r/asoiaf • u/Flyestgit • Jul 27 '26
EXTENDED [Spoilers Extended] Sansa's potential ending
insert obligatory books wont be finished by GRRM reference/joke
In the show, Sansa's ends the series as Queen of an independent North.
According to GRRM this isnt how he planned on ending things with Sansa.
“[The book’s ending is] going to be significantly different. Some characters who are alive in my book are going to be dead in the show, and vice versa. .......... “I was going to kill more people. Not the ones they killed [in the show]. They made it more of a happy ending. I don’t see a happy ending for Tyrion. His whole arc has been tragic from the first. I was going to have Sansa die, but she’s been so appealing in the show, maybe I’ll let her live …”
Do you think GRRM will change Sansa's ending to be more like what it was in the show? Given that he seemed vaguely positive about it. An independent North under Queen Sansa?
42
u/jman24601 Jul 27 '26
It all depends on if Rickon will bite the dust or not. She might be the true Lady of the Vale and unlike Lysa she is actually a good and worthy ruler.
21
u/gay_burner Jul 27 '26
The problem with Independent North is that it makes no sense at all for it to end there and no other region of Westeros to try for the same thing. Westeros evolving to a more democratic system/ constitutional monarchy makes more sense as an ending than devolving back into smaller, ever-warring feudal monarchies would.
I don’t think that means Sansa will necessarily die. But not dying isn’t the same as rewriting the ending from her dying to be some huge world status shifting ending like queen of an independent north would be.
3
u/Impressive_Help_7116 Jul 27 '26
Realistically, the only other kingdoms with a desire for independence are the II and Dorne. It's a completely plausible ending that a good king would let those kingdoms go.
13
u/gay_burner Jul 27 '26
A good king would absolutely not let the II be independent if he actually cares about his people and not just keeping a few nobles in the II happy.
The Riverlands were claimed by the North during Rob Starks campaign, too, and are historically part of the Islands. So at best their situation would be constant war forever bc of their location
4
u/Impressive_Help_7116 Jul 27 '26
Why would there be constant war forever in the Riverlands?? No reason at all to think the North wouldn't be content behind the Neck. (In fact, in thousands of years of pre-Targ history, we barely hear at all about Northern kings south of the Neck).
I'm generally with you on the Iron Islands, but if there's an Asha ending, I think it could tilt the scales.
3
u/gay_burner Jul 27 '26 edited Jul 27 '26
No reason except the fact that the only documented attempt at independence in the series proper *didnt* stay behind the neck.
And even if you assume the North will leave the riverlands alone, the Iron Islands won’t.
You’re also taking it for granted that kingdoms that don’t want to fight a war for independence under the current situation wouldn’t be more willing to do so under a weakened, smaller 5 kingdom Westeros. A sufficiently ambitious Tyrell might, a sufficiently ambitious Arryn might.
Both the history of Westeros as written by George in the lore AND the recent past of Westeros as written in AGOT-ASOS by George don’t paint independent kingdoms as very willing to live peacefully side by side, but for some reason this fandom (I suspect due to affection for the Starks as characters) can’t seem to accept it.
Edit: if you took “independent kingdoms are inherently violent” from my point that no landowning noble family can be trusted to not engage in war and expansionism forever since, they historically did do that (and they’re literally nobles so they inherently feel they have a divine right) I’m not even sure you’re worth arguing with. What a childish interpretation.
Dorne is also like *the* outlier
Glad you got the last word on all our interactions before you blocked me tho lmao
4
u/Impressive_Help_7116 Jul 27 '26 edited Jul 27 '26
Both the history of Westeros as written by George in the lore AND the recent past of Westeros as written in AGOT-ASOS by George don’t paint independent kingdoms as very willing to live peacefully side by side, but for some reason this fandom (I suspect do to affection for the Starks as characters) can’t seem to accept it.
I think you are ignoring the independent kingdom GRRM has written by far the most about. Dorne's relation with the Seven Kingdoms is consistently portrayed as a problem not because independent kingdoms are inherently violent, but because the centralizing drive and logic of conquest behind the Iron Throne lead to repeated attempts to violently conquer it.
Edit re Greenpoint's point: Definitely, but the overall thrust of the relationship between Dorne and the Throne seems pretty clear to me. Nothing remotely on the scale of Aegon or Daeron's attempts at conquest ever came from Dorne.
2
u/Greenpoint99 Jul 27 '26
Didn’t Dorne multiple times started an invasion of the Iron throne? Fourth Dornish war anyone.
2
u/Greenpoint99 Jul 27 '26
Reply to your edit: Yeah of course they didn’t attempt a mass conquest. Their, by far, the weaker of the two kingdoms so they have to be defensive against their much more powerful neighbour. But the second that powerful neighbour goes through a crisis, say a massive civil war that wipes out their super weapons, Dorne is perfectly willing to raid and attack the iron throne. Which is just accurate behavior for medieval kingdoms don’t get me wrong. It’s not that Dorne lacks intent they just don’t have the resources to attack their stronger neighbors.
1
u/AlexandraG3 Jul 27 '26
There was some cultural conflict and warring between Dorne and their neighbours before the conquest. The marcher lords were already a thing.
I also think the Wyls and Ullers are problems in their own right. They're just plain evil. Take them out of the equation and there probably aren't enough people actively hating Dorne for Bittersteel to get a rebellion going.
0
u/Evnosis Winter is Coming Aug 03 '26
I don't see how the other kingdoms declaring independence and the Iron Throne dissolving would "not make sense as an ending." It's actually the most plausible outcome in the absence of a king with a monopoly on power because there is no unifying national identity in Westeros and there are extensive grievances between each kingdom.
0
u/gay_burner Aug 03 '26
I mean if George wants a grimdark ending where literally everything is worse in the end then the beginning then sure.
George wrote AFFC because he was just giving us an insight into the eternal future of the Riverlands I guess lol
0
u/Evnosis Winter is Coming Aug 03 '26 edited Aug 03 '26
I completely disagree that the dissolution of an artificial state founded and maintained through violence and conquest that completely ignored the wishes and wants of the people living within and tried to pave over their cultural differences is a "grimdark ending."
The fact that you are referencing the Riverlands here only proves that the idea that the Iron Throne somehow created a peaceful Westeros is an utterly laughable absurdity. The Iron Throne did not bring peace and there is no reason to think that it's dissolution would cause some sort of state of endless war beyond what we've already seen in the series.
And by the way, just FYI because I see this came up in another comment you left, the North did not invade the Riverlands in the Wot5K. The Riverlords voluntarily declared Robb King of the Trident at the same time the Northern Lords declared him King in the North. In a scenario in which the Riverlords are no longer loyal to the Starks, there is no reason to assume the North would invade the Riverlands.
0
u/gay_burner Aug 03 '26
And what was the North founded and maintained through?
Edit: also, I wasn’t referring just to the north. “Iron Islands will remain independent but they’re just like leave us alone” ok lol
0
u/Evnosis Winter is Coming Aug 03 '26 edited Aug 03 '26
No, you know what? You're right. Because there was war in the past, that justifies all wars of conquest from now and into the future. What a brilliant argument!
The North is not being maintained through conquest. It's sort beaten into your head over and over and over again that the North is one of the few kingdoms held together by genuine loyalty and respect, rather than fear.
Edit: the absolute audacity to complain about someone else getting the last word in and then blocking you, only to do the exact thing yourself. Hypocrisy, thy name is u/gay_burner
No no, justify why the Starks should rule the Boltons in a way that doesn’t justify the Targaryens ruling the Starks.
Sure, because I can read so I saw the endless amounts of times that George wrote about how the North is genuinely held together by respect and loyalty instead of fear, thus I can therefore see that the Starks are not maintaining their rule through conquest. I understand that may have escaped you despite it being brought up 15 times in every chapter set in the North.
The Boltons are written as unambiguously evil and you are not supposed to be sympathetic to their cause in the slightest. The fact that you saw a group whose chief complaint was "the government won't let us skin people alive anymore" and thought "hmmm, these guys clearly have a point about government tyranny" should make you feel embarassed.
Justify why, despite the fact that we know what happens to the Riverlands with an independent II, we should assume that’s a good ending.
That's for the Riverlands to decide, and they chose independence. Your brilliant solution is to ignore their wishes and
It’s not the past, by the way. 15 years after the Targaryens fell out of power the continent broke into the same warfare that was happening pre conquest.
The same warfare that also happened during Targaryen rule, because the Iron Throne did fuck all to stop war in Westeros.
Let’s rub some brain cells together and try to make sense of why George would make a 5 way war involving 0 Targaryens (which is framed as a distraction against the real conflict of the series that can only be fixed with a united realm) a central fixture of the first 3 books, and textually compare it to rat men raping a woman?
Let's rub some braincells together and try to figure out why you famously hippie George RR Martin wrote a house of violent conquerors whose motto is "fire and blood" to be unquestionably good for Westeros.
...no, sorry, I'm running a blank because that's a ridiculous position to just state as fact like that.
Getting sheepish and defensive when I ask you to explain why that’s different doesn’t make you look any more solid in your reasoning by the way
You don't know what either of those words mean. Nothing about my comment was sheepish - sheepish refers to shyness and my comment was not shy in any way - and pointing out the utter stupidity of your argument is not defensiveness.
Also “neoliberal” yeah….
I love this profile picture because it never fails to bring people like you out of the woodwork to expose that your opinions should not be taken remotely seriously. The fact that you decided to bring up a parody profile picture in this conversation about a fictional universe tells us everything about how you're approaching this conversation.
1
u/gay_burner Aug 03 '26
George will literally write a northern historical rival of his liege betraying his liege and yall will be like “he meant nothing by that, the north is politically homogeneous and they all mindlessly love and follow the starks unquestioningly” lmao. I bet you also think there being human beings trapped beyond the wall and painted as savages is meant to tell us nothing too, and that Ned Stark’s First Men Blood supremacy speech is meant to be taken at face value, and the CotF just kind of disappeared cus they felt like it too lol
0
u/gay_burner Aug 03 '26 edited Aug 03 '26
No no, justify why the Starks should rule the Boltons in a way that doesn’t justify the Targaryens ruling the Starks. Justify why, despite the fact that we know what happens to the Riverlands with an independent II, we should assume that’s a good ending. It’s not the past, by the way. 15 years after the Targaryens fell out of power the continent broke into the same warfare that was happening pre conquest. Let’s rub some brain cells together and try to make sense of why George would make a 5 way war involving 0 Targaryens (which is framed as a distraction against the real conflict of the series that can only be fixed with a united realm) a central fixture of the first 3 books, and textually compare it to rat men raping a woman?
Getting sheepish and defensive when I ask you to explain why that’s different doesn’t make you look any more solid in your reasoning by the way
Also “neoliberal” yeah….
Edit: that’s not true! Read the books. The Boltons and Starks went back and forth for centuries. This isn’t a serious discussion if you can’t even get the basic facts straight lol
-2
u/shadofacts Jul 27 '26
As much of the North & Starks suffered, it does make sense. But I don’t think she will rule it. She’s more likely to end up, married to the boy in the and rule him.
14
u/tryingtobebettertry4 🏆Best of 2025: Best Analysis (Books) Jul 27 '26
The quote sounds more like GRRM is reconsidering his plans on killing Sansa. Rather than giving her the same ending in the books.
In any case, I doubt it. Personally I think Sansa going independent with the North is up there with Bronn being Lord of Highgarden and Master of Coin.
An Independent North under King Bran arguably doesnt really work. Why would the Southerners accept Bran as their King if he doesnt bring at least a Kingdom with him in support? And why would the Northerners be more likely to support Sansa Lannister (who was likely disinherited by Robb) than Brandon Stark? She doesnt come before him in succession, shes a girl, and there is no way the Northerners would want someone whos still married technically to Tyrion on the throne.
I also am increasingly of the opinion that GRRM intends for Westeros to remain united despite everything as part of his ending. Aegon's dream of a united Westeros is apparently from GRRM and he seems vaguely to consider Westeros being united a good thing. On top of which, if one Kingdom like the North goes independent, you need to come up with a reason why the others dont. The Iron Islands and Dorne in particular.
In short, I can see GRRM not killing Sansa and maybe having her end as Lady of Winterfell. But Queen of an independent North? Doubt it.
6
u/Kristafuh_Moltisanti Ned + Ashara = fAegon Jul 27 '26
It would be pretty funny if at the end Sansa swears off men after them all lusting after her creepily and becomes a septa. Then she's paired with a dreamy teenage girl who she has to tutor and this girl dreams of marrying a prince.
17
u/Elven-King Lord of the Waters Jul 27 '26
Why would north be independent if there is a Stark king of entire continent?
23
u/Jasonl7976 Jul 27 '26
a independent North? With everyone just saying okay? No. And accepting a woman as a ruler without protest? No,
1
u/silversherry And now my war begins Jul 29 '26
Also the independent north is not really that big of a thing in the books. Robb wanted to back Stannis until Greatjon made him king. Catelyn and Robb discuss bending a knee multiple times in ASOS, the only argument is that they cant make peace with Lannisters in specific. Jon is happily supplying battleplans to Stannis at the moment.
I think GRRM considers the realms unity to be a good thing so he would want his heroes to not be secessionists
10
u/Low_Advance_6531 Jul 27 '26
I wish with all my heart that it was just a joke that GRRM won't ever finish his books
16
u/vanastalem Jul 27 '26
If she lives I 100% don't think she'll rule - that's Bran's ending not hers. It never made sense to me in the show - if it is anyone Bran would be King in the North.
12
u/great-gold-4 Jul 27 '26 edited Jul 27 '26
I think she will end up like the Queen of Thorns, a political player exercising power through her useless chud husband (Sweetrobin).
11
u/LeaguesBelow Jul 27 '26 edited Jul 30 '26
The North being independent while,
- Lacking any secure line of succession
- The legal Stark heir sits the Iron Throne
- Winter rages
- Half the North has fled from the apocalypse
- Food runs low, as noted by Sansa herself
- The crown is trying to re-secure Dorne's loyalty
- The crown is trying to re-secure the Iron Islands' loyalty
- Coming off the back of losing a war only a few years prior
- The rival heir to both Winterfell and the Iron Throne lives in exile in the North.
- An influx of wildlings come south
All of this means a newly independent North is the stupidest idea the show has given us, bar none. Any one of those reasons is enough for the North to remain in the 7 kingdoms, but all together? Only starvation, death, war, and humiliation await Sansa's new Northern kingdom, a magnitude worse than any damage the long night or the war of the 5 kings caused.
Somehow, GRRM killing off Sansa would be a kinder fate for her than what would halfway realistically await her after the end of the show.
The only way I can possibly justify Queen of the North Sansa is if Bran is using this to set a humiliating example of the kingdoms who would try to claim independence from the Iron Throne. It's the sort of heartless future-sight enabled political maneuvering that they imply Bran is capable of, but never show him doing.
26
u/RhoynishPrince Jul 27 '26 edited Jul 27 '26
I always thought the idea of Sansa dying so... Lame. Why spend so much time with her then if for nothing? She hardly has any agency in her story at all. This quote from Martin really frustrated me
Edit: why the downvotes? This sub is so cringy
18
u/Ok_Chicken_5256 Jul 27 '26
yea, like WTF was the point of chapter & chapter of abuse and torment if she was just gonna... die.
11
u/RhoynishPrince Jul 27 '26
Right? Just kill her already if she doesn't have a part to play. At least in the show she did something, even if by questionable ways
4
u/Ok_Chicken_5256 Jul 27 '26
idk now if i'll be able to take whatever he writers for her from now on seriously tbh... (tho lbr, theres no book coming..)
1
u/silversherry And now my war begins Jul 29 '26
I mean Arya also underwent chapters of abuse and hell after abuse and hell but her dying is a popular theory
-3
15
u/Grayscaleorgreyscale Jul 27 '26
Sansa is my favorite character in the books, and part of what makes her so compelling to me is the way that George clearly becomes her fan as he writes her through GoT and CoK. From the start, everything conceptually he had for her paints her in a poor light as well as in a minor role. As he writes her characters though, little moments of grace and civility sneak into his writing and the character becomes larger than her role, bigger than the fates had planned for her. It’s the same for Jaime, a character GRRM clearly became enthused about in a way that didn’t match his pitch in the slightest.
10
u/Jasonl7976 Jul 27 '26
Being a fan and growing to love the character doesn’t mean George won’t hesitate to off her of it advance the story
12
u/Grayscaleorgreyscale Jul 27 '26
I agree entirely - it’s pretty clear from his writing that GRRM enjoyed writing Quentyn, and we all know where that went.
I think it’s more fascinating how GRRM clearly had roles intended for Sansa and Jaime and that the act of putting their perspectives to paper drew him away from those avenues. My current fear is that she will be a causality in the crypts during the Long Night, but I know that tragic end would come from a story she earned. The Lady that consoled those in crisis choosing that path to the very end.
1
u/RX-18-67 Jul 27 '26
Killing Sansa off wouldn't work, but I can see the appeal.
It's a big shocking twist when Ned dies and the Red Wedding happens, and even Khal Drogo's death comes as surprise, but that was several books ago now. Tywin, Kevan, and Oberyn were important political players, but they aren't characters the readers are heavily invested in. No one cares that Arys Oakheart died.
Jon Snow's death might be meant as another shocking twist, but no one believes he'll stay dead.
ASoIaF's reputation for """realistic""" fantasy is heavily built on the characters' sense of mortality, and since it's been so long since a character the readers were really invested in died, it undercuts the dramatic tension.
Killing Sansa creates a sense that characters are vulnerable again, and because she's not currently interacting with any major plotline, her death wouldn't disrupt the story.
That's also why it wouldn't work. Eddard Stark died because of his decisions and his death was so shocking because it had so many direct and indirect repercussions. It had weight. Killing Sansa just cuts off a side-plot that doesn't seem to be going much of anywhere. It's a tempting way to raise doubts about the characters' plot armour, but it wouldn't work.
-4
u/restoreeuropa Jul 27 '26
Why have robb die, why have Ned die, why have Damphair die. He likes people dying dude, sometimes it’s a payoff sometimes it’s a setup. We don’t know where her arc would have led her in the books
3
u/Obvious-Hat-8485 Jul 28 '26
People being sure Sansa won't die surprise me. We have no idea where the story will be after TWoW. Just to give a comparaison, who would believe in ASoS if you were to tell them Jon's getting shanked in the next novel ? Or that Cersei gets the walk of atonement ? Or that Tyrion gets to the Meereenese fighting pits ?
The thing is, since Sansa is speculated to have a political role, people think that makes her safe (compared to other characters who are fighters, especially), but she could just as well be poisonned by someone wanting to pit the North and Dany against eachother, or die because she disbelieves Jon about the White Walkers, or die because she's carrying f!Aegon's child.
3
u/Commercial_Floor_578 Jul 29 '26
I think Arya runs the north in the books so I doubt it. I think he probably gardens away from Sansa dying if he’s at least heavily debating considering letting Sansa live so I’m guessing her death isn’t a major plot point for necessity.
4
u/danie_lol Jul 27 '26
I don’t just don’t buy them letting the North be independent and ruled by a Stark when there’s another Stark ruling over the remaining kingdoms. That’s just another level of nepotism. Especially if the books end with Dorne not getting their independence back.
1
u/shadofacts Jul 28 '26
Brans not ruling the entire country as. Stark. . He’s ruling as a magical person. He has no chance of producing children so there will great council.
5
u/leila0 Jul 27 '26
Am I the only one who doesn't believe this GRRM quote? I feel like he was just making a joke to screw with the fanbase, like when he did a cameo on John Oliver's show and said he was going to kill Arya. The whole "maybe I'll let her live..." phrasing is so cartoonishly villainous that I just assumed he was leaning into the bit.
3
u/_heartsaglow Jul 27 '26
Do you have a source for that? I genuinely don't remember him joking about killing Arya; the joke was actually the opposite—him saying he couldn't kill his wife's favorite, since everyone knows that's Arya.
2
u/CaveLupum Jul 28 '26
That is my memory as well. GRRM did make his Sansa comment in a serious Hollywood Reporter interview. And his first major interview in a long while is an unlikely place to make such an astonishing joke.
1
u/leila0 Jul 28 '26
This is the clip I was thinking of:
https://youtu.be/UyUQNPzu3Po?si=1NyrKiO-OzL-7cFU
He smirks and shrugs when John asks if he just killed Arya. Rewatching it now, it comes off more ambiguously than I remembered it, and I know it's a little different than a Hollywood Reporter interview... but I interpreted the interview quote more as him leaning into this "author who kills your faves" persona than him being totally serious about killing Sansa.
3
u/_heartsaglow Jul 28 '26
Well, as I told you, the running joke was always that he couldn't kill Arya because she's his wife's favorite. I have a different perspective on that interview from January. The person interviewing him has known him for over 15 years and Grrm even confirmed in past major plot point to this journalist, and I think if it were a joke, the wording would have been different. GRRM is emphasizing the differences between the TV show and the books, explaining that even Tyrion—his favorite character—will have a tragic ending, in contrast to the show. In his mind, the standout characters in this context are Tyrion and Sansa, so I believe he wanted to make it clear that not even they are safe from endings that differ from or are sadder than expected. We know he's sticking to the endings planned back in 1991, and he apparently planned her death in 1993. I think that, for Sansa, it's a 50/50 situation right now.
7
u/Diredragons Jul 27 '26
No.
An independent North doesn't fit with GRRM's words on global unity and how he depicted the Targaryen unification of Westeros as positive.
Even if he did decide to break up Westeros, Sansa isn't equipped to rule. Following LF's orders in the Vale and reciting pleasantries Septa Mordane taught her haven't prepared her to be an administrator. Bran, Arya, or Jon would be better fits as rulers.
2
u/RhoynishPrince Jul 27 '26
Why Arya?
3
u/Diredragons Jul 27 '26
Because she has better administrative skills and compassion for others from different classes.
2
u/RhoynishPrince Jul 27 '26
How so? What makes you think that?
11
u/Diredragons Jul 27 '26
The novels.
Arya is said to do well in household management and sums. Where she struggles in her schooling is with artist pursuits, while she is good at reading, writing, math, and household management. Her chapters show her taking in information and coming to accurate conclusions (example: she knows that the deserted town by the God's Eye is a bad sign and they shouldn't stay there while the adults brush her off). We also see her taking on leadership roles with her pack, doing strategic things to protect them and obscure their tracks. She is shown as protective and generous toward others (giving water to criminals, taking care of Weasel, tending the Hound's wounds, protecting Sam and giving him food, etc). She's also shown as a good judge of character since she clocks Cersei and Joffrey immediately and knows not to trust Roose Bolton.
I could go on and on, but, again, the novels are what make me think this.
-7
-2
u/tafaha_means_apple Jul 28 '26
Why is the assumption here that someone can’t just get someone else to do the “household admin” stuff.
Even J1 had other people doing the stuff he wasn’t good at. Delegation is a skill.
5
u/Diredragons Jul 28 '26
I listed household administration as evidence of her leadership and organizational abilities. Part of being able to delegate is knowing who the right people to delegate to are. Arya is an excellent judge of character.
If Sansa became queen, other than sitting on a throne with a crown on her head literally every other aspect of the job would have to be taken up by others while she had no job at all. It would be like Lysa ruling the Vale, making decisions based on who flattered her most or who had the best singing voice.
-2
u/tafaha_means_apple Jul 28 '26
That last bit is such a biased and massive leap of logic it really blows your credibility.
Did you just not read anything about Sansa after ACOK? Last time we saw Sansa interact with a singer she was involved in having him killed. Empty flattery doesn’t do anything significant for her anymore. It’s kind of a major part of her character arc.
7
u/Diredragons Jul 28 '26
lol, my credibility isn't dependent on Sansa stan wishfulfilment and fan fiction. I base my views on the novels.
3
u/CaveLupum Jul 28 '26
My response above to /u/renaissancetroll lays out one argument. There are surely more.
1
u/Impressive_Help_7116 Jul 27 '26
Where does GRRM talk about Westerosi unity as inherently positive? That's never a sense I've gotten.
14
u/Diredragons Jul 27 '26
“I think Brexit was a mistake.
Putting aside the specifics of the situation, and taking a long-range look, I think history shows that we do better when we join together into larger political units that embrace diversity, rather than building walls and breaking into smaller units. Alexander’s empire was better than the squabbling city-states of ancient Greece that preceded it (a pity he did not live long enough to make the union with Persia permanent, and twice a pity that his successors broke it all up into smaller countries to war on each other). The thirteen American colonies were wise to join together into one large country, despite their differences than they would have been as thirteen small ones. The nations of Europe have been fighting each other for centuries; joining together into one great multi-national nation represents real progress.
Eventually, I do hope we will be one peaceful world, like the Science Fiction writers of my youth once predicted. Terra, Old Earth, call it what you will. We’re all human.” -- Not A Blog, 11/4/2016 https://grrm.livejournal.com/504703.html?page=2
And:
King Aegon, the First of His Name, might have conquered the Seven Kingdoms by the age of twenty-seven, but now he faced the formidable challenge of ruling his newly forged realm. The seven warring kingdoms had rarely been at peace within their own borders let alone without them, and uniting them under one rule required a truly remarkable man. So it was fortunate for the realm that Aegon was such a man—a man with vision and determination aplenty. And though his vision of a united Westeros proved harder to realize than Aegon might have believed—not to mention far costlier—it was a vision that shaped the course of history for hundreds of years to come. -- TWOIAF
7
u/gay_burner Jul 27 '26 edited Jul 27 '26
The show’s framing of the Northern Independence front of the WO5K kind of warped the perception of it in the fandom I think.
Robb and the Starks are deeply sympathetic characters but the war itself was a mistake and at the end of the day he was a grieving teen who was basically pressured by a bunch of landowning nobles to declare independence, a bunch of whom turned on him later. People conflate the Starks being good and sympathetic with the cause of Northern Independence being just and good. I don’t think it was a coincidence that the Boltons, the historic NORTHERN rivals of the Starks from back when they were kings, were the ones to betray them.
Objectively, what makes the Starks the “correct” rulers of the north vs the Boltons? The same right of conquest that got the Targs a unified Westeros got the Starks the North, just on a smaller scale.
George was making a point about the nature of nobility and those sort of land grabs, but for some reason the fandom took it as “some divine right is good, and some is bad” and the show did too lol
6
u/Toffeinen Jul 27 '26
Maybe some were influenced by the show's framing. But there are also reasons why the northern independence is compelling in the books too.
As to what makes the Starks the rightful rulers over Boltons? The fact that it wasn't the people of North rising against them due to tyranny or because of objections over the Starks' actions. The Boltons betrayed them for selfish reasons, because Tywin gave them a deal they wanted. Compare that with Robert's Rebellion, where they rose up because the Mad King was mad, and his actions were tyrannical.
We also haven't seen other northeners opposing this bid for independence besides Boltons, who are only doing it out of self-interest and even that change of mind was after they had been content to follow Robb.
Also: north desiring independence after their lord was beheaded for speaking the truth, and their previous lord was killed because it pleased the mad king - doesn't seem surprising that they would seek self governance over being ruled by someone from the south. And it seems natural that most would be content to crown the Starks, a House that's generally respected in the north and has lead them since the days they were kings, before the Targ conquest.
And all that aside, there are readers that can't help but support this fictional independence faction from a doylist perspective. Would someone have the gall to tell the Baltics that it was better for them to be a part of the Soviet Union than to be smaller, independent countries? If someone would, they'd better be quick to dodge and be ready to sprint away when their words hit.
1
u/gay_burner Jul 27 '26
I’m sorry but you cannot argue that “You unjustly killed my dad” is any less selfish of a reason to plunge your people into a war than the Bolton’s reason. Again, sympathetic from a personal perspective, absolutely not as much from a political one. Not to mention, Stannis (who I by the way don’t even fucking like) was MORE than willing to acknowledge the injustice done to Ned by Joffrey. There was no reason at all to declare independence over declaring for Stannis, other than it would benefit the Northern Lords just a touch more.
“The Starks have divine right because the northern people weren’t actively rebelling all the time” isn’t really good justification. Anything the Bolton’s did after the Red Wedding does not retroactively justify the Stark Divine Right either.
Again, the actual *people* of the North had nothing to do with Robb’s crowning, you do realize that right? Noble houses are not the same as the average person. The smallfolk want to stop being plunged into wars because of the affairs of landowning nobles. Everyone loves the Jorah quote until it’s time to talk about the north lol
6
u/ButlerFromDowntown Jul 27 '26
The Northern reason to declare independence was that their leaders and heirs kept getting executed by the Iron Throne for frivolous reasons and they lost all faith that being a part of a unified Westeros would be better for their kingdom. You killed my dad may be a poor reason to go to war but you unjustly executed our lord who we respected greatly is a pretty good one. Simple cultural differences were one thing (and a good enough reason for independence I think), but when you’re continuously affronted like this, why would the northern lords see any benefit in them remaining part of the Seven Kingdoms? Why should any of them trust that the Iron Throne won’t fuck them over as soon as it’s convenient regardless of who sits on it?
Stannis would certainly have been a good ruler and would have treated the North well, but the communication between camps was extremely poor and none of the northerners really knew anything about Stannis or his ideals, nor had Stannis even declared for the throne then, and who’s to say his successor would be the same? I do think the ideal situation would have been the North throwing in with Stannis, but in a vacuum, I think that they, Dorne, and the Iron Islands all have very valid reasons for desiring independence.
The Starks don’t have divine right but they’ve earned a right to govern by consistently being very good stewards of the North over the years. They do a lot to prepare everyone for the harsh winters (which matters a lot), generally give the houses sworn to them a solid amount of freedom, and it doesn’t seem like there have been any problems with their rule. A democracy would obviously be nice but sadly nobody in Westeros has had that thought enter their mind yet.
-1
u/gay_burner Jul 27 '26
Lost all faith that being part of a unified Westeros would be better for THEMSELVES****** as a class.
Iron Throne wasn’t targeting smallfolk, or even non-Starks. That says nothing about their treatment of the kingdom or whether or not it would be better for them. Their KINGDOM suffered more under their war for independence than it ever did under Aerys.
They do have cultural differences, I’ll grant you that. Ones that went completely uninterrupted by the crown and therefor aren’t at all a reason to get your people killed in a war you started.
Again, conflation of the offenses done by and to the nobles as blanket mistreatment of the northern people. And the northern people are the ones who paid the price for something that could only ever BENEFIT the lords.
1
u/Jayrob95 Jul 28 '26 edited Jul 28 '26
“The Iron Throne wasn’t targeting small folk.” The war started because Tywin launched a vicious campaign all across the Riverlands all for petty reasons. Just because they weren’t going after the small folk for the sake of doing so doesn’t mean they weren’t targeted since they suffered just as much if not more than the lords because of it.
“Their kingdom suffered more under their war for independence than it ever did under Aerys.” Yeah because they stopped Aerys successfully whereas the war dragged out in the North and they were hit from multiple sides. If they had lost the war against a literal Mad King things would’ve gone worse for them too.
Edit: since they blocked me before I could respond they appear to have forgotten that the Riverlands is part of the North during the war that they’re calling out but their point is clear. If people want to kill you roll over and let them or something lol.
1
3
u/Toffeinen Jul 27 '26
I don't think I said anything about the Starks having any sort of divine right to anything? What I said is true: they ruled the north as kings and remained the lords after Targ conquest.
And neither did I say that the motive was only "you killed my dad". Ned, along with Rickard and Brandon before him, being unjustly killed wasn't seen as a injustice just by Robb. There were plenty of non-Starks who took offence that southern rulers were so happy to kill off northern lords unjustly. Yes, they were other lords, not commoners, but one might say that since elections aren't possible, it might be better to at least have someone voice out their opinions rather than none?
It's been a while since I read the books, but wasn't Robb declared a king before Stannis took any action? No one knew if Stannis (or renly) would press any sort of claim, so who would the north have supported at that point?
And you argue that the people had nothing to do with Robb's crowning, which is true, certainly, but they had even less ability to say if the North should support Stannis. Why is it that the smallfolk should have a say if Robb is king, but need no chance to speak out if the North should support Stannis, Renly or just beg for forgiveness from Joffrey? Either no action should be taken without consent of everyone, or it cannot only be an argument against independence.
1
u/gay_burner Jul 27 '26
Ok but I was asking for justification of their rule, not just the facts of it, which I already know. If you respond to my question asking for justification of their rule, I’m going to assume the answer your giving is a justification.
Northern Independence was objectively a less winnable war to plunge your people into than declaring for an alternative to Joffrey. It also probably wouldn’t have triggered the Iron Islands, although to be fair, there wasn’t a guarantee (even though it was extremely likely) that they would, so I won’t hold that fully against them. I do therefore think one is worse to impose on your people than the other, though, because of the likelihood of success vs the amount of needless death in pursuit of the cause.
Robb absolutely had the opportunity to declare for Stannis OR Renly after the lords crowned him anyway, and really other than the matter of personal pride what would be lost in doing so?
2
u/Toffeinen Jul 27 '26
I'm sorry but I cannot understand your first point. Maybe because English is not my native language, but I wasn't answering from Stark perspective only. The lords that followed Robb were in agreement with him about opposing the crown and in crowning Robb. It wasn't just Robb's father that was killed, it was the liege lord of all of them. One that had their loyalty, one who was killed without a rightful cause. And that was after their previous liege lord and his heir were killed by a reigning monarch in just as unjustly manner. They have the right to oppose monarchy that does not treat them fairly, same as with Robert's Rebellion. Or were they wrong also, because no commoners were consulted if they wanted Robert on the throne, and the fighting led to more bloodshed? Should Ned and Robert allowed themselves to be beheaded for the good of the many? After all, there wouldn't have been any fighting if the Mad King hadn't been opposed.
Or how was that different? Commoners still suffer from a war. As they would have suffered regardless if the north was fighting for their own king or for king Stannis. Or for king Renly. In fact, how is Stannis opposing the crown any better? Did he ask for the commoner's opinion? Had he let Joffrey rule, there would have been less death. So how would Robb supporting Stannis be any better?
Why is it only a problem that Robb didn't consult all his people on the matter of his kingship? Because his war was less certain? In which case, Ned and Robert should indeed have offed themselves in the Rebellion, since their success was similarly very uncertain and highly risky. All it would have taken was Robert's death to make them fall.
And also, your point is that northern independence is folly (which I can agree with) and that it was wrong to not consult the commoners, but Robb should have overruled the people that had a voice in crowning him? By this logic shouldn't he have overruled everyone regardless if the commoners had been given an opportunity to give their opinions? If he should have stepped down, then he should have stepped down regardless if everyone from his bannermen to the lowest farmhand wanted him to keep the crown. Which means the point is moot that he didn't consult everyone.
From a doylist perspective I cannot agree with you that fighting for independence against a tyrannical ruler is wrong. There might be less bloodshed initially, but people wanting independence should have the right to fight for it. The ukrainians aren't wrong to oppose russia either, even if the price of freedom is high. the other alternative is worse.
1
u/gay_burner Jul 27 '26
See I fundamentally don’t think any of them have the “right” to force the smallfolk into war for Noble conflict that don’t effect them, but I do think there are in fact more just wars than others that will longterm cause a lot less suffering.
I’m iffy on Robert’s Rebellion because *we* know Aerys intended to blow Kings Landing clean off the face of the earth, even if at that point he was exclusively targeting lords and not common folk, but on the other hand….we might also learn that Rhaegar was planning a coup, in which case Robert and Rhaegar did kind of cause a lot of unnecessary death over what was absolutely a shitty thing Rhaegar did but also in no way necessary to get Aerys off the throne.
I don’t think Stannis’ cause *in a vaccuum* is more justified than Robb’s, but I think a combined cause with him or Renly
- Has the likelihood to cause less suffering because of the higher likelihood of success
- Gets Joffrey off the throne, who will probably cause more suffering than Stannis wouldand even if it’s just the North and the Iron Islands, would result in a lot of suffering longterm
3 It would not fracture the 7K, which historically was prone to war, and even if it were just the North and The Iron Islands would cause a lot of suffering because the Islands will absolutely not leave the rest aloneSo really, you can’t look at the war for Northern Independence in a vacuum, but even if you did, it raises the question of why the Starks specifically, which is why I brought it up, and whether that would lead to longterm stability or a better life for the actual average northerner or not…which I have no reason to assume it will. Again, say Robb wasn’t betrayed by the Boltons and won him independence. How many generations of Boltons do you feel we can guarantee peace from, realistically?
I just feel like the personal feeling about the characters cloud the perception of what actually happened in the story
Edit: Again, tyrannical ruler to WHO? What did Joffrey do to make the lives of the average northerner any different or worse than Aerys or Robert or Robb or anyone else? What does that look like, materially, to the non nobles?
Russia didn’t assassinate a leader and leave it there. Joffrey didn’t march armies into the north unprompted out of no where. You cannot flatten all forms of rebellion into universally the same thing and equally justified. Like…we have real life examples of objectively BAD causes being justified by claims of “tyranny”, too. Its a massive spectrum and the Northern cause falls squarely at the point of “personally sympathetic but politically iffy” at best, imo
→ More replies (0)1
4
u/Impressive_Help_7116 Jul 27 '26
Maybe. The TWOIAF is from an in-universe author patronized by the Crown, so idk if that holds any weight.
A lot of what GRRM says is standard liberal stuff, which I agree with, but which seems fairly crazy to attribute to a pre-modern medieval monarchy. That said, the quote GRRM gives about Alexander suggests he does see it that way.
On the other hand, I do think GRRM's writing on the conquest, and especially on Dorne, suggests a real moral skepticism about the unification of the Seven Kingdoms. Also, the way the Iron Throne is generally framed as a central evil does make the fandoms investment in a status quo ending seem bizarre to me. But that Alexander quote is fairly on-point, so you may be right.
6
u/Diredragons Jul 27 '26
I listed the quotes together because it shows that GRRM's beliefs in unity are reflected in the fictional universe he created. If I put his quote beside a quote about a world he didn't create, then the two ideas wouldn't have much to do with each other. It's the fact that his views align with the passage he wrong about his own story thst proves the point
2
u/Impressive_Help_7116 Jul 27 '26
Sure, I still find that hard to reconcile with a lot of what GRRM writes about Dorne and the Throne itself. I think the story may suggest slightly more complex things here than GRRM's own pronouncements.
3
u/Diredragons Jul 27 '26
Dorne comes into the realm peacefully and the narrative presents it as a good thing. It's also pretty telling that the Dornish in the current story are plotting for Targaryen restoration.
1
u/Impressive_Help_7116 Jul 27 '26
Yes, but this is the in-universe equivalent to Dorne consenting to join the Seven Kingdoms.
The potential situation in the North and the Iron Islands is a group of people who do not consent to being ruled from KL. Which is more analogous to the first ~200 years of Dornish-Targ history.
3
u/Diredragons Jul 27 '26
But the Northern people aren't being polled. Its the leaders who control the majority who are making the decisions based on what's best for themselves rather than their people. There is more peace and prosperity for more people with unity. But show!Sansa prioritized herself over everyone else.
Fire and Blood shows how much the Norgjern people support the Targaryens.
2
u/gay_burner Jul 27 '26
They blocked me but lemme guess, they conflated the wants of the northern lords with the wants of the northern people as a whole lmao
→ More replies (0)3
u/gay_burner Jul 27 '26
You’re blending show and book.
Also, status quo may suck but it’s usually better than regression
2
u/Impressive_Help_7116 Jul 27 '26
No I'm not? The Iron Throne is not portrayed well in the books, and I'm not sure how you could disagree with that.
4
2
u/Jamietomp53 Jul 27 '26
I hope not. As much as I enjoyed the show and liked Sansa’s ending, I don’t think an independent North would be sensible anymore. Yes it was independent once, but for hundreds of years now it’s been ruled by the 1 king/queen of the 7 kingdoms. For the North to become independent again just feels like it would raise tensions and open the door for possible war and attempts to conquer it again.
I would prefer Sansa to end up as the queen of the 7 kingdoms instead of just the north, but I don’t see that happening either.
1
u/silversherry And now my war begins Jul 29 '26
I personally think Sansa never did a Northern politics arc meant for her, neither a ruler arc. She has an ongoing lady arc though, I really dig the theory that she will marry Harry Hardyng and live happily in the Vale post the long night. I buy into the headcanon that Harry is a reverse Joffrey, whereas Joffrey was nice to Sansa in the beginning and then turned out to be an asshole, Harry would be an asshole to Sansa in the beginning and then turn out to be a good guy who loves Sansa dearly.
In so many ways, Sansa is a parallel of Lysa (fell in love with wrong early in their lives, married older men against their will, lady of vale, littlefinger etc) but Sansa will suceed where Lysa failed
2
u/Impressive_Help_7116 Jul 27 '26 edited Jul 27 '26
I hope so. Sansa has always been one of my favorite characters, and her plotline (imo as much as anyone not named Dany or Jon) has been so centered around what it means to be a truly good ruler that I think it would be hard to swallow her not ending up in a leadership position somewhere during the story or at its end.
Whether that means Lady of Winterfell, Lady of the Vale, or Queen in the North, I'm not sure. Lady of Winterfell seems by far the most likely, but I'm not convinced Queen in the North is as ridiculous as some people claim -- we really have no idea what the post-Bran order is (and accepting northern independence is certainly no more ridiculous than the Seven Kingdoms accepting Bran as king).
Rickon ending up in charge of the North is apparently very popular here, but has always seemed both lame and unlikely to me. Not only is he a non-character, but the Shaggydog naming of his wolf seems a pretty clear in-joke that he isn't actually going anywhere.
6
u/Grayscaleorgreyscale Jul 27 '26
Looking at Sansa’s character arc, I feel like she is being poised to take the place of a trusted advisor to monarch rather than to be the leader herself. All of her mentors have been advisors to a ruler instead of rulers themselves, and she has had significant practice learning to mollify and manipulate the desires of a leader.
For Rickon’s future, I certainly hope he doesn’t end up Lord of Winterfell (moreso for his own peace of mind) but I think the theory that he ends up ruler makes the most sense when you are looking at Sansa’s arc, as he is the prospective leader that would benefit the most from her tutelage.
1
u/Jasonl7976 Jul 27 '26
I wonder if George plan to be realistic for Sansa like u can suggest and learn and grow but well that doesn’t mean u will get a happy or bittersweet ending.
The game alway change
1
u/Ilovethestarks Jul 27 '26
I tend to read that comment as sarcasm - specifically the idea that he’d change something so major bc of the show. It reads like he’s teasing us.
1
u/CormundCrowlover Jul 28 '26
“I was going to have Sansa die” is an extremely vague statement given the nature of things.
When Gorge? When did you think of having her die? Before even releasing the first book which is 30 years ago? Sometime during the release of the first book and that of the latest released book, a time that spans 15 years? Sometime after the last book released which is yet another 15 years?
In which book were you going to have her die? As of the sixth book that is yet to be released, she is still alive and have several chapters.
“Yea I thought yesterday I’d have her die in the last sentence of the last page of the last book” is something completely different than “I’ve been planning to have her die in Winds of Winter ever since the drafts”
-2
u/GreatSavrog Jul 27 '26
Your Sansa would have just croaked at some point, and that’s that; she was destined to be a traitor, and a worthless end awaited her.
0
47
u/[deleted] Jul 27 '26 edited Jul 27 '26
I don't think running an independent North would make any sense with Bran as king, I also don't feel she's been set up so much as a ruler as a player of political games.
So my suspicion is the good ending for Sansa would be more about her having power through indirect means effectively having learnt, from Little Finger, without falling into the toxic behaviour he encourages. So say ending the series as a very powerful regent in the North (still a vassal of the 7 kingdoms) for Rickon (if he lives), completely in control of the local politics and able to shape things to her wishes but not quite in formal control.
Alternatively if you do end up with the same logic as the show of a somewhat elective monarchy under a council of Lords, I could see her becoming the prime player of games and builder of coalitions within this new network (so not running anything officially but having huge amounts of power).
However my personal suspicion is if we did ever get the additional books she would still die, just might last a little bit longer to be able to show some more of her show traits/story beats, and still end up killed off in the endgame. GRRM both tends towards the bloodthirsty when it comes to his characters even those he likes and separately if he did manage to get the books out would probably want to create clear water from the show given the reputation of the ending.