Game of Thrones begins....

[The Larch]

Not undead at all. The process of resurrection might have some negative effects, especially for those it is repeated on over and over, but in general someone resurrected is just like a normal person in every way.

Jon seems to be normal. Lady Stoneheart has a completely different personality than Catelyn Stark and not really a normal person (being half-rotten). Beric Dondarrion also seems to have lost parts of his previous personality.

IIRC, in the books Dondarrion said that every time he came back he felt more and more diminished, that even if his body was alive his mind was leaving him or something like that.

When the Brotherhood found Catelyn's corpse Thoros didn't want to resurrect her because she had been dead for far too long, that's why it was Dondarrion the one who performed the resurrection, dying himself in the process.

[Berkut]

Not undead at all. The process of resurrection might have some negative effects, especially for those it is repeated on over and over, but in general someone resurrected is just like a normal person in every way.

Jon seems to be normal. Lady Stoneheart has a completely different personality than Catelyn Stark and not really a normal person (being half-rotten). Beric Dondarrion also seems to have lost parts of his previous personality.

Like I said, the process of resurrection seems to have an effect. Jon was resurrected quickly after his death, and only the one time. Dondarrion said that each time if felt like he lost a little piece of himself, and he has been resurrected many, many times.

Catelyn was dead for some time, half rotten, and probably went basically mad from grief in the moments before her death. Her current status is driven more by that than anything to do with the resurrection per se.

It actually seems very much in line with the old D&D concepts of resurrection versus re-animation, with re-animation having varying levels of sentience associated to it, but being of a difference in kind from actual resurrection. Which isn't to say that resurrection doesn't have its own set of problems...

[grumbler]

I guess I just imagine inheritance, at least in theory, being kind of an instantaneous thing.

King dies, at that moment his heir is the new king, even if he hasn't been officially crowned yet.

But you might be right - Rhaegar was dead *before* his father. So how does that work?

If the king has two sons, and his sons both have sons, and the eldest son dies before the king, the next son becomes the heir, right? Not the son (grandson of the king) of the prince?

As people have mentioned, the grandson inherits his father's estate, including his place in the succession.

Queen Victoria was only crowned as interim queen until it was confirmed that William IV's wife was not, in fact, pregnant as rumored.   This was explicitly stated in the Regency Act passed by Parliament.  Had Queen Adelaide given birth, that child would have inherited the throne, as Victoria was only a niece, not a child, of William IV.

[Solmyr]

I am not even sure Clegane was ever dead, very possible he was simply saved through some process that is dabbling into necromancy and dark magic. Certainly it is the case that the result is some kind of fucked up human being though.

In the books at least, they did remove his head and sent it to Dorne, so it's hard to imagine he'd be alive through the whole process. I think he's more like Frankenstein's creature, mostly Clegane's body with some extra parts in place of his head. Not sure how the show does it, though.

[Habbaku]

I am not even sure Clegane was ever dead, very possible he was simply saved through some process that is dabbling into necromancy and dark magic. Certainly it is the case that the result is some kind of fucked up human being though.

In the books at least, they did remove his head and sent it to Dorne, so it's hard to imagine he'd be alive through the whole process. I think he's more like Frankenstein's creature, mostly Clegane's body with some extra parts in place of his head. Not sure how the show does it, though.

That's not necessarily true.  At no point do we know they removed his head--merely, we are told that they are sent something that might be his skull.

[viper37]

No, most would not.  Maybe very minor nobility with no suitable marriages, poor/peasant families, but certainly not influential nobles.

Then why almost all of them end up in socially/politically advantageous marriages and carry on with mistresses then?

I meant they would not engage in marriages out of love for most of them.

[Valmy]

No, most would not.  Maybe very minor nobility with no suitable marriages, poor/peasant families, but certainly not influential nobles.

Then why almost all of them end up in socially/politically advantageous marriages and carry on with mistresses then?

I meant they would not engage in marriages out of love for most of them.

Right they entered the marriages their families told them to enter, like good boys.

[grumbler]

No Berkut is right. 'The King is dead, Long live the King!'

Only Holy Roman Emperors had that weird status before they were officially crowned.

What do you base that on? That certainly doesn't describe the Scandinavian kingdoms in the middle ages. I'd expect it doesn't apply in most of Europe at least until you get close to the absolute monarchies. AFAIK, the coronation ceremony was of prime significance pretty much across the board in Europe.

Indeed.  The child-monarch did, indeed, have a "weird status" before they were crowned, as the regent ruled in their name.  Louis XV of France was the king at age 5, but wasn't coronated (thus ending a regency) until he was 13.  Under the regency, the regent had all the actual power; the monarch had the "weird status" of having the name but no power.

[viper37]

No, most would not.  Maybe very minor nobility with no suitable marriages, poor/peasant families, but certainly not influential nobles.

Then why almost all of them end up in socially/politically advantageous marriages and carry on with mistresses then?

I meant they would not engage in marriages out of love for most of them.

Right they entered the marriages their families told them to enter, like good boys.

it was easier for boys, they knew they could keep a mistress on the side without too much trouble.  Harder for the girls.

[Habbaku]

I'm not unhappy with how they handled DaKinginDaNorf Pt2, but I would have enjoyed seeing Manderly a bit more than just someone to be shamed by Baby Mormont.

[Valmy]

it was easier for boys, they knew they could keep a mistress on the side without too much trouble.  Harder for the girls.

Sure? Though of course many women did also have lots of affairs. I was not saying gender equality reigned. I was just talking about choice in marriage.

[Berkut]

I'm not unhappy with how they handled DaKinginDaNorf Pt2, but I would have enjoyed seeing Manderly a bit more than just someone to be shamed by Baby Mormont.

Yeah, I like where it went, but there is a part of me that finds it hard to believe that they would all be all that gung-ho over Jon.

They don't know him, they have no personal relationship to him, quite honestly the way the previous episode went they really ought to be questioning his competency, and the basic idea of a independent northern kingdom has to be looking a lot less compelling.

Hell, if you buy into the idea of the White Walkers coming, and independent North is actually a pretty terrible idea.

[Habbaku]

They don't know him, they have no personal relationship to him, quite honestly the way the previous episode went they really ought to be questioning his competency, and the basic idea of a independent northern kingdom has to be looking a lot less compelling.

Hell, if you buy into the idea of the White Walkers coming, and independent North is actually a pretty terrible idea.

It might look terrible if you are solely accounting on them needing aid from the other Kingdoms to keep the White Walkers at bay.  But that would be discounting the generations of pride, the religious differences, and the immense cultural gulf between the North and the other Kingdoms.  Basically, I think there are a lot of intangibles that go into the appeal of a King in the North rather than just being under the thumb of King's Landing.

And the fact that they'll soon hear of Queen Cersei the Incinerator, First of Her Name, means they aren't going back on that one any time soon.

[Berkut]

They don't know him, they have no personal relationship to him, quite honestly the way the previous episode went they really ought to be questioning his competency, and the basic idea of a independent northern kingdom has to be looking a lot less compelling.

Hell, if you buy into the idea of the White Walkers coming, and independent North is actually a pretty terrible idea.

It might look terrible if you are solely accounting on them needing aid from the other Kingdoms to keep the White Walkers at bay.  But that would be discounting the generations of pride, the religious differences, and the immense cultural gulf between the North and the other Kingdoms.  Basically, I think there are a lot of intangibles that go into the appeal of a King in the North rather than just being under the thumb of King's Landing.

And the fact that they'll soon hear of Queen Cersei the Incinerator, First of Her Name, means they aren't going back on that one any time soon.

True - one thing that has changed since they declared Rob is several years of war and total chaos in the south. Well, in the north as well of course.

This could certainly make a lot more sense if their meeting happened right after getting a raven detailing the Mad Queen's latest moves...

I really want to see how Jaime reacts. He has to be thinking "WTF, I killed a king for contemplating what my sister just did..."

[Solmyr]