Heresy 157

[Voice]

So it was originally just a bronze crown with runes?

Then they conquered the Umbers and added one sword, so it was a one-sword crown... then they conquered the Warg King, so it was a two-sword crown... etc? Seems a little goofy-looking as crowns go. One also wonders what would happen if they ran out of room on the crown for more swords.

Well, that's an interesting point. Personally, I wouldn't think there would be any swords corresponding to them.

The Starks were wearing this crown until Aegon. Yet as far as we've ever heard, the Starks never saw themselves as ruling any territory north of the Wall, which is the only place wildlings could be said to exist.

It's possible, I guess, that Starks saw themselves as ruling what became the area north of the Wall, before the Wall was built... but I doubt it, because that's awfully damn far north, and the Starks at such an early point as that would have been petty kings (nowhere near kings of the whole North).

I am additionally reluctant to think Joramun had a thing to do with the crown because he is never really said, in the series proper, to have been a KbtW, let alone a king who was conquered by the Starks. Rather, he collaborated with the Starks.

ADancewithFlagons is familiar with this topic. Note also the World book says otherwise, but whoever wrote that bit didn't even capitalize the term King-beyond-the-Wall properly.

:agree: I don't think it makes much sense for a King's crown to pay respect to those who are not a part of his kingdom (i.e. wildlings).

I also agree in that it doesn't make sense for the crown to have a sword for each newly ceded king/kingdom.

I would suggest that instead, the original Kings of Winter -- those who made the first long night's Winter Fall -- perhaps wore some simple bronze-work, adorned with runes. Then, when later house Stark and other northern houses withstood and defeated the Andals, and drove them from the neck, that the new terminology and ornate crown were added.

Starks maintained the north's sovereignty in the face of a far more equal foe than the cotf proved to be, and became known as the Kings of the North. After the victory over the Andahli, they began wearing a more official-looking Crown of Bronze and Iron, like the Reed Oath. Rather than seven points or tines like their faithful southron counterparts, the Starks bore 9 longswords, representing the unity of the North, and their duty to their Sworn Houses:

1. House Stark - the sword n the middle, with four to either side, representative of the other Houses of the North

House Reed

House Glover

House Mormont

House Umber

House Flint

House Wull

House Norrey

House LIddle

House Manderly was not yet exiled to the North of course so I didn't include them. Edit: House Bolton was also a belated addition to the Stark Union, if ever they truly were. Edit 2: House Karstark would still be House Stark at this time.

[Frey family reunion]

:agree: I don't think it makes much sense for a King's crown to pay respect to those who are not a part of his kingdom (i.e. wildlings).

I also agree in that it doesn't make sense for the crown to have a sword for each newly ceded king/kingdom.

I would suggest that instead, the original Kings of Winter -- those who made the first long night's Winter Fall -- perhaps wore some simple bronze-work, adorned with runes. Then, when later house Stark and other northern houses withstood and defeated the Andals, and drove them from the neck, that the new terminology and ornate crown were added.

Starks maintained the north's sovereignty in the face of a far more equal foe than the cotf proved to be, and became known as the Kings of the North. After the victory over the Andahli, they began wearing a more official-looking Crown of Bronze and Iron, like the Reed Oath. Rather than seven points or tines like their faithful southron counterparts, the Starks bore 9 longswords, representing the unity of the North, and their duty to their Sworn Houses:

1. House Stark - the sword n the middle, with four to either side, representative of the other Houses of the North

House Reed

House Glover

House Mormont

House Umber

House Flint

House Wull

House Norrey

House LIddle

House Manderly was not yet exiled to the North of course so I didn't include them. Edit: House Bolton was also a belated addition to the Stark Union, if ever they truly were. Edit 2: House Karstark would still be House Stark at this time.

For some reason I got the impression that Stark conquered House Reed after House Bolton

[Voice]

For some reason I got the impression that Stark conquered House Reed after House Bolton

Wiki says the swore fealty some 1000 years ago, so 700 BC...

[Black Crow]

So it was originally just a bronze crown with runes?

Then they conquered the Umbers and added one sword, so it was a one-sword crown... then they conquered the Warg King, so it was a two-sword crown... etc? Seems a little goofy-looking as crowns go. One also wonders what would happen if they ran out of room on the crown for more swords.

Nah, I'd say that it was re-modelled to add the swords after they became Kings in the North rather than adding them one at a time in boy scout style. As such though I still reckon we're talking about titled kings rather than those found in the Starks' ancestral land. It has to be symbolic of the North and of nine major kingdoms, hence the focus on the titled ones.

I'm a little intrigued about the runes on Robb's replica though. Its easy enough to recall that the original was a bronze circlet surrounded by nine iron swords ["we swear it by bronze and iron"], but what about the runes. Are they still read and so able to be remembered or are the replicas just any old runes copied off a mouldered wall and for all we or anybody else knows an advert for Umber's Brown Ale?

[Blazfemur]

wasnt there mention of merling kings? (merman/maid, etc)

[Black Crow]

For some reason I got the impression that Stark conquered House Reed after House Bolton

Yeah, that's the impression I got from the World Book too.

[Black Crow]

wasnt there mention of merling kings? (merman/maid, etc)

There are, but they seem fairly legendary and aren't associated with the North as such.

[Voice]

I'm a little intrigued about the runes on Robb's replica though. Its easy enough to recall that the original was a bronze circlet surrounded by nine iron swords ["we swear it by bronze and iron"], but what about the runes. Are they still read and so able to be remembered or are the replicas just any old runes copied off a mouldered wall and for all we or anybody else knows an advert for Umber's Brown Ale?

I'd bet Old Nan is reading her favorite book of runes this very moment.

[The Idle Raven]

Not necessarily. As it was being worn until Aegon tooled up and Robb donned a replica as King in the North, its more likely that the original crown of the Kings of Winter was bronze and that the iron swords may have been added as the kingdoms fell. There are indeed too many kingdoms and petty kingdoms to correspond to the nine swords, which is why I'm suggesting that only the titled ones made it on to the royal diadem, hence the:

1. The Kings of Winter

2. The Red Kings [boltons]

3. The Barrow Kings

4. The Warg Kings

5. The Marsh Kings

6. Nights King

and?

The Kings of Skagos / the Skagosi?

[Black Crow]

Skagos has been suggested, but there's no hint of a king in the World Book let alone a titled one. I suppose though its big enough and ugly enough and sufficiently distinct to perhaps qualify. I'd feel happier with a title though.

[Voice]

While I'm an advocate of NK's importance to Starkhood, I'm not understanding why they'd have a sword in his honor on their crown...

[Black Crow]

While I'm an advocate of NK's importance to Starkhood, I'm not understanding why they'd have a sword in his honor on their crown...

It ain't necessarily an honour but a trophy - and perhaps its even where Ice came from.

[markg171]

Not to get off track, but Ran just confirmed that Viserys was Aerys heir, not Aegon, after Rhaegar died

Not an error. Primogeniture is customary, but not binding... especially not to a king. We have other examples of people being passed over, or potentially passed over, for others.

Maester Yandel is merely reporting based on historical records on events of the time.

[Voice]

Hmm. Guess so. Such a boast seems dangerous amidst a new-forged alliance. And considering they banished his name from history...seems stranger still.

I do agree that is where Ice comes from though.

[Voice]

Ran just confirmed that Viserys was Aerys heir, not Aegon

Ah. Verily so, he was the prince that was usurped and his was the song of pissing and moaning.

[WeaselPie]

Not to get off track, but Ran just confirmed that Viserys was Aerys heir, not Aegon, after Rhaegar died

*the sound of 1,000 theories crumbling*

[Black Crow]

Well quite and given that Viserys was indeed the true king all that "textual analysis" of the fever dream is gurgling down the pan.

And just for the record:

http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/120966-errors-in-the-woiaf/page-4

[Eira Seren]

So it was originally just a bronze crown with runes?

Then they conquered the Umbers and added one sword, so it was a one-sword crown... then they conquered the Warg King, so it was a two-sword crown... etc? Seems a little goofy-looking as crowns go. One also wonders what would happen if they ran out of room on the crown for more swords.

Well, that's an interesting point. Personally, I wouldn't think there would be any swords corresponding to them.

The Starks were wearing this crown until Aegon. Yet as far as we've ever heard, the Starks never saw themselves as ruling any territory north of the Wall, which is the only place wildlings could be said to exist.

It's possible, I guess, that Starks saw themselves as ruling what became the area north of the Wall, before the Wall was built... but I doubt it, because that's awfully damn far north, and the Starks at such an early point as that would have been petty kings (nowhere near kings of the whole North).

I am additionally reluctant to think Joramun had a thing to do with the crown because he is never really said, in the series proper, to have been a KbtW, let alone a king who was conquered by the Starks. Rather, he collaborated with the Starks.

ADancewithFlagons is familiar with this topic. Note also the World book says otherwise, but whoever wrote that bit didn't even capitalize the term King-beyond-the-Wall properly.

I don't know though, maybe they wanted to lay claim to it ... I mean they did say kings of the North. Kings of winter is fairly ambitious as well. Again this is assuming on my part but I always thought that they were probably north of the wall. but maybe that goes back to the debate about when the wall was really built?

[Voice]

Couple of knee-jerk reaction to King Viserys, Third of His Name...

-He was indeed usurped...which means Dany is next, regardless of Jon or fAegon's parentage

-those KG at the ToJ seem even stranger...why weren't they with Viserys and Daenerys? Viserys was the heir, became king, all while they were taking orders from the Prince that was Passed-over.

[Black Crow]

Couple of knee-jerk reaction to King Viserys, Third of His Name...

-He was indeed usurped...which means Dany is next, regardless of Jon or fAegon's parentage

-those KG at the ToJ seem even stranger...why weren't they with Viserys and Daenerys? Viserys was the heir, became king, all while they were taking orders from the Prince that was Passed-over.

I think that this comes back to what I was suggesting earlier; that it was Aerys who ordered Hightower to separate Rhaegar from his two shadows and ultimately leave him unprotected at the Trident. Rhaegar had failed him. He had plotted against him and then disappeared when he was needed to deal the rebellion. It sounds very much as if he had already decided that Viserys was to be named his heir even before Rhaegar rode north.