Jon Snow ReRead Project! Part 5! (DwD)

[Lummel]

I'm going to try to reply to some points without using the quote function - I'm on a slow, winding, mountain path of an internet connection and don't want to put too much weight on it! :laugh:

@Julia H I believe (if L+R=J) that Jon is the only known Stark/Targaryen cross, there is a bit of family tree in the world of fire and ice preview that you can see courtesy of the internet that goes back a few generations and there is no other such cross there (though it doesn't go as far back as the conquest, so...)

@Bemused, aye, I too suspect some literal magic in the blood of the starks, but with regard to Julia H's point I don't know, and I doubt if it would, be wildly known even among the starks. My reading of the Targaryen relationship with dragons is that it is maybe more habitual or instinctive rather than an explicit body of knowledge that they share -eg placing the egg in the cradle to encourage a bond. And I think we see something similar in Bran I AGOT with the direwolf cubs with regard to warging.

@shadow cat rivers - I like your take on the clans, Bran and The Ned's little girl - that makes a lot of sense to me!

@The pooper that was promised

Thanks for looking in and posting, personally I don't think that the blood melon is significant. Just as sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, sometimes - even in ASOIAF sometimes a vegetable or a piece of fruit can just be a background detail. Prince Doran's over ripe blood oranges in AFFC are clearly symbolic I think. Onions are worth looking out for because GRRM flags them up for us in Davos and Sam chapters, I think a case can be made for apples, pears and peaches or at least looking at them on their merits in a scene. But melons? For me thats just about the vibrancy, exoticism of that late summer market scene to The Ned :dunno:

@Julia H - yes I prefer your onion example to evolution because we know that accepting the wildlings in to the realm has been on Jon's agenda since the end of ASOS when Stannis mentioned it and Jon agreed - but I'm probably just being nit picky about terminology here. But seeing this chapter in terms of ramifications or new layers of an earlier decision rather than an evolving understanding makes more sense to me ( - this is a point where I have probably changed my mind compared to learning to lead, which comes from doing a complete reread rather than just ADWD!). Like your take on the oath and family coming together over the refusal of wintefell

@Butterbumps! I think we're broadly in agreement here, but possibly only because we haven't plumbed the depths of this question :laugh:

@Ragnorak I can definitely agree on an evolution of Jon's thinking with regard to kings, though we could see this as early as the apple or an onion you've got to chose business when Jon didn't push the R'hllor worship business. We might read Jon's 'is that who I serve' with ironic detachment on his part rather than a genuine question. Serving the realm isn't the same as serving the king, there is a nuance there and I think a(n intellectual?) parallel to Jaime killing the king for the sake of the kingdom.

On theatricality, you know the idea strikes that maybe this is the answer or part of the answer to Varys' riddle about power. The theatre engages the audience and gives a cause, a loyalty that goes beyond what money or even spiritual or temporal authority demands? Therefore all politics strives to theatre, or in Varys' opinion at its best should do so.

[butterbumps!]

You are perfectly right. It is the obvious and logical motive and Jon's invitation to them to inform them of the terms under which Tormund will be allowed to cross, spells it out for us. I guess I got a little bit carried away with more obscure hidden motives. I also like the connection you made with their willingness to go fight for the Ned's little girl.

Still, I think that Bran's whereabouts and his eventual fate would be something of a loose end for them, though it is far form necessary for Martin to address this.

I'm with you on your suspicions, actually. The clans have more than enough motive to show up because of the deal being brokered with the wildlings, which could impact their lands, and just check out the state of the Watch in general. But in the previous chapter, Jon calls attention to an omission of motive (or more specifically, the thin pretense they offered) behind why they show up:

Old Flint and The Norrey had been given places of high honor just below the dais. Both men had been too old to march with Stannis; they had sent their sons and grandsons in their stead. But they had been quick enough to descend on Castle Black for the wedding. Each had brought a wet nurse to the Wall as well. The Norrey woman was forty, with the biggest breasts Jon Snow had ever seen. The Flint girl was fourteen and flat-chested as a boy, though she did not lack for milk. Between the two of them, the child Val called Monster seemed to be thriving.

For that much Jon was grateful … but he did not believe for a moment that two such hoary old warriors would have hied down from their hills for that alone. Each had brought a tail of fighting men—five for Old Flint, twelve for The Norrey, all clad in ragged skins and studded leathers, fearsome as the face of winter. Some had long beards, some had scars, some had both; all worshiped the old gods of the north, those same gods worshiped by the free folk beyond the Wall. Yet here they sat, drinking to a marriage hallowed by some queer red god from beyond the seas.

I do think that wanting inclusion in the wildling relocation is enough to satisfy why they're there. But if that was intended to answer the question, why is there mystery in Jon's thoughts about this? It seems like something Martin wants us to reflect on beyond the simple answer, I think. If it ended there, then I'd think Martin would have included mention of that in Jon's thoughts about it to give us, the readers, a more decisive rationale.

If it's more, I'm keen on the Bran angle you'd brought up. In general, I'm skeptical of a unified conspiracy, and lean toward individual factions knowing about different Stark-related parties' suspected whereabouts independently of each other. I think it actually makes sense that the clans would let Bran go off alone and show up to check on whether he arrived; it wasn't far from the Wall at all when they spied him, and his uncle and brother would have been expected to be there, not to mention another Liddle. They may have even tracked the small party into the Gift or the Nightfort, to keep an eye on them.

If Bran's whereabouts isn't part of this, I think the idea that they were checking out Jon himself is plausible as well. Not necessarily as part of GNC theorizing exactly, but to examine what Jon and Stannis might have been cooking up. Stannis had just left the clans; how much of Jon's advice to him did he relay during those dinners? Would they realize that Stannis' plans could have only been manufactured by Jon, given how nuanced to the North they were? From this, did they suspect Jon might be making a move against the other common enemy (the Boltons), and came to see how far his designs went? Since he'd already dipped his toe in the political arena with Stannis, and by extension, that all their fates were now wrapped in a Stannis victory, were they testing him, or evaluating how well he could perform a leadership role in the event Stannis failed?

[Mithras]

Would they realize that Stannis' plans could have only been manufactured by Jon, given how nuanced to the North they were?

Jon gave guides to Stannis to take him to the mountains. If not, Stannis could not even find them. The fact that Jon counselled Stannis is very clear to the mountain clans.

[butterbumps!]

Jon gave guides to Stannis to take him to the mountains. If not, Stannis could not even find them. The fact that Jon counselled Stannis is very clear to the mountain clans.

Yea, and this tells us the clans know that Jon's casting his lot with Stannis and taking a political stand. The clans' potential interest in Jon over this could go to very positive or negative extremes. On the positive side, it might imply they're assessing him to take up the mantle in the event Stannis is defeated.

On the contrary, they might have some real suspicions about the bastard who helps this Southron guy who burns their gods, and what sort of screwed up plans they might be making. If they're suspicious about the bastard and the burner, and are also keeping an eye out for signs of Bran, the fact that no signs of his arrival exist could be added cause for distrust (i.e. did a jealous brother murder the party as part of some scheme for power) and other such unpleasantnesses. I think they'd know by then that Jon refused Stannis' offer, but that only means they'd know Jon didn't want to take Winterfell from Stannis, an offer that only has weight if Stannis survives (and would become a lot easier to enforce without a trueborn brother around). So they might actually be wondering what sort of game Jon's playing in this.

[ShadowCat Rivers]

...

I think they'd know by then that Jon refused Stannis' offer, but that only means they'd know Jon didn't want to take Winterfell from Stannis, an offer that only has weight if Stannis survives (and would become a lot easier to enforce without a trueborn brother around). So they might actually be wondering what sort of game Jon's playing in this.

I don't think anyone else could know about Stannis' offer except Stannis, Jon and Melissandre. Jon hasn't told anyone (not even Sam, if I remember correctly) and surely Stannis (and Mel) would not want to advertize such a refusal.

....

In general, I don't disagree that various fractions may (and most possibly, do) have their own independent agendas (agendas, not necessarily conspiracies) but I don't see them as too much hidden - from the reader, anyway. I am ready to be proven wrong by The Winds..., but for now the simpler solution works the better for me.

edit: a stupid typo

[butterbumps!]

I don't think anyone else could know about Stannis' offer except Stannis, Jon and Melissandre. Jon hasn't told anyone (not even Sam, if I remember correctly) and surely Stannis (and Mel) would not want to advertize such a refusal.

....

In general, I don't disagree that various fractions may (and post possibly, do) have their own independent agendas (agendas, not necessarily conspiracies) but I don't see them as too much hidden - from the reader, anyway. I am ready to be proven wrong by The Winds..., but for now the simpler solution works the better for me.

Oh, you might be right, actually. I thought the issue might have come up during Stannis' goat-tracking among the clans; surely the question of who Stannis intends to hold Winterfell would have been mentioned, as well as discussion about living heirs (i.e. if Stannis makes it clear that there's no trueborn heir he's considering for this, would Jon have been brought up by someone?), and I guess I assumed that it would have come up in some capacity, or that it could have been deduced.

I agree that the clans could have been interested exclusively in how the wildling relocation would affect things. But the clans saw Bran. A little while later, this King comes into their lands from the very location Bran was intending to go, clearly working with Jon in some capacity, trying to rally them for support against their shared Bolton enemy and retaking Winterfell. We know Stannis knows nothing of Bran's existence, and therefore would have completely omitted any mention of this while dining and rallying the clans. Which would tell them that A. something happened to the heir on their way to the Wall, B. Stannis (and potentially Jon) know about Bran, and have secreted him away for safety with good intentions, or C. Stannis (and potentially Jon) did something to Bran as a more nefarious power play.

[The Sleeper]

I'm with you on your suspicions, actually. The clans have more than enough motive to show up because of the deal being brokered with the wildlings, which could impact their lands, and just check out the state of the Watch in general. But in the previous chapter, Jon calls attention to an omission of motive (or more specifically, the thin pretense they offered) behind why they show up:

Old Flint and The Norrey had been given places of high honor just below the dais. Both men had been too old to march with Stannis; they had sent their sons and grandsons in their stead. But they had been quick enough to descend on Castle Black for the wedding. Each had brought a wet nurse to the Wall as well. The Norrey woman was forty, with the biggest breasts Jon Snow had ever seen. The Flint girl was fourteen and flat-chested as a boy, though she did not lack for milk. Between the two of them, the child Val called Monster seemed to be thriving.

For that much Jon was grateful … but he did not believe for a moment that two such hoary old warriors would have hied down from their hills for that alone. Each had brought a tail of fighting men—five for Old Flint, twelve for The Norrey, all clad in ragged skins and studded leathers, fearsome as the face of winter. Some had long beards, some had scars, some had both; all worshiped the old gods of the north, those same gods worshiped by the free folk beyond the Wall. Yet here they sat, drinking to a marriage hallowed by some queer red god from beyond the seas.

I do think that wanting inclusion in the wildling relocation is enough to satisfy why they're there. But if that was intended to answer the question, why is there mystery in Jon's thoughts about this? It seems like something Martin wants us to reflect on beyond the simple answer, I think. If it ended there, then I'd think Martin would have included mention of that in Jon's thoughts about it to give us, the readers, a more decisive rationale.

If it's more, I'm keen on the Bran angle you'd brought up. In general, I'm skeptical of a unified conspiracy, and lean toward individual factions knowing about different Stark-related parties' suspected whereabouts independently of each other. I think it actually makes sense that the clans would let Bran go off alone and show up to check on whether he arrived; it wasn't far from the Wall at all when they spied him, and his uncle and brother would have been expected to be there, not to mention another Liddle. They may have even tracked the small party into the Gift or the Nightfort, to keep an eye on them.

If Bran's whereabouts isn't part of this, I think the idea that they were checking out Jon himself is plausible as well. Not necessarily as part of GNC theorizing exactly, but to examine what Jon and Stannis might have been cooking up. Stannis had just left the clans; how much of Jon's advice to him did he relay during those dinners? Would they realize that Stannis' plans could have only been manufactured by Jon, given how nuanced to the North they were? From this, did they suspect Jon might be making a move against the other common enemy (the Boltons), and came to see how far his designs went? Since he'd already dipped his toe in the political arena with Stannis, and by extension, that all their fates were now wrapped in a Stannis victory, were they testing him, or evaluating how well he could perform a leadership role in the event Stannis failed?

Yea, and this tells us the clans know that Jon's casting his lot with Stannis and taking a political stand. The clans' potential interest in Jon over this could go to very positive or negative extremes. On the positive side, it might imply they're assessing him to take up the mantle in the event Stannis is defeated.

On the contrary, they might have some real suspicions about the bastard who helps this Southron guy who burns their gods, and what sort of screwed up plans they might be making. If they're suspicious about the bastard and the burner, and are also keeping an eye out for signs of Bran, the fact that no signs of his arrival exist could be added cause for distrust (i.e. did a jealous brother murder the party as part of some scheme for power) and other such unpleasantnesses. I think they'd know by then that Jon refused Stannis' offer, but that only means they'd know Jon didn't want to take Winterfell from Stannis, an offer that only has weight if Stannis survives (and would become a lot easier to enforce without a trueborn brother around). So they might actually be wondering what sort of game Jon's playing in this.

I'm not adherent to the GNC either. In general I'm not a fan of conspiracies and in particular I think the actions of the northern houses can be explained between their individual ambitions and concerns and their tendency to keep their head down after such an unprecedented change of leadership in their region and to more easily accept something that will seem like a continuation of the old regime. Also, agreement, let alone coordination of such a widespread and disparate group seems to me to stretch plausibility both in terms of logistics as well as in terms of reconciling divergent interests and points of view.

I think that there can be little doubt that the clansmen primary and most immediate concern is the prospect of wildlings settling on the gift as ShadowCat said. This does not mean that they don't have other things on their mind. For one thing the wedding would not be such a thin pretense as Jon thinks it is and in fact ties in directly with the migration of wildlings. In effect Jon has both introduced a new house in the north and by treating with the wildlings as potential marriage partners and hosting the event has already provided legitimization for wildling presence south of the Wall. I think that Jon's proposition of hostages, as well as Alys's obvious compliance with the plan has to an extent allayed their fears as these two facts provide a prospect of assimilation rather than disruption.

I don't think anyone else could know about Stannis' offer except Stannis, Jon and Melissandre. Jon hasn't told anyone (not even Sam, if I remember correctly) and surely Stannis (and Mel) would not want to advertize such a refusal.

I think this is the crux of the matter. Jon has already been accused to his face of aspiring to Winterfell. If one person has told him that to his face, it seems to me that others will believe it and even more will consider it a possibility. And yes this will be met with a wide variety of reactions from positive to hostile.

[ShadowCat Rivers]

I think this is the crux of the matter. Jon has already been accused to his face of aspiring to Winterfell. If one person has told him that to his face, it seems to me that others will believe it and even more will consider it a possibility. And yes this will be met with a wide variety of reactions from positive to hostile.

I see these accusations more as a way of pressure from the parts that are, themselves, aspiring to Winterfell, than actual accusations (see Axel Florent's similar pressure put on Davos to make him influence Stannis to name him (Axel) Hand of the king). But yea, between bastard-traitor-warg, half wildling, aspiring to be Mance in place of Mance, aspiring to Winterfell and who knows what else, Jon would be more than justified to answer with a FU, I'm all of that and more.

[The Sleeper]

I see these accusations more as a way of pressure from the parts that are, themselves, aspiring to Winterfell, than actual accusations (see Axel Florent's similar pressure put on Davos to make him influence Stannis to name him (Axel) Hand of the king). But yea, between bastard-traitor-warg, half wildling, aspiring to be Mance in place of Mance, aspiring to Winterfell and who knows what else, Jon would be more than justified to answer with a FU, I'm all of that and more.

I guess what I'm saying is that precisely because he hasn't told anyone that he rejected such an offer, others might see this as plausible. Axel Florent might have used it as pressure, but if he thought of it others will, too and some will believe it. It is not much of an assumption for an outsider to make that Stannis has told Jon to help him in exchange for making him lord of Winterfell, or that Jon is gathering wildlings to him to make that claim himself. All of those epithets you mentioned are circulating and are bound to take roots in some minds.

[ShadowCat Rivers]

I guess what I'm saying is that precisely because he hasn't told anyone that he rejected such an offer, others might see this as plausible. Axel Florent might have used it as pressure, but if he thought of it others will, too and some will believe it. It is not much of an assumption for an outsider to make that Stannis has told Jon to help him in exchange for making him lord of Winterfell, or that Jon is gathering wildlings to him to make that claim himself. All of those epithets you mentioned are circulating and are bound to take roots in some minds.

You're right, but it's a vicious circle, really. I suppose that, even if he had told them, the "opposition" would either not believe him, or, they would find a way to present it in a negative light... As it stands now, he has to prove that he's not a mammoth, so to speak.

[butterbumps!]

I think this is the crux of the matter. Jon has already been accused to his face of aspiring to Winterfell. If one person has told him that to his face, it seems to me that others will believe it and even more will consider it a possibility. And yes this will be met with a wide variety of reactions from positive to hostile.

I don't think it's just the accusations, though. It has to look really weird to the clans when Stannis arrives to woo them a few months (?) after Bran's spotted on his way to the very location Stannis just came from, completely omitting any mention of Bran in his political plans to recapture Winterfell. I have to think talking politics and the question of who would hold Winterfell was part of that wooing process. And as such, the question of who would be holding Winterfell after Bolton defeat had to be discussed in some capacity. It would have been strange enough for Stannis to not be mentioning the Stark heir they know about in his plans (does Stannis not know? Did something happen to Bran? Is Stannis omitting this to further protect him until the Boltons are truly defeated?).

But this issue aside, it really stands to reason that Ned's known living children (Sansa, Arya and Jon) would have come up in these discussions as candidates for holding Winterfell, and Stannis would have had to justify his reasons for giving the seat to Karstark or one of his own men ahead of Ned's issue. It's this tricky area of discussion that I think the clans might have been told or deduced that an offer was made and that Jon had rejected it.

[Mithras]

Stannis wrote to Jon that he would save Arya and find a proper match for her. Therefore, the mountain clans and Stannis surely discussed who would get Winterfell after the Boltons are slain.

[The Sleeper]

You're right, but it's a vicious circle, really. I suppose that, even if he had told them, the "opposition" would either not believe him, or, they would find a way to present it in a negative light... As it stands now, he has to prove that he's not a mammoth, so to speak.

That happens quite often, unfortunately, both in fiction and in real life.

I don't think it's just the accusations, though. It has to look really weird to the clans when Stannis arrives to woo them a few months (?) after Bran's spotted on his way to the very location Stannis just came from, completely omitting any mention of Bran in his political plans to recapture Winterfell. I have to think talking politics and the question of who would hold Winterfell was part of that wooing process. And as such, the question of who would be holding Winterfell after Bolton defeat had to be discussed in some capacity. It would have been strange enough for Stannis to not be mentioning the Stark heir they know about in his plans (does Stannis not know? Did something happen to Bran? Is Stannis omitting this to further protect him until the Boltons are truly defeated?).

But this issue aside, it really stands to reason that Ned's known living children (Sansa, Arya and Jon) would have come up in these discussions as candidates for holding Winterfell, and Stannis would have had to justify his reasons for giving the seat to Karstark or one of his own men ahead of Ned's issue. It's this tricky area of discussion that I think the clans might have been told or deduced that an offer was made and that Jon had rejected it.

I don't know. From the clan's perspective there could be dozens of possibilities, starting from Bran dying somewhere in the wilderness without coming across anyone else to being caught in the wildling excursion, to being killed by Jon himself. From Stannis's perspective, I think that we can speculate fairly safely that starved as he is for support from the North, not only would he not hide Bran but take him as ward, or possibly even marrying him to Shireen and announcing it to the North as far and wide as he could ... which would in turn paint a huge bull's eye on Bran prompting an immediate Bolton attack on where they had him stashed, which then again could be countered by keeping him with his troops, which has the disadvantage of risking the health and life of a valuable heir, which would lead us full circle to keeping him hidden somewhere. But then again an announcement of Bran's whereabouts on Stannis' behalf could be exploited strategically to lure the Boltons into an ambush ...

I guess the point of this rumbling is that I wouldn't care to speculate in their place, not with more information, but that wouldn't necessarily stop them from speculating. If I were to judge by Stannis' actions I would think that he either does not have Bran, or that he has him stashed somewhere.

As to next day in Winterfell, I am fairly sure that both Stannis and the clans have their expectations and agendas, but I doubt they are sharing them. We know what Stannis knows, but the clans don't. They wouldn't necessarily trust what he tells them, if he tells them anything.

As to the offer of Winterfell, it could work out as a conditional offer of the type, that Stannis will make Jon the lord of Winterfell provided his assistant proves valuable enough, or that Jon is helping Stannis because blood is thicker than water, or that Jon is working on his own agenda unbeknownst to Stannis. Again, too many possibilities, but I have to say that an offer made and refused would rank low on my list of probabilities from an external perspective.

[Julia H.]

I'm not adherent to the GNC either. In general I'm not a fan of conspiracies and in particular I think the actions of the northern houses can be explained between their individual ambitions and concerns and their tendency to keep their head down after such an unprecedented change of leadership in their region and to more easily accept something that will seem like a continuation of the old regime. Also, agreement, let alone coordination of such a widespread and disparate group seems to me to stretch plausibility both in terms of logistics as well as in terms of reconciling divergent interests and points of view.

I think that there can be little doubt that the clansmen primary and most immediate concern is the prospect of wildlings settling on the gift as ShadowCat said. This does not mean that they don't have other things on their mind. For one thing the wedding would not be such a thin pretense as Jon thinks it is and in fact ties in directly with the migration of wildlings. In effect Jon has both introduced a new house in the north and by treating with the wildlings as potential marriage partners and hosting the event has already provided legitimization for wildling presence south of the Wall. I think that Jon's proposition of hostages, as well as Alys's obvious compliance with the plan has to an extent allayed their fears as these two facts provide a prospect of assimilation rather than disruption.

I think this is the crux of the matter. Jon has already been accused to his face of aspiring to Winterfell. If one person has told him that to his face, it seems to me that others will believe it and even more will consider it a possibility. And yes this will be met with a wide variety of reactions from positive to hostile.

I agree. Yet, Axel links the accusation to the idea of a marriage to Val, which is exactly what Stannis thought. (I don't think Axel knows of the offer.) The clans, however, will focus on Arya as the main female participant, whose claim comes before Jon's. "Saving the Ned's little girl" as part of the overall agenda may make it less probable that Jon wants Winterfell for himself. Then again, who knows - if Jon wanted to eliminate his siblings, he would need access to them in the first place.

I don't think it's just the accusations, though. It has to look really weird to the clans when Stannis arrives to woo them a few months (?) after Bran's spotted on his way to the very location Stannis just came from, completely omitting any mention of Bran in his political plans to recapture Winterfell. I have to think talking politics and the question of who would hold Winterfell was part of that wooing process. And as such, the question of who would be holding Winterfell after Bolton defeat had to be discussed in some capacity. It would have been strange enough for Stannis to not be mentioning the Stark heir they know about in his plans (does Stannis not know? Did something happen to Bran? Is Stannis omitting this to further protect him until the Boltons are truly defeated?).

But this issue aside, it really stands to reason that Ned's known living children (Sansa, Arya and Jon) would have come up in these discussions as candidates for holding Winterfell, and Stannis would have had to justify his reasons for giving the seat to Karstark or one of his own men ahead of Ned's issue. It's this tricky area of discussion that I think the clans might have been told or deduced that an offer was made and that Jon had rejected it.

I'm not sure Stannis would want to advertise that Jon has rejected an offer he has made. There are several convenient excuses for not giving Winterfell to Jon. Trueborn daughters come before bastard sons, and Jon has taken a vow anyway. The vow of the black brothers cannot be unsaid - it is very important in the North. Jon is Lord Commander of the Night's Watch and he could still be brother-in-law and a valuable ally (perhaps with a wildling army to command!) to the new Lord of Winterfell.

Stannis could also float the idea that he is considering Jon as Lord of Winterfell but he (Stannis) has not made up his mind yet. He might do that if he thinks the clans would prefer a male Stark in Winterfell to a female one and her southron husband. If the idea appears to be popular, he might even repeat the offer to Jon after Winterfell has been retaken - or just reveal that Jon has been given the chance and refused it.

I agree that speculation can be widespread as to Jon's intentions and Bran's fate.

[butterbumps!]

I'm not sure Stannis would want to advertise that Jon has rejected an offer he has made. There are several convenient excuses for not giving Winterfell to Jon. Trueborn daughters come before bastard sons, and Jon has taken a vow anyway. The vow of the black brothers cannot be unsaid - it is very important in the North. Jon is Lord Commander of the Night's Watch and he could still be brother-in-law and a valuable ally (perhaps with a wildling army to command!) to the new Lord of Winterfell.

Stannis could also float the idea that he is considering Jon as Lord of Winterfell but he (Stannis) has not made up his mind yet. He might do that if he thinks the clans would prefer a male Stark in Winterfell to a female one and her southron husband. If the idea appears to be popular, he might even repeat the offer to Jon after Winterfell has been retaken - or just reveal that Jon has been given the chance and refused it.

I agree that speculation can be widespread as to Jon's intentions and Bran's fate.

Stannis wouldn't advertise it, but I still think the clans would begin deducing that a rejection or something like it had transpired. The vows aren't necessarily something that would preclude them from asking about Jon's suitability to take Winterfell, since Stannis is the king and would be able to override it. With the omission of Bran in Stannis' plans, I'd be inclined to think most of the clansmen would be wondering why Jon isn't more central to the Winterfell holdings, even accounting for the trueborn daughters (one of whom is missing and Stannis clearly doesn't want due to the fact she's married to Tyrion), given that Stannis' Northern strategy comes from Jon directly.

I think even trying to tip-toe around the issue of Jon's Winterfell rejection, it would be hard for the clans not to put it together that this is an avenue that was considered and shot down in some capacity, either by Jon's offering Stannis aid in exchange for the seat and Stannis rejecting it/ making it contingent, or by Stannis' offering it to Jon and Jon refusing.

[Julia H.]

I agree that the clans do not necessarily believe everything that Stannis says. The Norrey and Old Flint are clearly not satisfied with getting information from Stannis alone. I have only said that Stannis is not likely to voluntarily inform them of Jon's rejection. What the clans may deduce on their own is another question. But as you say, even if they do deduce more than what Stannis wants to let them know, there are several conclusions they can reach.

[butterbumps!]

I agree that the clans do not necessarily believe everything that Stannis says. The Norrey and Old Flint are clearly not satisfied with getting information from Stannis alone. I have only said that Stannis is not likely to voluntarily inform them of Jon's rejection. What the clans may deduce on their own is another question. But as you say, even if they do deduce more than what Stannis wants to let them know, there are several conclusions they can reach.

Oh, of course. I'm sorry-- I wasn't meaning to come across as disagreeing-- I was trying to say I agree with you and others that Stannis wouldn't purposely announce it, but he might have unintentionally broadcasted it through certain omissions. I also agree that Jon's rejection of an offer is only one of several possibilities they might have deduced. I was just trying to emphasize how strange and bizarre this chain of events must be to the clans, and that I do tend to agree with what The Sleeper had proposed about something Bran-related being of interest to them in coming to the Wall. The Jon-positive angle is usually discussed in a lot of GNC threads, but I think there's something potentially disconcerting going on in terms of who might be suspicious of whom.

Update: Since we're at about 400 posts, we're locking this up and continuing here.