Jon’s legitimacy was generally assumed in book fandom, but the show’s method of making him legitimate is total nonsense and certainly not reflective of the books. Annulment isn’t possible in the way the show depicted, either theologically or in a political sense (the idea that such an action would be secret is…

Killmonger doesn’t question the monarchy; he just wants to be the king. There’s never any argument over the system of government.

Killmonger isn’t the only person in the movie critiquing the world as it is.

The monarchy stuff is because monarchy is a great system of government from the perspective of drama. That’s just a convention.

No, it doesn’t. Acknowledging a moral duty to help one’s fellow man doesn’t absolve the people victimizing said fellow man.

In the show, Manderly proclaims Jon king after the Starks have already won. That’s not loyalty, it’s climbing on the bandwagon. While the Boltons were alive, he accepted their rulership.

That’s definitely not true. She’s been committing war crimes pretty much since the beginning of the series. For instance, massacring the entire Stark household of unarmed servants (including, relevant, Septa Mordane).

I certainly wasn’t rooting for Cersei there.  Cersei is a war criminal who has wrought untold destruction on Westeros.  Unella and the others were practically the first people to mete out even a fraction of what she deserved upon her.

The show upholds Daenerys for executing a freed man who took action against a Son of the Harpy/Klansman and vilifies the entire freed population!

I have no doubt that Martin fancies himself to be a humane person, with enlightened valued and common decency. But having crazy political ideas, including ludicrous racist myths about US history, will make you do crazy shit, like writing this reactionary plot line into a novel series.

In Slaver’s Bay, sure.  In Westeros her stated goal has always been to reclaim her birthright, the throne.

I feel there’s a deleted scene here, where Jon gets orders from an bed-ridden Thorne and Slynt to make his suicide parley.

Dany isn’t looking to break the feudal system, except perhaps in the sense of establishing a more centralized monarchy with herself as autocrat. That’s hardly revolutionary.

Oberyn was definitely one of the show’s big successes in terms of introducing a compelling character in a very short span of time.  And the staging is effectively gruesome.

Not really, no.  Their interactions were every bit as awkward at the wedding as beforehand.  Sansa understood he was kinder than the other Lannisters, but he still wasn’t her friend, and her only desire was to get far away.  Tyrion wanted her love, but didn’t understand her.

I was uncertain about Michael’s return from a plot perspective, but I have to say:  I legitimately have no idea where they’re going with this, which is exciting going into the final season.

He was a central figure.  He murdered Roose and took the North for himself, and was the leader of the enemy army at the Battle of the Bastards, which has apparently already become famous in-universe (per Hot Pie, among others).

One of my favorite parts of the book is the evolving relationship between Sansa and Tyrion during their marriage and this episode paid off that relationship.

The story of the fall and return of the Stark dynasty to power is an epic that will continue to be told in the North for centuries to come, both in proper written histories and in folk history. Ramsay was a central figure in those events, the villain that the heroes took down.  Those guys aren’t forgotten. 

That line is one of the kinds of small details on the show that bug me, because it’s so obviously not true and there’s a much better line just adjacent to that sentiment that’s more in keeping with Sansa’s character: she should reminding Ramsay that he’s going to go down as the villain in this world’s history, a…