A Song of Tits and Wine (Spoilers!)

[Vandelay]

This seems like it fits into a category of fairly pointless objections that are common on the internet, being that literally all that it requires to deal with it is five minutes of straight exposition, or sitting and thinking about for an equal period. All it would do would be to create some pointless exposition scenes, or draw this scene out and destroy the emotional and dramatic impact with MOAR EXPOSITIONS!!!

I think that it is a reasonable issue to have with the resolution (although more of a niggle than anything deserving of “worst ending ever”*) I don’t think it necessarily would have required much more time spent on it either. A glance would have been enough to at least hint at things not everyone being so rosy with this setup. Alternatively, if they did want to go down the route of having them all being okay with this than have Yara and the Prince of Dorn on the small council at the end, not excluded from the rooms of power. They have two vacancies and I would think War and Whispers would have been fairly fitting for them both (Ships probably would have suited Yara more, but wouldn’t want to take that away from our man Davos).

*Seriously, I can’t see this bile thrown at the ending lasting for long. If anyone really does think it is the worst ending to any TV show, then I can only assume they haven’t watched much TV. I only recently got to the end of How I Meet Your Mother and compared that dumpster fire of an ending this was sublime. Endings are normally pretty terrible. Even good final episodes are normally proceeded by weak final seasons. S8 of GoT and it’s last episode would likely rank pretty well as one of the better ones.

[BillButNotBen]

This seems like it fits into a category of fairly pointless objections that are common on the internet

I think that it is a reasonable issue to have with the resolution (although more of a niggle than anything deserving of “worst ending ever”*)

The problem with the internet is it’s often very hard to get an idea about whether the flaws people are pointing out are major objections or just pointing out minor niggles. Then of course things get amplified.

I also thought the thing with Sansa getting special treatment was ‘a bit odd’, but it was no more than a minor niggle for me. Considering the number of characters and things they had to wrap up, I think it’s kind of a miracle if they got away with only a couple of minor niggles.

Now I’ve had time to sleep on it, and also check out some of the other views on the internet, I’m still mostly of the opinion that they pulled it off surprisingly satisfyingly.

[Major Final Spoilers]
As others have said, this season (and probably the last one) suffered from rushing a few things, which lead to sudden about turns that weren’t really given time to be fleshed out. The Jaime-Brienne-Cercsi flip flop and the Dany sudden fall being the main ones.
I think they both could have worked much better if they’d been given a little bit more time at the end.
IMHO they did a pretty good job with Danerys, only to then rush it right at the end.
Tyrion made a pretty compelling case for her fall being a long term arc, but in terms of the show she went from big hero to big villain to dead in basically 2-3 episodes.

But, given that they did that with The Bells, they did a good job justifying it in the final episode. I’d almost suspect they went back and added a scene with Tyrion explaining all the problems away after the response last week, if I thought there was time for that.
(This rather was the Tyrion Explains episode, but maybe that’s ok as his character had far more dialogue over the entire series than anyone else… and he’s mostly good at exposition).

While I do think they maybe moved on from Dany’s death a bit suddenly, I’m also not sure how else they could have done it.
(It was interesting that for all the talk of Jon being the true heir, etc… no-one had really considered that that wouldn’t really cut much ice with the Dothraki/Unsullied. I guess it’s kinda built into the Dothraki to move on when the Khal dies, but they were all following HER. It’d be hard to do a scene where Jon gets captured without wondering why they didn’t slaughter him. ).

I rather liked the Edmure scene though… it was nice to see him back.
I also thought they addressed the ‘democracy’ thing reasonably well. I mean, after the entire series I think we’d all pretty much agree that all the lords/kings/queens are crap and should be jettisoned. But going full on democracy would have been such a massive shift in mindset/culture that I don’t really see how they could have done it without it seeming incredibly fake and cheesy and modern. (Without an entire other season about a people’s revolution at least).
Even Sam proposing it seems a little bit fake, and the rest of the lords reactions were kind of to be expected. But at least they kinda made a step towards some form of democracy.
(Except in The North, as Skalpadda pointed out. Maybe they should have gone for some kind of United States of Westeros thing… but that’d probably have felt out of place too).

Arya’s journey into the west felt a bit cheesy too, so they probably should have focused a bit less on the Stark ladies… but they kinda had to given the popularity of the characters.
(it has been pointed out to me that Nymeria, her wolf, was named after a princess who sailed off across the sea, so maybe these things are better planned than I think )

[spacein_vader]

I did enjoy the scene with A Song of Ice and Fire and Tyrion not being in it. Very pointedly telling the viewer that the series is NOT the books and does things differently.

[Vandelay]

Ayra mentions that she wants to travel west of Westeros back in season 6 when she is recovering from her stab wound and is offered a place in the traveling theatre company. The “What is west of Westeros?” line is directly taken from that scene, so it is certainly not that unexpected that she would still want to do that.

I’m assuming we are fine going full on spoilers now, so don’t read on if you haven’t watched yet.

I think it is probably fair to say that the endings for everyone were a little too nicely wrapped up. Martin has supposedly described the ending to the series in the past as “bittersweet”; the TV series has leaned more towards the sweet than the bitter and I would have preferred it to be a little more balanced. I think that mainly stems from, once again, things being to rushed when it comes to Dany’s arc. Not only her fall, but also her romance with Jon. If we had of believed that more, I think him stabbing her would have been more moving.

We also have the show being far to vague when it comes to Bran. Him becoming king was very troubling if you thought about it, both in terms of what he would do and what he did (and didn’t) do to get there, but show didn’t give much indication as to this being anything but a good thing. With so little background on the three eyed raven and him having been a complete void since returning from beyond the wall, we are left with a whole load of speculation as to what his motives are and whether he would actually be a good ruler. He hasn’t really given us much indication that he really cares about anything now and three lives of his citizens seems like it would be insignificant on the level he operates.

[Shadoko]

I mean you’ve got the Hodor-creating guy in charge of the kingdom, so, yeah, at best you’ve got a “greater good trumps your miserable lives” logic at the helm. At best.

[LexW]

Indeed, it might be much worse.

Bran might have foreseen all this, or even intentionally put the ball into play. He’s the one who said Sam had to tell Jon that he was Aegon. He’s the one who made Sam tell Jon at a very specific juncture in time (just before the battle, so Dany couldn’t run away without condemning everyone, including her beloved Jon, to death).

How much, if any, magical foresight he has, is unclear (in the books it seems like “some” is the answer, but it’s vague and unreliable), but it was enough that he said “Well I didn’t come all the way down here for no reason lol”, so he presumably knew he would be made king. Thus did he not know Dany would lose it? Perhaps he did. Perhaps he knew what would happen to KL. Maybe he also knew he couldn’t stop it - but maybe he just let it happen…

[Shadoko]

I mean you could have basically dedicated an entire 8 seasons long show to the 3ER alone, so…

[LexW]

To be fair to Bran literally the entire concept and function of every government in history prior to about 1970 could be summed up as “greater good trumps your miserable lives”. We’re talking people who send small children to war up until the later 1800s. I think that it’s hard to argue what happened to Hodor is worse than some 12 year old catching an arrow in service to a king or lord or even democracy. It’s just much more bizarre, not really more morally repugnant.

[Skalpadda]

While I do think they maybe moved on from Dany’s death a bit suddenly, I’m also not sure how else they could have done it.

It’s easy to just say have a few more episodes and structure things differently. If Dany’s death had been the end of an episode and not immediately undercut, or if we’d just seen something happening in the weeks between that and the council gathering, it wouldn’t have been so jarring.

On Dany in general, I wish they’d spent the time selling her relationship with Jon a little more, give them a little more time to just get to know each other and act like normal people, show their closeness and being more comfortable with each other. Laughing, playing, like people in love do. It would’ve helped give more emotional stakes to practically everything involving Dany and Jon in the last season and made the “betrayal” hit that much harder. An example from the show where I think they set up romance better is Robb and Talisa (who was a show invention) back in season 2/3, and they didn’t spend a huge amount of time on that.

But at least they kinda made a step towards some form of democracy.

Did they though? All the kingdoms still function on pure feudalism and the Lords and Ladies are the only ones who get a say in who is king. The king isn’t the root problem - a strong aristocracy, feudalism and primogeniture in the realms is, although if the new system works out it’s obviously better for the smallfolk than having a great big war every generation or two.

A more meaningful shift towards democratic values would have been to give the smallfolk some representation on the small council. Create positions for a Master of Tradesmen to represent the bourgeoisie and a Master of… Fields, or something, for the peasants.

Another possibility if they wanted to show a big social shift would have been Sam trying to set up some sort of educational system. Both he and Davos could champion that idea, given the history of Shireen teaching Davos to read and write and Sam’s relationship with Gilly (who is the one to spot the information about Jon not being a bastard). Heck, that would actually have been a really cool legacy for both Shireen and Gilly and I’d have liked that a lot more than ending King’s Landing on more brothel jokes.

I think it is probably fair to say that the endings for everyone were a little too nicely wrapped up. Martin has supposedly described the ending to the series in the past as “bittersweet”; the TV series has leaned more towards the sweet than the bitter and I would have preferred it to be a little more balanced.

I dunno, plenty of bitter things. Dany is dead and her dreams and legacy completely destroyed, King’s Landing annihilated, five of the kingdoms are pretty much ruined for a couple of generations. Hundreds of thousands are dead. So many broken hearts, dead characters and extinct families.

(Greyworm and the Unsullied are all gonna die of the butterfly fever on Naath. )

They could have gotten that tone across a little better though and the second half of the last episode was weirdly cute and jokey.

[Shadoko]

To be fair to Bran literally the entire concept and function of every government in history prior to about 1970 could be summed up as “greater good trumps your miserable lives”. We’re talking people who send small children to war up until the later 1800s. I think that it’s hard to argue what happened to Hodor is worse than some 12 year old catching an arrow in service to a king or lord or even democracy. It’s just much more bizarre, not really more morally repugnant.

That’s a fair point, but I was more worried of the fact that the 3ER is, at this point, pr obably the single most powerful magical entity in the known world now that the NK and the dragons are gone and he could very well be a complete asshole as far as we know. (Well, there might more powerful stuff hiding east, but we barely know about what’s happening in the eastern part of Essos anyway).

If the 3ER doesn’t play time-travelling 4D chess on them (and we don’t know what the goals of the 3ER even are) a Dorne secession is in any way very very likely to happen in the years to come (either as a de facto independence, or as a full secession).

[LexW]

He hasn’t really given us much indication that he really cares about anything now and three lives of his citizens seems like it would be insignificant on the level he operates.

So the same as all the other kings Westeros has ever had, then, and better than most of the ones Essos has had? That’s the big problem here with “OH NOES THE 3ER!”. It’s the like the worst case scenario is the same as the normal scenario - a king willing to expend the lives of his citizens for petty and shitty reasons. And I dunno, the show obviously doesn’t detail the last 300 years of Westeros, but I just read through it in the companion book to ASoIaF, and that was megashitshow that I literally cannot think of anything 3ER/Bran could realistically do to make it worse. Even if he got people killed in the name of a some sort of “grand plan”, I think that would probably still be better than getting them killed in the name of fucking your sister, which is, frankly, the cause of most of the strife of the last 300 years of Westeros.

n example from the show where I think they set up romance better is Robb and Talisa (who was a show invention) back in season 2/3, and they didn’t spend a huge amount of time on that.

Yeah, looking back, that slightly rando-seeming romance, which basically wasn’t covered by the books at all, as I remember it (like in the books Robb turns up and is like “MUM I HAVE A GIRLFRIEND AND SHES REAL NOT INTERNET!” and Catelyn is like “Fuck’s sake Robb…”), actually was quite well done. I don’t think anyone is going to disagree with the idea that 4-6 more episodes over the last two seasons would have helped us out a lot.

Did they though? All the kingdoms still function on pure feudalism and the Lords and Ladies are the only ones who get a say in who is king. The king isn’t the root problem - a strong aristocracy, feudalism and primogeniture in the realms is, although if the new system works out it’s obviously better for the smallfolk than having a great big war every generation or two.

Potentially, yes. Electoral monarchies can go in a lot of directions, but it’s a very good basis for heading towards a parliamentary monarchy and then a parliamentary democracy. It’s a lot better than a pure monarchy for that. But really as people have said most of it depends on how well Bran stabilizes it before he dies.

Another possibility if they wanted to show a big social shift would have been Sam trying to set up some sort of educational system. Both he and Davos could champion that idea, given the history of Shireen teaching Davos to read and write and Sam’s relationship with Gilly (who is the one to spot the information about Jon not being a bastard). Heck, that would actually have been a really cool legacy for both Shireen and Gilly and I’d have liked that a lot more than ending King’s Landing on more brothel jokes.

Book-readers have been guessing that this will happen in the books for the last, what, 14 years? Something like that. So yeah I expect in the books we will see this. Whether GRRM told D&D in his “broad strokes” outline of what was to happen is another question. GRRM’s “broad strokes” can be extremely detailed, but they don’t have everything.

If the 3ER doesn’t play time-travelling 4D chess on them (and we don’t know what the goals of the 3ER even are) a Dorne secession is in any way very very likely to happen in the years to come (either as a de facto independence, or as a full secession).

Oh definitely. Though I dunno if that’d actually be a bad thing per se. Reading the history of the Seven Kingdoms it’s totally unclear what Dorne contributes to the Seven Kingdoms except intrigue and poison. Having them part of the Seven Kingdoms stops them pissing off the lords of the Reach etc. but meh… it’s a lot of sand and asshole - it’s not Middle East bad but er… it ain’t great (they are more socially progressive than the rest of realm in terms of the rights of women (the Seven Kingdoms as a whole don’t seem to particularly object to homosexuality most of the time I note - it’s the source of gossip and “Well they won’t have any children, what a failure!”-type sneering, rather than criminal or religious trials or the like, for the most part, something quietly reflected in the books - the faith can get upset about it but it doesn’t seem to in the civil/criminal laws, as I recall).

(Greyworm and the Unsullied are all gonna die of the butterfly fever on Naath. )

Well, unless Grey Worm is genetically Naathi. Presumably Missandei was (damn typed “is”, RIP!), and was not in fact, a complete idiot (quite the opposite, a brainbox), so when she was suggesting that they go there, she presumably was aware of said butterflies and not thinking “lol u will b dead in day grey loser!!!111!!”. Though er yes unless the entire crew of Unsullied on Grey Worm’s ship are also Naathi, they better just be dropping him off. It is quite likely that he is Naathi, because they’re considered to make the best slaves, and he and Missandei very roughly meet the description for Naathi (except the eyes, but no-one in the show as the exotic eye colours from the books), and she definitely is from there.

I gotta wonder how much the Unsullied and Dothraki are getting paid. Like, it’s gotta be a fucking lot, to just leave like that. Though I suspect a lot of Unsullied have probably been hired by various Westerosi locals, if their leader is heading into retirement (there isn’t any tyranny on Naath to deal with).

EDIT - SPIN OFF UPDATE

A) There will definitely NOT be an Arya spin-off. This is confirmed. By implication of what was said any kind of spin-off involving the current characters in the near-term is also ruled out.

B) The weird-ass Age of Heroes one is shooting, as think has been mentioned, and two others of the original total five are still “in development”. Fingers crossed for the Brian “LA Confidential” Helgeland one I say!

[Skalpadda]

worst case scenario

Worst case scenario the 3ER is another instrument of vengeance for the Children and wipes out all of humanity. First get rid of the White Walkers (who turned on the Children), destroy the most powerful potential resistance (Dany and the Dragons) and then seize power and use it to screw over the rest of mankind.

I don’t think that’s what anyone is going for, but if we’re imagining possibilities…

Electoral monarchies can go in a lot of directions

So can hereditary monarchies, though. We still have quite a few in Europe. The show doesn’t leave us with much more than Sansa = Nice lady (*), Bran = Probably nice eternal omnicient hivemind, so things are probably going to be okay. It’s entirely possible they will be, but I think some form of representation and sign of a social shift could be far more significant. if a hopeful ending is what they were going for.

• When she doesn’t feed people alive to dogs or refuses to try to save her little brother, or gets heaps of northmen killed by not telling anyone there’s another army coming to help… but other than that.

Grey Worm

Yeah, I don’t think the butterfly fever is a thing in the show. Grey Worm suggested to Missandei that they should go to Naath to protect the pacifist Naathi, so he was bringing everyone. Also pretty sure Grey Worm is from the Summer Isles.

[LexW]

Re: worst case - I mean, not really possible because if he had just NOT stopped the NK (they were listening to his plan, he could have done a worse one, like had them retreat to White Harbour or something), then humanity would be down Westeros and Essos might be going to follow. So he isn’t an instrument of vengeance. He may of course still be up to no good.

So can hereditary monarchies, though.

Not really though? They didn’t didn’t start going that way until more developed systems had got a move on. Mostly got there in the end I guess. What Bran really needs to do is a sort of “Magna Carta” deal, because once stuff like that is in place, then things can move. He’s the first king in hundreds of years who it would make sense to do a Magna Carta, too, because he knows he isn’t going to decide to just engage in a bunch of murder and rape because he feels like it (unlike the Targ kings), and the lords are sufficiently powerless that they might even see it as a good thing to have everyone equal under the law.

Re: Sansa, what do you think the legit punishment for many acts of rape, torture, murder, more rape and torture, probably some light baby-killing, maybe some cannibalism, being a traitor, breaking guest-right and so on is? Because going off the history of the Seven Kingdoms, a “just” punishment under their systems would be being tortured to death over several weeks (or really as long as they could keep you alive). This isn’t “nice clean decapitation” stuff - that shit’s for people who did one big thing wrong. People like him get tortured to death at great length. When he got eaten by his dogs you can bet some Northmen were going “But she let him off easy!”.

[Skalpadda]

Re: worst case - I mean, not really possible because if he had just NOT stopped the NK (they were listening to his plan, he could have done a worse one, like had them retreat to White Harbour or something), then humanity would be down Westeros and Essos might be going to follow. So he isn’t an instrument of vengeance. He may of course still be up to no good.

The WWs seem to have turned on the Children as well, so they’d have to go. It’s unclear if any Children are even in existence in the show, but if they are they couldn’t take back over as long as the WWs still exist.

Not really though? They didn’t didn’t start going that way until more developed systems had got a move on. Mostly got there in the end I guess. What Bran really needs to do is a sort of “Magna Carta” deal, because once stuff like that is in place, then things can move.

Can you give some example of a red line between how a monarch was appointed and how democratic institutions developed? The only elective monarchy of the kind they instituted in Westeros I can think of off the top of my head is Poland, which hardly seems like beacon for the empowerment of the lower classes. In Scandinavia there are quite a few examples of monarchs empowering the third estate in order to weaken the aristocracy. Contrary to how it seems to work in Westeros though, we never completely got rid of representation for the burgher and farmer classes and never went down the road of proper feudalism.

If anything a monarch elected by a small group of nobles would seem inherently less likely to take power away from them, but there is no shortage of rulers who have immediately turned on the people who put them there, so I’m not sure it matters.

Re: Sansa, what do you think the legit punishment

Not saying it wasn’t legit, but it definitely wasn’t nice. When fighting monsters and all that.

[LexW]

Can you give some example of a red line between how a monarch was appointed and how democratic institutions developed?

I’m not quite sure what a red line means in this context. In Britain I think it’d be a “straight line” if I’m interpreting the colloquialism here correctly, but I might not be.

I think the main thing that leads from monarchy to some sort of democracy without a brutal revolution in-between is a system which gives legal power to the lords. An elected monarchy is not the only way to do that, and I actually think a formal parliament-type structure is more likely to lead there than an electoral council (which have been used in the Holy Roman Empire and Venice, among others).

Democracy would only come in stages though. My point re: Europe is that all the places I can think of which got democracy which just snapped from hereditary monarchy to democracy UNTIL there were already other states which had more slowly progressed there (like Britain, which started on that road with Magna Carta). Obviously I’m using the very loosest possible sense of democracy here!

If anything a monarch elected by a small group of nobles would seem inherently less likely to take power away from them, but there is no shortage of rulers who have immediately turned on the people who put them there, so I’m not sure it matters.

It’s not definite, but if Bran get it running successfully, and hopefully manage a transition of power from himself to someone else sensible, he can set a very valuable precedent, which builds on the two times this has happened before in Westerosi history (both in the last 300 years - but both were more about choosing a successor in a difficult situation - too many heirs - than establishing a tradition).

I think just running the odds it’s more likely that starting to make it so that’s a formal, repeatable, non-hereditary process for transfer of power makes it a lot easier to transition to non-monarchic forms of government, or ones where control over the transfer of power is spread over a larger number of people.

Not saying it wasn’t legit, but it definitely wasn’t nice. When fighting monsters and all that.

I guess. That usage of “nice” is more or less a straight synonym for “weak” or “spineless” though. From a long-distance perspective it’s particularly good by the way Tyrion reckons this all works (and history does rather support Tyrion on this, oddly enough - British history does anyway), because it builds a “legend” for Sansa, giving her a story where her actions are both just and fierce (as a Stark should be), and it was by her own hand (I mean, sure, technically dogs, but hardly much different from Ice being what actually decapitates people), which is correct for a Stark, and shows her seizing power from an oppressor - an heir of the most ancient enemy of the Starks (the Boltons, who killed countless Starks through history - they used to wear Starkskin cloaks for goodness’ sake!). It’s also highly memorable in a “poetic justice” sense. It’s just an all-round win.

The not telling people she was coming thing is one of those things which would get spun by later storytellers based entirely on how successful it was. Had she turned up, and lost, or had to flee, it would be “womanly stupidity” or something. As she turned up and splattered the Boltons all over the place, it’s “a wolf’s cunning” instead. I agree that had they known she was coming, Jon could probably have lost fewer men, with a different strategy, but there was a risk that information would get to the Boltons (or they’d simply work it out from the disposition of Jon’s forces). You’re right that’s it’s not nice, but it was smart. Honestly even had Jon died on that field, and his forces been wiped out, the knights of the Vale would destroyed the rest of Bolton’s forces, weary and blood-soaked as they were. RIP Wun-wun though. F.

[Skalpadda]

I’m not quite sure what a red line means in this context. In Britain I think it’d be a “straight line” if I’m interpreting the colloquialism here correctly, but I might not be.

Heh, that was both swenglish and a brainfart, sorry. Should have been “red thead”, but I don’t think that’s an expression used in English either.

I’d say the lords are the main problem. The individual realms and their system of lords and bannermen are where the feudal system is entrenched and I don’t think giving them more power solves anything. The Crown is rather weak in Westeros. It has no military force (as Joffrey aptly points out), its power outside King’s Landing seems to depend entirely on the loyalty of the lords and there doesn’t even seem to be a central system of taxation (which is probably why the Crown is perpetually in debt).

I think empowering the third estate would have to happen either by breaking the lords’ monopoly on power locally (something like a moot or thing system to deal with laws and justice, for example) or by bypassing them entirely (giving burghers and peasants representation on the small council would be a start).

And yes, for proper parliamentary democracy you need quite a few more steps, and probably a broadened and empowered middle class that can properly compete with the aristocracy (and then we get into colonialism and industrialisation in Europe, which is a great big mess).

It’s entirely possible that Bran might work towards something like that. We have no idea though, and the only one showing any interest in empowering the smallfolk is Sam (who is promptly laughed down).

As for Sansa, that reads mostly like apologisms to me. I think we just have very different outlooks.

Both show and books mix ancient and modern morality on these things, but gruesome punishments in Westeros do seem to be frowned upon. Breaking wheels or drawing and quartering people aren’t normal punishments, stuff like torture or the Boltons flaying people is seen as cruel, etc. I’m also not sure how having someone eaten alive by dogs is any more “just and fierce” than just lopping their head off or slitting their throat.

At the core of it I think Sansa suffers from a bit of the same dissonance as Arya, with the character bouncing back and forth between personalities as the plot requires rather than moving in a more steady arc.

And, to be fair to Sansa the losses at the BotB were as much Jon’s fault. They had a pretty good strategy going until he berserked and dragged everyone along with him.

[LexW]

Hmmm. In the books torture is routine, quartering and gibbets are regularly used and only wacky stuff like making people fight bears seems to actually be frowned upon.

Re: just and fierce, to be clear I’m talking perception, not reality. In a cold, rational estimation, Ramsey’s crimes are so vast and numerous, from the most basic to the most despised and extreme (treason, breaking guest-right, countless rapes and murders outside war or lordly judicial behaviour), and done to so many people, that nothing could be done to acquit that. He’d be imprisoned for life with no parole or executed in the 21st century, or best case put in permanent solitary in a mental asylum.

So yes in a true sense executing him with a sword or rope is as just.

The issue is though, that people would not see it as justice, because it’s not enough. Too many families have been hurt. The land and culture of the North has been hurt by breaking guest-right. His crimes are worse than those of people who get put in the gibbet or quartered or have their entire house destroyed, even.

So what Sansa does is fulfill poetic justice. Give the people a story. She can’t have Ramsey meet the fate he deserves, that’s just not possible, so he gets one which is ironic and memorable. Literally no one in Westeros would consider it excessive, even though it borders on the weird like fighting a bear, because they’re Ramsey’s dogs.

By modern ethical standards is it right? Not really, but execution is inherently unethical in almost all cases. In the modern era Ramsey would go for an insanity plea and maybe that’d be right (I don’t personally think so).

As for chopping off his head, that’s a problem because theoretically she’d have to do it herself, and she’s not physically strong enough nor trained enough to not mess it up. Plus that puts him as no worse than a simple oathbreaker or coward. Ned never faced a challenge like this.

Also let’s be real, Sansa did this because she knew Ramsey to be a rapist, torturer and murdererer by direct, recent personal experience. The rest is all spin on my part as it were! It turned out to be a great move, but she’d have done it even if it wasn’t. You say people change as the plot needs them and in S6 to 8 that has often been somewhat true. However this was not that time. He literally raped her and mentally and physically tortured her months before. He killed her harmless little brother who she loved. And she saw what he did to Theon. Anyone who went through that would have killed him if they could. That’s not acting as the plot demands it, imo. I’d say becoming Ned 2.0 and very formally executing him would have been far more out of character.

Nevertheless I appreciate your perspective and the thought in your argument.

Also re democracy I’d forgotten about that interesting Nordic tradition of Things and moots, that’s a good point. The Iron Islands had similar traditions prior to the faith of the Seven, indeed as we saw when they brought it back.

Edit: another justice issue is treatment of lords vs commoners. There is certainly an informal divide at least. Common bandits get the gibbet and worse regularly, but for lords it is rarer. Ramsey was a bastard and even if recognised (not sure he was, I forget) was so bad most would agree he was a commoner for the sake of justice. Again not apologia for Sansa (only my “anyone would have killed him” is apologia as I understand it), because her motives were vengeful, but it makes it more palatable for lords.

[BillButNotBen]

It’s been fun reading all the responses, opinions, emotions on the net regarding the end of the show.
I’d avoided all the theories up til this point, but now it’s kinda fun to read all the ones people are coming up with.
Eg: At the “choose a king” scene, technically maybe Tyrion was king (succeeding Cersi). Or technically maybe Gendry was (apparently in line as both a Barathenon and a Tangerine)

*I can’t spell any of these names and the spell checker isn’t helping out.

Effectively it just shows how meaningless the whole ‘who is the true king’ stuff is.

I think you’re probably reading too much into Bran… he seems to be presented as basically a Yoda/Obi-wan style wise good sage and as such is probably a very good choice for ruler.
Other than the Hodor thing, they’ve mainly presented him as a force of good.
The move to an elected monarchy seems like a big step forward in the context of that world.

Sansa, on the other hand… I loved the imagery and the vibe of the ending and the ‘Queen in the North!’ thing, but it was the one thing that didn’t really make much sense to me, and I wonder why they bothered highlighting it. Particularly as Nexit from the 7 Kingdoms almost instantly invalidates Bran’s appointment to king.
But ignoring all that, I’m much less confident about her being a benevolent king. Her whole character arc was kind of about becoming the kind of politician/leader that has been fucking up the 7 kingdoms for generations.

PS/ Watching reaction videos again, it was really funny to note how many people ended episode 4 (after Rhaegal and Missandei died) with comments along the lines of “burn them all!” and then those same people were either shocked or pissed off when Dany did exactly that in the next episode.

[Skalpadda]

Just to rewind a little on the Sansa thing, because I feel like we both went down a weird rabbithole, the reason I said Nice Sansa, Nice Bran and listed some exceptions is because we the viewers are (I assume) expected to think these are good characters after spending so much time with them and seeing them as victims and heroes.

Them being in charge implies a hopeful ending simply because they’re main characters we like. I read it as a fairly ambiguous ending when we don’t even really know who or what Bran is, and Sansa has been a tad inconsistent and still represents feudalism (although the Stark version seems a little more considerate of the smallfolk by Westerosi standards).

In a cold, rational estimation, Ramsey’s crimes are so vast and numerous, from the most basic to the most despised and extreme (treason, breaking guest-right, countless rapes and murders outside war or lordly judicial behaviour)

I agree, but to nitpick some more, did Ramsay break guest right? I don’t recall that happening, but maybe I’m forgetting something in his endless list of murdering. He’s a ghastly sack of excrement in every way regardless and we can add multiple counts of kinslaying to that list. Also not entirely sure if he’s technically comitted treason - the Boltons did act in the interest of the king of Westeros for the most part and it was Roose and Walder Frey who betrayed Robb. From the Starks’ perspective for sure yes, and that’s what counts now that they’re back in power. I suppose killing his dad (his lord) would count as treason.

As for chopping off his head, that’s a problem because theoretically she’d have to do it herself, and she’s not physically strong enough nor trained enough to not mess it up. Plus that puts him as no worse than a simple oathbreaker or coward. Ned never faced a challenge like this.

The swing the sword bit of “the man who passes the sentence should swing the sword” could be generously interpreted as any kind of killing (Jon hangs his own murderers at the Wall). There also didn’t seem to be a problem with sentencing Littlefinger and not killing him herself.

Ramsey was a bastard and even if recognised (not sure he was, I forget) was so bad most would agree he was a commoner for the sake of justice.

I don’t think he was formally recognised, or Walda’s son wouldn’t have been (as much of) a threat to him. I think Roose just dangled the prospect of being recognised to get him to behave but I don’t remember the details either.

Particularly as Nexit from the 7 Kingdoms almost instantly invalidates Bran’s appointment to king.

Not necessarily. Importing noblemen from other countries and installing them as rulers was a pretty common practice in Europe. Our current royal family line comes from France, for example. We didn’t have a clear line of succession and there was worry the Danes might get involved, so we invited one of Napoleon’s more succesful marshals (Jean Baptiste Bernadotte) and had the king adopt him and parliament appoint him as crown prince.

Or technically maybe Gendry was (apparently in line as both a Barathenon and a Tangerine)

I’d have liked to have seen the scene where he just rocks up to Storm’s End and says “Hello, I’m Robert’s bastard, legitimised by Queen Daenerys, the lady who nuked all of King’s Landing, but she’s dead now. So, uh, I’m your new lord!”

[Shadoko]

I’d say the lords are the main problem. The individual realms and their system of lords and bannermen are where the feudal system is entrenched and I don’t think giving them more power solves anything. The Crown is rather weak in Westeros. It has no military force (as Joffrey aptly points out), its power outside King’s Landing seems to depend entirely on the loyalty of the lords and there doesn’t even seem to be a central system of taxation (which is probably why the Crown is perpetually in debt).

It’s interesting to notice that visually speaking, Westeros seems to be, in terms of tech level, on a par with early 1400s Europe, yet the government structure is miles away from, say, 1400s century France (where the crown had a working taxation system, a system of proto-state servants, and a standing professional army, and in general did have the capacity to tell the nobles to go fuck themselves, at least if they weren’t too powerful like the dukes of Burgundy).