Sorry anon but, like I told another anon last night, I really don’t buy into that one either. It’s playing on semantics and pretty much just ignoring the context of the Westerosi hierarchy and how monarchies function in general.

I mean obviously this is not a “this is my house now get out!” situation. I haven’t seen anyone even try to argue that when they say the Starks relinquished the North tbh. That’s using such a literal interpretation to the point of almost reductio ad absurdum. Saying “the Starks don’t ultimately control the North but it’s still their’s” doesn’t really make much sense to me, because there’s not really going to be a operational difference. How is it theirs if their ownership of it is still subject to the power of another? That’s more like renting, not buying; they have a lease, not a mortgage. The King/Queen has absolute power over the lands considered to be part of their kingdom, that’s one of the major facets of being a King/Queen. And for me at least, using this argument kind of inherently contradicts the argument that Sansa and the Starks “did the right thing” for the greater good. Because the way you are presenting it, they aren’t really doing anything.

Sure, it can be considered a hospitable greeting; but we are splitting hairs here. The fact that it could be considered a hospitable greeting doesn’t change the reality of the situation as a whole. Symbolic relinquishment of control is still relinquishment of control. In the grand scheme of things, there will be no functional distinction. Or else what would even be the point of having them bend the knee in the first place?

Oh my god DUDE this is so p a t r o n i z i n g like come THE HECK on.

First of all, this is not just about Sansa ~being in charge~, Winterfell is home to all the Starks. Their family as a whole should be in control of Winterfell because it is their home. The Martells control Dorne because it’s their home, the Tyrells should be in control of The Reach because it’s their home, the Arryn’s should be in charge of the Eyrie because it’s there home. Don’t reduce this to just wanting Sansa to be in charge, because it’s not.

Secondly, this “there are more important things” argument generally holds no real functional credibility with me, because it’s constantly being used in such an arbitrary manner. Why is it that the Starks must give up their home for the greater good, but D doesn’t have to give up her ambitions for the greater good? Why shouldn’t she use her dragon glass and her dragons and her army to fight the Night King just because it’s the right thing to do and because (to quote you) “she understands there are more important things than what she wants and her pride and being in charge”?? Why shouldn’t she be this willing to make this ~noble sacrifice~ in the name of morality or humility or whatever??? You don’t think D should have to give up her ambitions and claim to the throne she has been fighting for for seven seasons for the greater good. I don’t think the Starks should have to give up their ancestral home they spent seven seasons fighting for for the greater good. It’s a circular argument and we could sit here all day, but in the end it literally comes down to you wanting your fave to get what she wants and me wanting my faves to get what they want.

I really have no desire to sit here and quibble over semantics, but oh well here goes. Monarchy defined:

When there is a monarchy, every territory that is part of their kingdom is under their control and subject to their will, period. That is how monarchies and oligarchies have always worked. A queen is, by definition, inherently a monarch. So even if “Winterfell is yours” as spoken by Sansa in the moment is symbolic welcome instead of literal like you are claiming, symbolic relinquishment of control is still relinquishment of control. In the grand scheme of things, there will be no functional distinction. Or else what would even be the point? Why even make the North kneel? Saying “the Starks dont’ control the North but it’s still their’s” doesn’t really make sense. How is it theirs if their ownership of it is still subject to the power of another? That’s more like renting, not buying; they have a lease, not a mortgage.

Also, that is simply not what was said between Robbert and Ned? Especially when you look at the context of their conversation. This is literally their dialogue:

They don’t say this to every visitor who shows up at Winterfell, it’s not a standard greeting. I’m pretty sure it doesn’t play on their answering machine and isn’t printed on their Christmas card. There is nothing to imply Ned means “the North is yours… but not really lol.” I’m not entirely sure where you are getting that interpretation from or what you are basing it on, but I don’t see any evidence for it. Not in the actual words spoken or any other subtext. Again, that is the entire function of monarchies and how they have always operated. If it wasn’t why have them? Like, I’m sorry, but that’s just a really strange, and honestly pretty patronizing, retcon of the practice of monarchical power and I don’t quite know where you’re getting it from.