208 replies to this topic

[Cruella_Da_Oz]

But North could of end up with years of Civil War nonetheless. It all depends on outcome of war. Jon's descendants would claim that they take preference over Sansa's kids, because Jon was legetimized by King Robb. Sansa's children, backed by the rest of the country probably and most likely some of the Northeners who hope to gain from it, would claim that Robb wasn't in fact the rightful King  and legitimization is incorrect. Obviously it's not the only outcome, an idea is that Iron Throne would recognize Robb as the king and then the war would end, but it's just as likely that this status quo wouldn't last for long and new war would erupt. Anyway, I am really not sure that separationism is in best interests of Westeros at this state of society, Westeros is probably stronger united, what's with their horrible seasons, the wall, threat from others... And Civil war that Robb started is definitely not in the best interests of the country. So if Catelyn doesn't necessarily care about bigger picture and good of North, Robb doesn't appear to have good of Westeros as his main objective. They both have their family's interest as prime importance, they just define it differently.

Anyway, Jon as a heir would be against Westeros traditions, and as usual with such circumstances there will be always people to use it to start trouble. Remember what happened, for example, with Stephan and Matilda. And that situation was much more clear cut.

[The Scabbard Of the Morning]

Yes, you and I can sit around all day and draw a million different scenarios under which no matter who is heir there will be chaos. But Jon Stark is the only chance the North has to unify, it doesn't guarantee it, but it's the only option that has a  realistic chance of give the North a smooth transition should he die heirless. Every other option guarantees war. Robb knew this. Robb didn't put Jon ahead of Sansa because of "family interest", he put Jon ahead of Sansa to preserve the North.

[Jon Targaryen]

Dragonlord, on Jan 7 2008, 14.18, said:

On topic, actually, it wasn't Catelyn's call. It's her husband's. If he allowed Jon to live normally and learn as a lord's son then by Westeros' customs she can bang her head on walls if she wants but that won't change a thing if current lord of Starks and his successors let Jon live in Winterfell. Second point is not totally valid but I think it should be included : Jon is of the Stark's blood. He is one of the descendents of the Kings in the North ... so, bastard or not, his place is at Winterfell.

I agree to an extent with your first point. Errant Bard made a good point that if Catelyn were to bring all her resources to bear on the matter she might have gotten Ned to foster out Jon, if no R+L=J.

I actually agree more with your second point. It is quite obvious that Jon has Stark blood. He should have some sort of place at Winterfell.

[Mezeh]

The Scabbard Of the Morning, on Jan 7 2008, 18.55, said:

That's what makes her fear irrational.  Jon as King in the North is infinitely preferable to Lannister rule through marriage to Sansa, this is true to practically ALL NORTHERNERS.

:agree:


Stannis understands this very well too since he tries to make Jon his Lord of Winterfell. Jon is a bastard of Winterfell and Ned Stark acknowledged son. If Sansa and Tyrion had any children they would be Lannisters and the idea of Lannisters ruling the North would be hardly appealing to any northman.

[Jon Targaryen]

Mezeh, on Jan 7 2008, 23.04, said:

If Sansa and Tyrion had any children they would be Lannisters and the idea of Lannisters ruling the North would be hardly appealing to any northman.

If you are talking about names, the designated heir to Winterfell after Sansa would almost certainly take the name Stark. If Tyrion were denied Casterly Rock, I think all the children would take the name Stark.

But if you are talking about perception, then you have a point. But it is not Incredible Hulk-strong. Plenty of women inherit. They had to marry someone. It doesn't mean their children are considered to be primarily of their father's house.

[mormont]

The Scabbard Of the Morning, on Jan 7 2008, 23.55, said:

That's what makes her fear irrational.  Jon as King in the North is infinitely preferable to Lannister rule through marriage to Sansa, this is true to practically ALL NORTHERNERS.

Well... I don't know about that. Spoilers suggest that there are some, at least, that will accept Lannister rule - at least, proxy Lannister rule through the Boltons. I can't imagine these people would categorically reject Lannister rule through Sansa. True, they maybe don't know about Jon being named Robb's heir, but I doubt it would make that much difference to most of them. An heir without an army is not attractive to many people. (As Viserys, for one, found out.)

I think your ideas about what 'all Northerners' will accept are over-simplistic and based on a flawed prospectus. Northerners are like anyone else: they differ. What some will accept, others will not.

Quote

Anyone but a legitimate Stark who tries to claim the North will draw at most partial support, leading to war and strife.

That's Jon stuffed then: he's not a legitimate Stark. He's a bastard Snow. ;)

Ah, you say, but Robb legitimised him! Yes... but that only counts if you accept Robb had the power to do so. It is not a universal truth. Any Northern lord who sees an advantage for their family in accepting either the Lannisters or Stannis can and will simply deny that Jon is a legitimate Stark. Therefore, Jon too will only get partial support and there will be 'war and strife'.

[Elrick]

mormont, on Jan 8 2008, 04.11, said:

Well... I don't know about that. Spoilers suggest that there are some, at least, that will accept Lannister rule - at least, proxy Lannister rule through the Boltons. I can't imagine these people would categorically reject Lannister rule through Sansa. True, they maybe don't know about Jon being named Robb's heir, but I doubt it would make that much difference to most of them. An heir without an army is not attractive to many people. (As Viserys, for one, found out.)

I think your ideas about what 'all Northerners' will accept are over-simplistic and based on a flawed prospectus. Northerners are like anyone else: they differ. What some will accept, others will not.

That's Jon stuffed then: he's not a legitimate Stark. He's a bastard Snow. ;)

Ah, you say, but Robb legitimised him! Yes... but that only counts if you accept Robb had the power to do so. It is not a universal truth. Any Northern lord who sees an advantage for their family in accepting either the Lannisters or Stannis can and will simply deny that Jon is a legitimate Stark. Therefore, Jon too will only get partial support and there will be 'war and strife'.

I will have to state that if this is true than if Stannis legitimizes him the same also holds since Stannis is still considered a pretender vying for a throne that doesn't belong to him. No matter what the North and South are probably going to bleed big time anyway.

Personally I was hoping to see Ramsay and Jon fight it out that would be a really interesting fight to read about!

[The Winged Shadow]

Doesn't matter whether Sansa or Jon inherits the North. It would bleed either way. Both will face resistance doesnt matter what. Things are very rarely clear cut in politics and this is no difference.

There is no simple solution. Its that simple.

Also, i find it funny how people are calling her fears irrational considering they might come true. e.g She was scared that Jon's children might take her grand children's rights.....and as far as we can guess....it might come true (the whole legitimize thing). And when that happens Jon's children may very much fight for their right of WF....or not, but the possibility is definetly there.

I find it hilarious that people think that Jon might not rise against his family. He has changed much from when he was at WF. He killed his friend, under order, to further the mission (half-hand). He split up mother and son (Gilly and her kid). What i am trying to get at is, that he has slowly become a steel hearted leader who can do heart wrenching things for the 'greater good' so to speak. And if it comes down to Jon being the heir of Robb and he picks up Robb's cause and at the same time any of the other starks show up, he will have to choose between two right things. In one, he has the true heir to whom the power SHOULD have gone to and second, the whole War thing.
For example, If Jon inherited the North and continued the war and Bran happened to show up. What would Jon do?
Would he give up the power knowing Bran is/should-be the rightful heir? or keep the power knowing he is the better choice in these times of war?

I think its the latter because it would be the 'greater good' in this particular example. Of course this might not be seen as "rising up" against ones fmaily, but i think you guys get what im trying to get at.

[Elrick]

the winged shadow, on Jan 8 2008, 06.53, said:

Doesn't matter whether Sansa or Jon inherits the North. It would bleed either way. Both will face resistance doesnt matter what. Things are very rarely clear cut in politics and this is no difference.

There is no simple solution. Its that simple.

Also, i find it funny how people are calling her fears irrational considering they might come true. e.g She was scared that Jon's children might take her grand children's rights.....and as far as we can guess....it might come true (the whole legitimize thing). And when that happens Jon's children may very much fight for their right of WF....or not, but the possibility is definetly there.

I find it hilarious that people think that Jon might not rise against his family. He has changed much from when he was at WF. He killed his friend, under order, to further the mission (half-hand). He split up mother and son (Gilly and her kid). What i am trying to get at is, that he has slowly become a steel hearted leader who can do heart wrenching things for the 'greater good' so to speak. And if it comes down to Jon being the heir of Robb and he picks up Robb's cause and at the same time any of the other starks show up, he will have to choose between two right things. In one, he has the true heir to whom the power SHOULD have gone to and second, the whole War thing.
For example, If Jon inherited the North and continued the war and Bran happened to show up. What would Jon do?
Would he give up the power knowing Bran is/should-be the rightful heir? or keep the power knowing he is the better choice in these times of war?

I think its the latter because it would be the 'greater good' in this particular example. Of course this might not be seen as "rising up" against ones fmaily, but i think you guys get what im trying to get at.

Half-Hand's death was not meliciously attentioned for one Half-Hand lost on purpose. The wildings would kill him anyway and Jon was the only one he felt that stood a chance of uncovering what Mance Rayder was up to. To be in command of the Wall Jon must think for the greater good.

Jon did a heartwrenching thing to switch babes on Gilly but it just points that Jon is becoming more a grey character than a white character so to speak. To say the least I think/suspect that Jon felt a lot of guilt in doing this and he may have acted on a suggestion by someone else possibly Aemon or even another of his men. Either way we simply don't completely know why Jon would this calous thing but we'll probably find out.

As for Jon taking the legitimizing part I don't see it happening at this time. Honor dictates that he stays as Lord Commander and it's been something he has decided for some time. Jon may have gotten darker to the point of being more grey but I doubt oathbreaking is something he'd do at this point.

[King James]

gold dragon, on Jan 8 2008, 04.31, said:

Jon did a heartwrenching thing to switch babes on Gilly but it just points that Jon is becoming more a grey character than a white character so to speak. To say the least I think/suspect that Jon felt a lot of guilt in doing this and he may have acted on a suggestion by someone else possibly Aemon or even another of his men. Either way we simply don't completely know why Jon would this calous thing but we'll probably find out.

Jon's separation of Gilly and her baby does not point to him becoming grey, imho, it points to him becoming a smart leader.  Stannis and Melisandre think of Mance Rayder's son (now with Gilly) as "King's blood", and that made him a candidate for the fires.  Jon couldn't stomach the thought of an innocent baby being given to the flames (which one could argue keeps him in the "white" area).  When the time comes for Mel to sacrifice the baby, he will come forward and admit to what he did.  Gilly's, and Craster's, baby has no value to the Red Priestess.  Jon will take Stannis' verbal abuse and threats (he's already shown that he's willing to stand up to Stannis) before he allows Mel to sacrifice the baby.

Gilly was aware of the switch, as evidenced by her crying throughout the whole sea journey.  Also, I'm pretty sure Maester Aemon pointed out to Sam that Gilly had been separated from her own baby.

[Cruella_Da_Oz]

But he would have to do oathbreaking to accept Robb's offer. So entire point of Robb's offer is based on Jon breaking his oath (which undoubtedly would be used by his future enemies should he try to become leader. "Well," they would say. "None of us wants Lannisters, true, for they are not of the North. But look at Sansa's son, he looks so much like his grandfather, obviously this is Stark blood talking! (it could happen, I look like my granddad and nothing like my parents) As for your precious Jon, he broke the sacred oath! We used to kill deserters like him on sight! How  can you trust him?!" And other people will argue otherwise, of course. And there will be wanking and blood spilling.)
I mean, I don't see how one can say that Catelyn's fears are unfounded based on fact that Jon swore not to leave the Wall... Because entire Robb's proposition is based on assumption that he CAN do so. Otherwise, making him heir makes no sense!

I suspect that many northeners, not noble born, only very vaguely care about Starks. What they care about is peace and survival. Personally, I have to credit Catelyn for proposing the only thing that would really benefit the kingdom as a whole. Brining peace to people.Sansa's heir would be legetimate heir until Bran or Rickon show up.  Iron Throne would never accept separation from North, at least it is very unlikely. and they are right, it would be going backwards.  So there would be always war while Robb tries to keep his "kingdom". I understand why Robb wanted revenge and all, but as far as good of the people (including NORTH!), I don't see what good was he bringing them. He was ruining the country as much as anyone, just without added sadism in process. All the good his war brought to country and north in particular is burnt deserted land and tons of cadavers. And even if he won, all the benefits would be country torn apart without central power.

[L'Sana]

Cruella_Da_Oz, on Jan 8 2008, 09.01, said:

I suspect that many northeners, not noble born, only very vaguely care about Starks. What they care about is peace and survival. Personally, I have to credit Catelyn for proposing the only thing that would really benefit the kingdom as a whole. Brining peace to people.Sansa's heir would be legetimate heir until Bran or Rickon show up.  Iron Throne would never accept separation from North, at least it is very unlikely. and they are right, it would be going backwards.  So there would be always war while Robb tries to keep his "kingdom". I understand why Robb wanted revenge and all, but as far as good of the people (including NORTH!), I don't see what good was he bringing them. He was ruining the country as much as anyone, just without added sadism in process. All the good his war brought to country and north in particular is burnt deserted land and tons of cadavers. And even if he won, all the benefits would be country torn apart without central power.

Actually (and bearing in mind that I have little evidence to back this up) I would suspect that the common-born people are even more attached to the Starks than the nobles. The nobles, after all, get to see the Starks as flawed people, while the commons just see the Starks of Winterfell, the great family that ruled them for thousands of years, who built the wall that protects them from the wildlings, who ultimately sacrificed their own power to protect the the people of the North from the Dragons.

I also am not sure about your contention that Westeros should be united. I suspect an independent North might be better able to ride out a long winter than a North attached to a misruled Westeros.

Those are nits, though. Overall, I think your point is accurate. This was was costing the North too much at a time when it really couldn't afford to lose anything.

[Cruella_Da_Oz]

I see your point and I guess I agree with you about sentimentalilty attached to Starks, but then again, it's not like Starks would completely disappear. Sansa's children would be Starks by mother. Hell, for all they knew, Arya could possibly be still alive. I see why it's not acceptable for Robb, and I agree that situation is difficult, but I don't see how either of them are arguing for the ultimate good fo the North. Robb doesn't want Lannisters to get the North. Not because they would ruin North through cunning Tyrion or politic extraordinaire Tywin both of men being probably ten time better rulers than Robb. And Catelyn is worried about her family that in her eyes doesn't include Jon. Neither is being great fighters for humanity or smallfolk.
Westeros wouldn't be necessarily misruled. Without civil war, peace would be established much faster. And no matter who would win, Stannis or Lannisters would have to continue war with Robb. That's what would make country misruled. Otherwise, Westeros was functioning quite acceptably. It's not like North is better developed than the rest of the country. It's not Dutch Revolt kind of thingy where old dying empire drains great new financial miracle. Westeros doesn't live off of North. They have about the same economy, or maybe I am mistaken. They probably can use the rest of the country for people for the Wall, trade is better without borders. Also, when people are used to being one country, separation can be painful. I don't see singificant progress here. They just cut themselves off from much warmer lands where harvest is probably much better. Robb and co don't even know that Joffrey is stupid psycopath. For all they know, he'd be a great leader or have great concil. And if they did it's far from proven that Joff would be national disaster as opposed to local one. Or rather, they could have backed Stannis and help him win the war. No Lannisters, just no "King in the North!" which IMO was bad idea ripe with disaster perpetuated by likable, noble character.

Edited by Cruella_Da_Oz, 08 January 2008 - 11:50 AM.

[L'Sana]

Here's why I think the North, under the current system, might be better off independent:

The rest of Westeros does not value the North. The typical attitude seems to be expressed by Mace Tyrell: "What is there North of the Neck that any sane man would want?" Viserys, when describing Westeros to Dany, never even mentions any of the landmarks in the North. The Wall is seen as a curiosity and a place to stash criminals, nothing more more.

So what happens in during a devestating winter? If there is a good king who cares about the welfare of the people in charge, he sends food and supplies North, encouraging trade, and "suggesting" to the nobles of the Reach that it would be a good idea to sell food to the North on credit. But there isn't a good king on the throne. When the North needs all of its resources just to survive, the Lannisters will keep demanding taxes to use in their projects down South. Joffery might even raise taxes, just because that's the kind of person he is. When things get bad enough that the North can't send any taxes, it will just get written off. The Lannisters are unlikely to institute a wealth-transfer system in order to keep it afloat.

[Cruella_Da_Oz]

There was no word on the taxes though when rebellion was discussed, though admittedly I can be wrong here! That would be much more real reason. However, if the rest of the country don't think highly of North, it is probably because they don't expect much from it. Now, actually, if North was rich and "appreciated", they could have a good cause to rebel, because that would mean the rest of the country is living from their resources and drains them. and will continue to lean heavily on them, trying to grab power, because they are rich and golden. There is a reason why it is unproportionally rich provinces that tend to rebel. (there are exceptions of course). They are indeed better off on their own without parasites. Again, United Netherlands is probably good example (bear in mind my poor knowledge of history though and don't take it all too seriously).  Lands that have no resources and are poor need others and have nothing much to steal from. They need others and not vice versa. Of course, North is probably not that poor or they wouldn't be able to sustain the war, etc.
Country was working as a whole for centuries. There must be certain infrastructure that will be broken now. That's minus.
Also, Iron Throne won't accept independency, not for long anyway. So North will be doomed to being under attack. And they will be cut off from their usual sources, merchants, roads, etc, because they'll be surrouned by unfriendly lands. They'll have to regroup, change... They will be in civil war when Winter comes. So even if ideally North could be better off, which I don't see yet, in present situation they'll get a disaster. And it could be easily predicted that Ironborn will raise their heads, for they were afraid of united Westeros. (I believe this is why Ukraine joined Russia back then. For protection from outside force. Then they complained for years that russian empire is living off vegetables and fruit from their fertile land. North doesn't even have particularly fertile land).

My best case scenario - Robb and co somehow off Stannis or Renly, very secretly. Okay, they are probably too lame for this, but yay, it's done for them! Then they support the surviving one, help him win the war, and ask for reward from easily influenced Renly or honest Stannis. usually victors do infact help their main powerful supporters. They need them to stay supporters while their rule is shaky. Starks would be new Lannisters.
of course, I realize that things could still go horribly wrong. Lannisters could still win, for one.
But at least it's a chance. I just don't see how idea of independen North is survavable. IMO, it was all over but the crying when Renly and Stannis refused to accept Robb's rule. Prolonged civil war was inescapable and considering that Ned supported Robert... i.e. didn't consider himself king in the north... It would be even more in line with honouring Ned's wishes.

[Errant Bard]

L'Sana, on Jan 8 2008, 17.56, said:

the Lannisters will keep demanding taxes to use in their projects down South. Joffery might even raise taxes, just because that's the kind of person he is. When things get bad enough that the North can't send any taxes, it will just get written off. The Lannisters are unlikely to institute a wealth-transfer system in order to keep it afloat.

It a bit of wild speculation, this.

First, in my opinion, the fact that the man ruling the North would be from the king's family would give him more power to get help from the south. Not to mention Tyrion is not actually stupid enough to ruin his land.

Also, when it comes to fine tuning and taxes, I think you are totally mistaken, Joff would have left this to his master of coins, and as far as the Lannister go, Tywin ruled the realm for 20 years without beggaring the north, and that inclued winters, so I have a hard time thinking that him or anyone else seizing the power would deliberately sink one part of the realm, or would have the power to for that matters.

[L'Sana]

Errant Bard, on Jan 8 2008, 10.41, said:

It a bit of wild speculation, this.

First, in my opinion, the fact that the man ruling the North would be from the king's family would give him more power to get help from the south. Not to mention Tyrion is not actually stupid enough to ruin his land.

Speculation based on the assumption that Robb accepted a peace treaty and went back and ruled Winterfell with Jeyne Westerling, not that Tyrion was ruling with Sansa.

Though it isn't like Tyrion was so beloved of Joff that Joff would have done anything he asked...

Errant Bard, on Jan 8 2008, 10.41, said:

Also, when it comes to fine tuning and taxes, I think you are totally mistaken, Joff would have left this to his master of coins, and as far as the Lannister go, Tywin ruled the realm for 20 years without beggaring the north, and that inclued winters, so I have a hard time thinking that him or anyone else seizing the power would deliberately sink one part of the realm, or would have the power to for that matters.

Tywin ruled for 20 years, during which there were only a couple of winters, mild and short. He did not deal with the kind of catastrophe upcoming. Also, Tywin doesn't necessarily rule all that much longer. Joff is only a few years away from taking power in his own right, and based on what we saw between Joff and Tywin, I don't see Tywin necessarily remaining as Hand.

At any rate, my argument isn't that the Lannisters deliberately try to sink the North, just that they would be more of a hindrance than a help in trying to keep things afloat.

[Cruella_Da_Oz]

After hundreds of years of unity cutting one of the "vital organs" of kingdom will have to be a hindrance, IMO. After country existed as a whole for centuries, people were becoming a nation or already were, there were merchants ways, a web of exchange, common roads, cutting off part of it has to be painful. A land becomes a whole, like a living body, and hacking off the limbs leads to blood loss.

Iron Throne would get fertile lands, while North would get the Wall... They'll still will be protectors of the realm from wildings, they'll have to deal with Ironborn... they'll still get all the same pains, but no even vague hope of help from other parts of Westeros! They'll be a barrier between danger and the rest of Westeros, which is bidding time to attack them and grab the power. ETA: and instead from one danger from one side they'll have to always be afraid of their southern neighbours, too.

Robb should have either join Stannis or Lannisters. Both sides needed help and for this help he could easily demand great rewards, including some liberties for North, or at least easing up on the taxes. Sansa who is alive in "Lannisters" scenario could be married off to Tommen, while Joff gets Margaery, or vice versa. Robb would either honour his Frey agreement or set it aside to marry some Lannister girl. Or marry Rickon to some Lannister. Pretty much the same with Baratheons except Sansa's dead (unless Robb manages to get her back in exchange to Kingslayer as a part of pretend negotiations for the show...) Stannis even has unwed daughter... no sons....

If IrThrone lets Robb be, it makes a dangerous precedent. If North won its freedom, while not the other ex kingdoms? Especially in dark times as these... and voila, we get once a great kingdom fallen apart, probably constantly at war.

IMO Robb ended up in position of Ibsen's Yarl Skule. Tearing apart what their ancestors build to have a piece of land where he'll be number one, a king. That's what it would ultimately accont for. Of course, Lannisters make for sucky Haakon :D, but still!

Edited by Cruella_Da_Oz, 08 January 2008 - 02:42 PM.

[mormont]

L'Sana, on Jan 8 2008, 16.14, said:

Actually (and bearing in mind that I have little evidence to back this up) I would suspect that the common-born people are even more attached to the Starks than the nobles.

Ooh, ooh! I've got this one! :P

Quote

The common people pray for rain, healthy children, and a summer that never ends. It is no matter to them if the high lords play their game of thrones, so long as they are left in peace.

Thank you, Jorah. ;)

[Branfangd]

I don't |Understand even if Jon Snow was Legit'  and made a Trueborn son of Ed Stark he's still comes behind Rickon and Bran

i'm not so sure about the whole Sansa claim thing

so why is there a argument at all