(06-21-2019, 04:27 AM)irukandji Wrote: Who said any of them knew that a decision was going to be made to crown a new king at that moment? That's a moot point. What I'm saying is that if Sansa was merely there for Jon, the minute the discussion of a new king came up, she would have backed off. She didn't. She remained and therefore, was considered part of the council. She agreed with their decision that Bran should be king for all of the nations except for the fact that she changed the proposal by exempting the North.
Comparing Sansa to the forefathers of our country, I just don't see her as a true seeker of independence. Those who seek independence seek it for all and stand by its virtues. When Sam proposed the common folk ruling, Sansa didn't stand up and state that was the route to go. She didn't even do that for the North, and I'm not saying she has to.
But in speaking about independence and then subjecting the North to the rule of a queen, is she really that different from Dany? Dany considered herself the Breaker of Chains. Seems to me she's speaking of independence. But yet Dany also stated her people had no choice. Sansa supposedly is looking for independence in the North, but yet subjects them to the rule of a queen. If the North is under the rule of a queen, where is their freedom of choice?
The decision for a new king still matters to the north because it's still a part of Westeros even if it's an independent kingdom. Sansa can still deal with other nations by choice which she most likey will seeing that her brother is king and cousin and uncle are the Lord's of the Vale and Riverlands. She still has allies and other kingdoms.
You expected Sansa to seek for Westeros to become a modern day America even though the show is set in a medieval world. They only had Sam say that so he could be laughed at. Westeros is going to take baby steps before it can become a true democracy.
Sansa is different from Dany because she's not threatening people to become queen. Her being a Stark helps as it did for Jon and Robb but the northerners decided to make them their kings. I'm certain Sansa didn't declare herself queen as well.
That's where the North's freedom of choice came in. They chose their monarch. It has been stated throughout the series how much they liked the rule of the Starks. Stannis wanted to legitimize Jon for this very reason because he knew the north was much more likely to listen to him rather than himself.
Sansa still needs to rule justly. She won't have blind loyalty throughout the nation. She can be overthrown if they feel there's a better choice just like they were thinking of making her their queen while Jon was away.
Ultimately, independence in this case means the north won't be beholden to whomever sits on the throne and won't have to pay taxes. They have the monarch they want and not the one that's forced upon them. There will undoubtedly be problems in the future but the series ended here so there's not much else to go on. I actually think the rest of kingdoms are in more trouble.