bent on humanity's destruction, why in the seven hells would he want a barely literate self-serving sellsword with absolutely no qualifications in charge of the Crown finances and one of its kingdoms?
  • Plenty of highly qualified people met embarrassing and foolish ends during the war, where as Bronn has thrived. In fact he's excelled in every single job he's been given. He's clearly exceptionally intelligent despite his lack of education (which is half the reason he got on so well with Tyrion) he can read (he's likely more literate than Jaime) and he's actually one of the most loyal people on the show. He's never gone back on a contract, and even when he broke up with Tyrion (which wasn't a breach of contract, since the unfortunate fact was that Tyrion could no longer pay) he did it to his face, and explained his reasons in detail. He saved Jaime and Tyrion's life multiple times at great personal risk, despite having pretty shaky financial reasons to do so. And as an added note, his recommendation to rebuild the brothels before the navy actually makes perfect financial sense, and is the kind of practical thinking Bronn is good at.
    • But Bronn has no financial knowledge, he didn't even know how loans worked a few years ago. He has a street-smart nature to him, but that's really not the same thing as administration. He's never gone back on a contract... yes, he did. He went back on his contract with Cersei. He's very open that he just goes for the best offer. And during the meeting he hardly shows himself at all suited to the job, just going with the weak will always die so no point helping them and his plan to rebuild brothels is treated as humorous rather than proper reasons being given. There's also the question of why would the Reach Houses accept him? There didn't even seem to be any Reach Houses at the Council. At best you could say Samwell is from the Reach, but he doesn't even hold any lands. There might be conflicts between the Reach, but they would not just see Bronn as a compromise candidate, they would all hate him for being upjumped. I know much of the Reach nobility died in the Septsplosion including the main Tyrell line but Reach nobles would still exist.
    • Also, Bronn thrived and succeeded precisely because he was given tasks he's good at - that is, killing people, which is all he's good at. He also betrayed Tyrion by delivering Shae to Tywin instead of seeing her off as he was supposed to, and no, him refusing to fight for Tyrion wasn't because Tyrion couldn't pay anymore - it was solely because Cersei promised him more than Tyrion could've, which is low even for a sellsword. And as an added note, his recommendation was fooking stupid. What are they going to do when the next invader comes? Ensure they have a good time?
    • It's better than throwing a bunch of naked peasants with sharp sticks at them. If you want an army or navy, first you have to have an economy, and attracting traders requires brothels. Not to mention brothels are reliable and taxable businesses in themselves. There's a reason Littlefinger was incredibly rich.
    • Right! So all they have to do is to ask every would-be invader really-really nice to wait until that economy has time to build up and not to take advantage of their currently decimated armies, absent fleet (I mean, those idiots didn't even think to make Yara the Mistress of Ships, so I see no reason for her to lend the Iron Fleet to their defence even if she doesn't just immediately cecede). Sure, having a dragon, an Unsullied army and a Dothraki army might've deterred them, but... oops.
    • It does defy belief that Tyrion would not only hand over Highgarden to a common sellsword who demanded it at the point of a crossbow, but make him Master of Coin as well. Never mind Bronn's previous disloyalty and his total unsuitability for the job. Moreover, since Cersei is now dead, he can't even threaten to kill him to get a reward from her either. The season 2 Tyrion would probably have sent him to the Wall.
    • Yara is in all likelyhood not actually a formal vassal of Bran, so he can't make her master of ships. Not to mention as a high lady, making her a member of the council would likely be both inconvenient and kind of insulting. The council is a place for second born sons and commoners. She already has a job. And as for fending off invaders with your army and navy... you seem lacking in understanding that you have to pay for these things. The realm isn't just broke, it's in debt. Who's going to build those ships? Bran? If he wants ships, he'll have to pay for them, which means he needs money. If he wants men to fight, he needs to pay them, which means he needs money. If he wants money, he needs taxes. Therefore he needs businesses, making money, paying taxes. It's nice to think he could magic armies out of thin air and pay them with honor, but that's not how it works.

Khal Jon

• Dothraki culture posits that those who depose the Khal has the authority to rule. Going by this, the Dothraki should logically throw their lot with Jon.
  • Except that Jon is immediately imprisoned by Grey Worm. So if the Dothraki only follow a leader who has the power to overthrow the previous Khal, then Grey Worm is that person.

The Iron Bank WILL be paid!

• The Iron Bank of Braavos is not noted for forgiving its debtors, but it's hard to see who is left to pay them at this point. Is the money they loaned to Stannis now owed by Gendry as the heir to the Baratheon name? Or the monies loaned to assorted Lannisters over the last several seasons now owed by Tyrion? Or is the whole lot owed by the King of the Andals and the First Men, Protector of the Six Kingdoms, no matter who sits on the (new, notably less ferrous) throne?
  • If I were to guess, I'd say the Lannister's debt would pass on to Bran (it being officially the debt of the monarch of the Seven/Six Kingdoms), while Stannis's would pass on to Gendry, as a Baratheon, or possibly to whoever inherits Dragonstone.
  • Personally, at this point, if I were the Iron Bank, I would just write off the Westerosi debts as irrecoverable and make it company policy to never do business with anyone from that God-forsaken island ever again.
  • Why? The continent is spent from constant warfare. It has no true ruler, its economical, administrative and cultural center is destroyed. It's ripe for the taking. Just back Daario and get that invasion rolling!
    • That's assuming Daario - or anyone else the Iron Bank could find to lead an invasion - would be any better at managing a ravaged nation well enough to repay the debts at all. After all, the government of the Six Kingdoms is still mostly intact even if the exact people have changed. Just keep reminding them what's due and eventually you'll probably make back what you loaned.
  • I'd dare say that even with King's Landing eradicated the population of Westeros outnumbers that of Bravos and Meereen to a truly silly degree. Bravos is stated at 2500k and Meereen at 3000k, where as Westeros is confirmed at 40,000k. If Bravos was to properly invade, Westeros could pretty much drown them in bodies. The only reason Dany stood a chance of success was by convincing people to back her, and downplaying the whole 'foreign invader' thing in favor of 'the rightful queen returns'.
  • The thing about banks is, they have a lot of money. The Iron Bank doesn't just make Braavos attack whoever is in debt with them (they don't seem to have any official ties with the Bravosi government, even if they're hugely influential), they use their resources to empower claimants and shift the power of the land around, and if necessary, get a few assassins to destabilise their target first. This way they get a ruler that is more willing to pay back, or the cycle repeats. This whole entry is assuming that the Iron Bank took huge losses with their series of investments in Westeros over the last few years, but what they did is pretty much business as usual, they're huge warmongers and profiteers.
    • As an example, let's say Gendry inherits Stannis's debt, and refuses to pay. Suddenly, when some minor lordling decides to rebel against Storm's End, they get enough resources to hire the Second Sons or another mercenary group. Now we have a new lord on Storm's End, who accrued his own debt and the debt Storm's End already owed to the bank. And they better find a way to pay that debt, or else.
    • I'd say that the Iron Bank has accrued about as much profit on the war as is feasible. Now is the time when they set up easy repayment plans (with plenty of interest of course), possibly involving stakes in promising Westerosi businesses and kickbacks under the table. Honestly the single biggest thing the Iron Bank could do to them at the moment is convince others to stop doing business with them. Tanking their economy during a critical time of rebuilding would do enormous amounts of damage to the trust in the Stark led regime.
  • the confirmation of the return of the White Walkers to the world might’ve changed the Iron Bank’s tune: The Iron Bank has its spies in every one of the seven kingdoms so they were no doubt well aware of the white walkers and the danger they represented (especially to the Iron Bank cause what need would zombies require a bank’s services for?) thus in the aftermath of the White Walkers destruction the Iron Bank might’ve decided that it would be in the Bank’s best interest to throw the 7 kingdoms a life-line by the cancellation and forgiveness of all non-Lancastrian debts for “services rendered”. Even the Iron Bank doesn’t like being in debt to someone else.
    • Actually the polar opposite is more likely. Now that Walkers are gone, the Iron Bank has no reasons NOT to squize Westeros dry, seing how it's no longer needed as the line of defence against them. As for any sense of obligation the Bank might possibly have... that's funny.

Garrison of King's Landing forgot how weapons work: KD Ratio 0: 10000

• It's par for the course that the villain's army is going to lose to the "good guys" rather spectacularly. But I think those long-ridiculed Stormtroopers on Endor can finally take solace that they are no longer the most ludicrously, illogically and stupidly curbstomped army in entertainment history.
  • These were men fighting for their homes, in a city familiar to them (totally alien to the invaders), facing a large army of CAVALRY (which get slaughtered in virtually any city battle).
  • Not one enemy was killed by the King's Landing Garrison. Sure, Dany had an absolutely insurmountable edge with Drogon, but the ground battle was still pitiful pathetic. They would have at least gotten one enemy kill.
    • It's as the Ironborn say, "what is dead may never die". Dany's army had all died before in the battle of Winterfell, they couldn't die again in Kings Landing.
    • One Northman got killed when Jon, Grey Worm and Davos were marching through the gates. 1:10000 everybody!

Why does Tyrion not just have Bronn killed? And why does he keep promoting him and giving him more power?!

• Let me get this straight...Bronn waltzes straight into Winterfell (or at least a drinking hall right outside Winterfell). He's carrying a giant fancy golden Lannister crossbow but none of the hundreds of armed soldiers notice. He then walks into the area Jaime and Tyrion are in, seemingly without any kind of armed guards at the door or in the room with them even though Tyrion is Hand of the Queen. The Unsullied are completely non-present. He then threatens Tyrion's life and demands one of the most powerful fiefdoms in the Seven Kingdoms. And Tyrion...agrees to give this to him? WTF? There are so many problems with this - first, Tyrion doesn't have the authority to just grant random people Lordships all over the place. Secondly, why the hell does Tyrion not just wait for Bronn to walk outside and then call the guards to capture him? He has a literal army of soldiers at his beck and call 30 seconds away. Made even worse by the fact Tyrion then not only gives him Highgarden eventually but he even promotes him to the Council and makes him Master of Coin. Maybe Baelish should have just waved a crossbow around in Ned Stark's face and he would have been given Highgarden instead?
  • Because Tyrion actually likes Bronn, and recognizes that Bronn has pretty legitimate grievances against him - specifically that he hasn't gotten any of the things Tyrion promised him despite having risked his life multiple times for Tyrion. Tyrion also recognized that Bronn is pretty competent when he wants to be, so better to be on his good side in case they come out of this intact. Baelish wouldn't have gotten as good a result because he was so sleazy that no one actually liked him - had he been so brash, he would've probably been arrested.
    • "he hasn't gotten any of the things Tyrion promised him despite having risked his life multiple times for Tyrion" - which is... what, exactly? Tyrion didn't promise him anything for being his champion in the Eyrie, but later paid him anyway by making him the captain of the city watch, and then hired him as his personal bodyguard which, obviously, didn't come free and... that's pretty much it. Oh, right, he did promise him lands in the North for being his champion against the Mountain, which Bronn refused because Cersei offered him more. So no, Tyrion doesn't owe him anything. You could say that Jaime does, but Highgarden is indeed not his (or Tyrion's) to give. Only the queen could've done that, and Bronn betrayed Cersei and tried to kill Dany. Also, come to think of it, Jaime should pretty much hate Bronn for betraying his beloved brother, so I doubt he would feel any real obligation to him. Use him, sure, even pay him off, but to actually give him power and holdings? That's insane.

What is wrong with Yara?

• She headbutts Theon after he reacues her. Hard. What was up with that? Was it for "abandoning" her in a situation when any attempt would've resulted in his immediate death? There're such things as tactical retreats. Also, glass houses much? At least he did retun for her and was successful! And why is Theon tolerating this bullshift?! One minute he's a genuine badass warrior, the next he degrades into a submissive pushover.
  • Yara has the right to be angry at Theon for leaving her and Theon is fully aware he screwed up and has to face the consequences. Do remember in the last season that Yara has full faith on her brother as her protector and is distraught when Theon regressed back into "Reek" and abandoned ship after being triggered by the torture and destruction made by Euron. Also, do remember that her men beat the crap out of him for abandoning her.
  • How did he screw up? By not lunging at Euron who had a knife at Yara's throat? By not taking on his entire crew alone? By not getting himself stupidly killed, so that he, unlike his sister, could return and actually save her? Also, no, nobody beat him up for fleeing. The Ironborn captain mocked him, and then later Theon kicked his ass and assumed command.
  • Watch this scene: Notice that Theon is shaken when he saw Euron's men ripping the tongue out from the other Greyjoy soldiers which reminded him of his time of being tortured by Ramsey Bolton. Did he say to Yara that he's going to retreat so he can get reinforcements? No, he was standing there terrified and when he jumped off the ship, Euron is laughing at him for being a coward. And Yara's not only distraught because he left her, she's sad because Theon went back into becoming that scared and cowardly man called Reek. She thought that Theon already overcome his PSTD but he regressed back into becoming Reek. It reminded her back in Season 4 when she and her men risked their lives to save him in Dreadfort but failed because Theon is too scared to leave because of Ramsey. When Theon came home to Iron Islands, Yara is furious at him because she wasted her time trying to save him only to realize that he's not strong enough. This was nothing to do with tactics. This is about how she wants to believe her brother is strong again. This is part of Theon's arc for the last two seasons: he's trying to be strong again after his horrifying experience with Ramsey and he starts overcoming it after saving Sansa. He screwed up in the ship battle because he went back into being Reek and the Ironborn captain mocked him because he doesn't trust a dickless and weak man who could lead the rescue. Also, about Yara headbutting Theon, it's her way of venting her disappointment at him again before she helped back at his feet. It's not like you expect these two to hug each other like what the Stark and Lannister siblings did in their reunions.
  • So clearly the best way to punish Theon for relapsing into victimization-based "cowardice" (even when there was objectively nothing he could do even if he was the bravest man in Westeros) is to victimize him youself with My Fist Forgives You after he clearly got over it again or he wouldn't be here to save you. That's logical behaviour to people? Seriously?
  • The world of Game of Thrones is more violent than ours, where perceived cowardice in battle is considered a major character flaw, and a violent reaction towards (real or imagined) slights is extremely common. Whole there are some characters who don't live according to these rules of violence and "bravery", Yara most certainly does, and the previous seasons have show she's also quite impulsive. So while headbutting a brother whom she felt acted cowardly, despite him coming to save her now, may not make sense or seem logical to us, it certainly is in character for Yara.
  • So... the answer to OP's question is that Yara's problem is that she's actually just a Jerkass but it's okay because Culture Justifies Anything.
    • Yeah, this is just a much a case of Ironborn culture as it is Yara in particular. They're pirates and murderers who take pride in living by the sword, stealing everything they own from weaker people. When Theon washes up on shore and claims, "I did everything I could" to save Yara, they sneer that if that were the case, he'd be dead, implying that he should have tried and died bravely rather than turned tail. So Yara is hardly the only Ironborn to see Theon's flight as a cowardly betrayal, even if it were tactically prudent.

Why did the Night King assault Winterfell instead of sieging it?

• The Night King clearly has the numbers to easily win a battle on open ground against the Winterfell defenders. The only reason the Winterfell defenders have a chance is because of their castle. So why didn't the Night King just starve them out with a siege? The Whitewalkers are literally the perfect army for conducting siege operations. None of the normal disadvantages of siege operations apply to them. They don't need to be fed or paid. They don't get demoralized from long campaigns away from home, nor are they vulnerable to disease. So why not just set up outside of Winterfell and wait for starvation to force the defenders out?
  • He isn't interested in capturing the castle, just in killing everyone inside and Bran in particular. His army of wights is essentially infinite in number, so the only downside of a direct assault - the number of casualties - is irrelevant to him. Might as well attack and get it over with quickly rather than wait months for a siege to work itself out.
    • It just seems silly to me to directly assault your enemy's strongest position when there are so many less costly options available due to the nature of your undead army. In addition to sieging the defenders out, another better option would have been to just bypass the castle entirely. Of course a human army wouldn't want to do that, because leaving a castle in your rear means the defenders can come out and cut off your supply lines, but that's not an issue for the Night King, since his army doesn't really have supply lines. The only supplies he needs are more people to make undead. He could just happily go about his business attacking helpless undefended villages and converting their population to undead, while the guys in the castle could do nothing to stop him. Bypassing the castle would put the Winterfell defenders in a no-win situation. Either they stay there and watch as the Night King increases his army to obscene levels, or they come out of the castle to try and stop him, in which case the Night King can simply flatten them with overwhelming numbers on the open plains.
    • Cost is irrelevant to him. Supply is irrelevant to him. Every single thing that a normal human army would have to consider, is irrelevant to him. When his soldiers die, he makes them get back up. When his enemies die, he makes them get back up, but on his side. There's no reason for him to ever consider anything but a straightforward attack. And "go about his business"? Killing Bran - who is in Winterfell - was apparently the only thing he had in mind. Wandering around destroying random villages would be a waste of time.
    • It wouldn't be a waste because every town he takes over is a massive increase to his army. Attacking the enemy's strongest position with a frontal assault when you have so many more productive and less costly options is the waste.
    • But again, cost doesn't matter to him. Every casualty on his side is able to get right back up and keep going. Every casualty on the defending side is a new soldier for him. There is simply no reason not to swarm Winterfell and kill everyone in one big fight instead of a longer, slower campaign.
    • Yes, it does matter to him. Wights might be expendable (although even that is uncertain, isn't obsidian supposed to put them down for good?), but White Walkers aren't. Even less expendeble is himself. Storming the castle inevitably puts them at risk. A risk that is completely avoidable if he simply waits for a few days until the morons inside starve and freeze.
  • Indeed, the Wiki and every source I've checked states that obsidian puts Wights down for good, so cost definitely does matter to the Night King. That said, hard to say how long sieging Winterfell might have actually taken; probably not too long, even compared to other sieges considering how many people the humans would have to feed to maintain a viable defense, but NK clearly wanted Bran dead bad enough to redirect his entire campaign, so presumably he didn't want to wait however long a siege would take. Why he couldn't wait that long, considering Bran never uses his powers for anything useful against White Walkers or humans, is anyone's guess.

Starks have practiced incest before

• In "The Last of the Starks", why does Varys assume that Jon would not be okay with an incestuous aunt-nephew relationship with Daenerys because he's a Stark? The Starks have committed incest in the last 200 years; two of Cregan Stark's sons married their nieces by their elder brother Rickon, and Ned Stark's father Rickard married his cousin Lyarra.
  • Well I'm surprised Tyrion didn't point out that Jon and Daenerys don't actually need to have a sexual relationship anyway. They could just have a "political marriage" for the sake of unifying the kingdom. They don't need to have sex after that if either one of them doesn't want to.
    • In this society it is basically assumed marriage will mean sex. If it doesn't it will cause succession problems down the line.
    • Yes it is assumed, but it still doesn't have to happen. It's not like anyone is going to install video cameras in the royal bedroom to make sure they are doing it. Jon was already willing to accept a life of celibacy anyway by joining the Night's Watch, so this really shouldn't be a problem for him. As for a successor, they could always adopt or appoint one. At the very least, this would solve the immediate problems of unifying the kingdom for decades to come, since both of them are fairly young. They would have plenty of time to come up with a solution of the secession issue. Obviously the issue of having a successor with royal blood isn't that essential or else Bran would have never gotten the throne.
    • It does have to happen eventually, as there would need to be an heir. Also, Jon agreeing to be celibate at one point does not mean he agrees to be celibate again.
    • If the issue of a blood-relative heir was so important, then Bran would never become king, would he? The point about Jon is that he was willing to be celibate before for the sake of the Night's Watch, so it stands to reason he'd be willing to do again for the sake of saving the kingdom. And if he really needs to have sex, there's always the option of prostitutes or mistresses. It just doesn't seem like the issue of "he doesn't want to sleep with Dany" should be that big of a problem. The notion of a purely political marriage isn't unheard of and really shouldn't be that hard to pull off.
  • Because someone's relatives (that they never met) being okay with incest does not automatically mean that that person will be okay with it? Especially when that person has been deeply affected by the ramifications of incest?
    • Seeing how the fate of the kingdom and millions of people is at stake, it's not so much that they should be "ok" with it but that they really should roll their reservations into a nice tight scroll and shove it right up their bunghole.
    • You're missing the point. In this case, the Stark ancestors being okay with it is an indication that, culturally, Jon wouldn't see it as incest in the first place, and this is the writers failing to translate the book history to the show or even be aware of it.

King Bran

• Bran spent about three seasons going on about how he is no longer "Brandon Stark" but the "Three-Eyed Raven" but now he's back to being Bran Stark and can lead the Seven Kingdoms?
  • Since he was elected, it doesn't matter if he's a Stark or not. In fact, he was nominated FOR being the TER. As for his ramblings, it's classic misdirection. Make your ambitions clear, and somebody will definitely put a knife in your back.
  • He may see himself as the TER, but the rest of Westeros still knows him as Brandon Stark. He can argue semantics or he can take the title and do some good and he chose the latter.

Where did the Gold Cloaks go?

• Why isn't there a single Gold Cloak to be seen in the King's Landing scenes? You'd expect to see at least some of them attempt to keep order when the civilians are streaming into the city or try to fight the invaders, but only soldiers in Lannister armour are seen.
  • Maybe Cersei ordered the Gold Cloaks to switch to Lannister armor as part of her breakdown. Or outright disbanded them for potentially being disloyal to her personally.

Fireproof clothes for Daenerys

• So during "The Bells", at one point Drogon burns down a tower and flies through the fireball with Daenerys on top of him. Did someone decide to make fireproof clothes for Daenerys at some point? Because most other times Daenerys is fireproof, but her clothes are not. So if we're following the rules of the rest of the series, Daenerys should be flying around on Drogon sans clothes, and she obviously has clothes in the next shot.

Sending Arya to kill Cersei

• Arya is a trained assassin who can disguise herself as literally anyone. Killing Cersei would end the war without an arrow being fired. Why didn't they just send Arya into King's Landing to kill her?
  • She would've probably demanded North's independence as payment, and Daenerys probably wouldn't go for it.
    • Why would Arya demand payment for something she's desperately wanted to do for the eight past seasons? She even journeys to KL of her own accord to do exactly that. Killing Cersei would be in the North's interests as well.
    • Absolutely. I was answering to why Daenerys would be reluctant to ask her, since she doesn't know of Arya's obsession. Why Arya herself, or Sansa, wouldn't offer that, I have no earthly idea.

The last small council

• Is one long headscratcher. Sam is still a sworn brother of the Night's Watch, and not even a trained maester anyway, so how on earth is he now Grand Maester? Bronn, an unreliable ex-sellsword of low birth who didn't understand what a loan was a few seasons ago (can he even read?), is now Master of Coin? Davos is now basically admiral of royal fleet because... he was a smuggler and used to sail on ships? Brienne as Commander of the King's Guard is at least plausible, though surely she'd be at Winterfell with Sansa, the woman she is sworn to protect.
  • It is certainly strange, particularly for Sam considering that he left the Maesters because of how stagnant they were. Why would he go back?
  • Also, he has a wife and two children. Is he forswearing them and condemning them to bastardy? Or is that no longer a rule either?
    • Sam is Grand Maester by merit of Bran saying "This is my Grand Maester." The Grand Maester is appointed by the King, not by the Maesters, and serves as his chief advisor in scholarly affairs. If you look at Sam's chain, you'll notice that it's not a full chain, signifying that he has in fact not gone back and finished his Maester training. But hey, if the Maesters are upset, they can always go complain to the King whose homeland they mocked and scoffed and left to face the White Walkers alone in the name of their precious status quo. I'm sure he'll be understanding.
    • The Grand Maester is chosen by the Conclave at the Citadel (a bit like the Pope), not by the King.
    • To the above, that's fair, I forgot that. But the rest still stands. There's nothing the Citadel can actually do to stop him if he decides he wants Sam as his Grand Maester. In Bran's own words "Yes I can, I'm a king."
    • If he wants to be the laughing stock of the world, then sure. Although it certainly fits the theme. A Citadel dropout for the grand-maester, a sellsword for the master of coin, a veteran of a single failed naval battle for the master of ships, an ostensible (but still condemned) kingslayer for the Hand, no master of laws, and the king is probably possessed by pagan gods. Political caricatures will draw themselves.
  • I think I have some answers: Bronn can read, Davos getting the admiralty is likely a nod to his appointment to role by Stannis in the books and I don't believe that taking vows condemns your children to bastardy. Otherwise, Jorah would be a bastard and so would all of the Stark children if Ned had managed to take the black. Granted, I don't have the answers to all of these questions. Some are a little suspect, but I just chalk it to the writers wanting recognizable characters in the final scene as opposed to some new people we never met sitting on the council.
    • Bronn can read, but doesn't have any other qualifications for his position - for fuck's sake, in previous seasons he didn't even know what loan was! Davos as master of ships is actually OK (I've heard some people say he would be better as Master Of War, but he has experience in both). And Sam... Well, the issue is that he spent a pretty short time in the Citadel, meaning he could've earned (if we're being generous) one link in his chain. Meanwhile, Citadel is full of people who dedicated their whole long lives to study of various subjects, and all of them were passed over! Practically every master with a full chain is more qualified! Bronn and Sam would be fine placeholders untill better candidates are found, if there's a hurry to rebuild the city and government (which is should be, considering the dire state they are in after years of civil war), but the episode itself implies no such thing, so it's just D&D shrugging their shoulders like "Who's gonna be a Grand Maester? I don't know, Sam? He was in that university thingie, right?" However, the placeholder theory is a good headcannon if you're that bothered by it...
    • Actually Davos had no real experience in either naval or ground command. What he did have was experience in trade and negotiation in matters of finance. He should've been the Master of Coin. Yara shoud've been the Mistress of Ships (obviously, she's the only one with a fleet), Lord Royce - the Hand (he's the only one with a sizable army and an unspoiled kingdom, and "Master of War" was a phoney title made by Cersei to placate Kevan Lannister), Edmure Tully - Master of Laws (he's a smart and decent guy, and Bran should've made up to him for Sansa's insult), Bronn back as the head of the City Watch (also give him Harrenhal for the lols), Tyrion... a court jester maybe? He hasn't been really funny as of late, but at least he wouldn't do any more harm in that position. Otherwise just send him back to the Rock and let him finally drink himself to death in a few months. Sam - back at the Citadell, training to be the Maester for the Night Watch. Brienne was fine as the LC of the King's Guard - Sansa could release her from her vow. Now that seems like a half-decent Small Council.
  • Fridge Brilliance: Maesters don't like magic. Sam, who supports Bran, might simply be the only one willing to be Grand Maester to the Three-Eyed Raven. Of course, it's also possible that the Conclave thought he earned it because of everything he's achieved in the series. Plus, Bran trusts him and will listen to his advice. As for Bronn, he could have learned more about finances offscreen (how else could he be sure that he receives everything he's owed?). Remember, years pass between Tyrion explaining loans and Bronn becoming Master of Coin, which is plenty of time for that to happen, especially for a guy who can read about it.
  • The Great Council that chooses the new king is equally odd. Why the hell would Brienne of Tarth, Davos Seaworth and Samwell Tarly be invited to a great council of lords? Why do the Starks get to have three representatives? Why would Tyrion Lannister - a condemned traitor twice over - be invited to speak?
    • The whole thing was incredibly ad-hoc. Basically, the kingdom was in shambles (again), there was no line of succession (half the lords want Jon dead and no one's going to put Gendry on the throne), and basically they had to do SOMETHING. They were there, they were the most powerful lords present (it can be easy to forget but Sam is from a very influential house), and Tyrion threw them the best idea anyone had come up with so far in a situation where they really needed to get things in order quick and in a hurry.
  • Regarding the Night's Watch, the organization has been almost completely annihilated, the threat they were created to guard against was defeated, and the wall was partially destroyed. It's entirely plausible that whatever remained disbands in the aftermath.

Gendry “Rivers”

• Why does Gendry identify himself as a Rivers in “The Last of the Starks”? Aside from the fact that he’s unacknowledged (which means he should have no surname at all), it doesn’t really make sense; he was born in King’s Landing and spent much of his life there barring the year or two in the Riverlands in Seasons 2 and 3, so he should be a Waters.
  • I think was a case of the writers actually forgetting the region in which Gendry was raised. They made a similar blunder with Jon and how the region where a bastard was raised indicates your surname as opposed to where you were born. In short, they kind of forgot about the conventions of bastard naming.
    • That was part of Ned Stark hiding Jon's true origins and raising him as his bastard son. Calling him Jon "Sand" would raise a lot more questions and potentially allow more people to connect the dots.
    • There really is no set rule on naming conventions. Tradition, however, seems to dictate that the surname is usually based on the region where the bastard is raised. Admittedly, the surname only happens if said bastard is acknowledged by their noble parent. Gendry was not acknowledged by Robert, so he wouldn't have a surname to begin with. I think it's more a matter of both D&D hoping that the audience would just assume that every bastard has a name like "Snow" or "Rivers" or "Waters" and many fans being show-only fans and not knowing the naming conventions of the world.
  • For an In-Universe explanation, it could be that Gendry was not familiar with the exact practices of noble bastard surnames, having grown up poor.

Tyrion knows where Jaime and Cersei died?

• At the start of episode 6, Tyrion goes directly to the spot where Jaime and Cersei died to mourn their loss. How did he know where they were? He didn't see them die and they could have been literally anywhere in the entire city. So how did he know exactly where to find them?
  • Tyrion knows Cersei was in the Red Keep, and he knows where the secret escape routes are. So he goes down there to follow in their footsteps and comes across their bodies.

Arya&Sansa's agenda after the Long Night

• In episode 4 Arya and Sansa tell Jon that they don't trust Daenerys. Still not sure why, but fine. Question is, what did they want Jon to do about it? It's not like they're considering whether to vote for Daenerys or if it's somehow in their power to prevent her coming to Westeros. She's already there, she's laid her claim to the realm, and Jon Snow, the King in the North, has already abdicated in her favor and became her vassal, which involves swearing an oath of fealty. So what's he supposed to do? Break his oath and rebel against Dany? Murder her? Ok, MAYBE he could ask her to release him from his vow and grant the North independence, but if the whole reason for the conversation was that the sisters distrusted Dany, why would they think it was going to work? All in all, it suspiciously looked a lot like they were guilt-tripping their supposedly beloved brother in order to set him up as their catspaw.
• Because otherwise, why didn't Arya confront Daenerys herself? She seems to be a perfect candidate for that particular negotiation. Dany owes her a big one for saving all their asses, and Arya could sweeten the deal by offering her services to Dany. After all, Cersei is on her list already, and with her talents killing a queen should be a breeze... wouldn't you agree, Your Grace?
  • Jon or Arya could probably kill Dany pretty easily (as we later found out,) but it'd be certain death for them afterwards (as we later... didn't find out.) I'd assume that yes, they wanted Jon to break his oath of fealty to either go to war with her, or threaten to if she doesn't grant the north independence. Realistically, they'd lose that war because of the losses they'd already taken and many northern lord wouldn't support them, but logic doesn't dictate battle outcomes in this show. Not very honorable, either, but Arya has fed a man his sons and Sansa's gone all Dark Phoenix by this point.
  • Or, more charitably, they may not have had a specific plan in mind when they talked to Jon, and wanted to see if they could get him on board with the idea that Dany is dangerous before they made one, since any half-decent plan would factor in the allegiance of the king in the north. Arya could go to Dany directly, but even if Dany was willing to grant the North independence in theory, Jon's king in the north and could just say "naw, my sister's crazy. We can remain unified, and I'll make sure she never tries anything" if he wants to. Arya doesn't need Jon's permission to kill Dany, but Jon would be heartbroken for two reasons, and would then quite possibly have to either hand his sister over to be executed, go to war to protect her.

---