I don't quite get how Ramsey is in a position of that much power. They haven't outlined how very much. Like, the Bolton relationship with the North in general is fuzzy. They are clearly a powerful family, but..? Seems like his grip on power shouldn't be great enough to march on the wall.

I thought burning a young girl alive at the stake is the lowest possible form of sadism, and yet Ramsey came very close to topping it.

It does render the whole "we need Sansa to give legitimacy to being rulers of the North" speech moot if they're already allied with the major Northern houses.

Burning the princess wasn't sadism though. Nobody was enjoying it.

Whole episode seemed like a huge FU to R.R. Martin no? Basically writers erasing all the crap they didn't like from books now that they are free to do what they want.

That's true... I meant cruelty.

Huh why

What Books, what crap?

George has said in interviews that if he could re-write the books he'd change some of the storylines. Maybe this season is part of his revision?

Right, Ramsey's convo with his dad implied that House Bolton already held the major power brokers of the north. I guess I wanted a scene where this was shown... Rob got that scene. I don't understand Bolton's relationship with the rest of the north at all. I understood the Stark's standing very well.

As far as the Boltons know, the Castle Black is guarded by only a few hundred men. I also don't think there is much between Winterfell and Castle Black, so he doesn't need that much power to go and take it/demand Jon's head.

In general terms, the Bolton's are now the strongest force in the North. They were always one of the top Houses, but after most of the other Northerners got slaughtered at the Red Wedding, they are now quite dominant. It also helps that they hold Winterfell, which is supposed to be one of the strongest castles. The other strong house is the Karstarks, since they left Robb when he killed their leader, and thus should be close to full pre-war strength.

We only see an alliance with the Karstarks, its unclear if the other Houses support them.

Also, without Sansa they lack long term legitimacy. Basically, with Sansa the Ramsey/Sansa's kid is likely to be recognized by all in the North as the rightful heir. Thus, a revolt to return to Stark rule would be pointless as the next Stark would be a Bolton. Without Sansa, they could likely rule by sheer force for a while, but long term they are in trouble as the other Houses could unite to reinstate the Starks.

Oh, I'm not saying it's implausible for them to defeat Castle Black, far from it. I'm talking about the politics behind murdering the commander of the Night's Watch. The northern political situation. It's a really brazen idea. Meh, I guess none of this is unreasonable, but Ramsey is self destructive at this point. Or perhaps always.

The darthrockies seem like frat bros this season.

I guess i missed the clues to who is Jons mother

Ned's sister, who appeared during bron's vision.

Gotta clue hunt across all 6 seasons. It's not confirmed or anything, just speculation.

Maybe I missed something but I don't see how that was hinted at at all. What did the dream have to do with Jon's parentage? Based on that, he might as well be Hodor's son.

The date for that article is October 2015. The quote comes from an interview with the episode's director in July 2015. It's not a speculative point, unless the director is lying.

Man, I wrote a long post about it explaining the thought process all the way back in Season 2. It seems like the mods killed that thread (or at least I cannot find it)

Jist is that Ned Stark is very honorable. Ned is probably the least likely person to cheat on his wife. He never says Jon is his son. He never says who Jon's mother is. Jon's mother is mentioned throughout the show without otherwise seeming to matter.

There is also backstory that puts Ned as the first person in the Red Keep during the rebellion when Jamie killed the last Targ king. Every single Targ child was killed as to cement Robert's claim to the throne. We also know that Ned's sister Lianna? was 'kidnapped' (eloped maybe?) by one of the Targ princes.

So, knowing all of that, imagine a world where Ned Stark finds Jon in the Red Keep as a baby, the son of Lianna and (insert Targ prince's name here). What does the honorable Ned Stark do? Does he let Robert kill him? No, he hides him away and says Jon is his bastard child from the long war they just waged. He says absolutely nothing about it to anyone because he knows that if he does Jon will be killed.

In the last scene that Ned and Jon see each other he says that he'll tell Jon about his mother after he's taken the Black. He won't even say there on the King's road, alone. Why? Because once your in the Nights Watch it doesn't matter that your the son of a fallen prince and heir to the seven kingdoms.

I posted all this back in 2012. It just keeps looking better after every season that passes.

Right, I think the theory makes perfect sense, I'm just asking what happened in the flashback to make it more likely. Is it just the fact that Lyanna gets shown at all? And shouldn't otherwise be relevant to the show?

Yea, exactly. Even though people seem to think GoT has long, slow episodes, they are actually really tightly woven. There has been very little screen time for anything that wasn't specifically there to build a character or tell the story.

There's also the long scene between Littlefinger and Sansa at her statue in Winterfell which wasn't about Jon Snow or anything, but the fact that her name keeps coming up isn't a coincidence. Also, you had the scene with Dany and Ser Barristan (I think?) where he talks about Rheghar. There's just no reason for these characters to keep being talked about unless they are important. Especially when you have one show up on screen.

Were there even boobs last night?

I think the boob-game has been pretty subpar thus far