Kings in the North vs. Kings of Winter

[sweetsunray]

11 hours ago, LmL said:

I have always suspected something like this to be true. 

I agree. Their flayed man sigil and their flaying practices has something to do with "skinchanging", except here they actively try to steal someone else's skin in a physical way, rather than a mental one. Not sure whether they have a Stark origin, but they sure as hell are an envious house. Anyway, the flaying might have its origin in trying to steal a skinchanger's power. But then there's also this leeching to keep the "blood pure". And we don't really know who the defeated Warg King might have been.

[Seams]

12 hours ago, Curled Finger said:

The Starks would become psychic skin changing immortal kings with the ability to rise from the dead. Perhaps in the defeat of the Others part of their part of the pact was to quash their magic. Don't use it, don't hang out with dire wolves, just be regular people. Perhaps the denial of magic during their lives caused all the magic to run free in their death therefore requiring binding? These crazy magical spirits of dead Kings of Winter would be very powerful in theory. The magic is suppressed over thousands of years and generations but it can't be bred out of the bloodline. The power stays there latent until our current characters simply became the characters the DNA could not be contained in. Or something, I'm sure you get the idea.  

...

You make a really interesting point about all the other northern families sharing in the Stark blood.

I love the image this conjures in my mind of the Stark Monsters, lurking in their double-walled compound, flying around spying on people and making kills while inhabiting their animals, then taking turns dying and regenerating. Theon would be standing off to the side, mouth agape and eyes wide, wishing he could participate. Or, if they were suppressing this magic, as you theorize, the death of a Lord of Winterfell would unleash something like a nuclear explosion of magic - maybe the double wall around Winterfell was designed to contain this "radioactive" fallout.

The idea of the shared northern/Stark blood recipe makes sense. These families have been intermarrying for generations, and the idea that the Starks would have picked up and retained aspects of each old king's bloodline makes sense.

In addition to marriage, though, there's something about wards that is important to the blood recipe, I think. Maybe it goes back to the wards and swords and words wordplay - as people have pointed out, "saying the words" of the Night's Watch vow turns a young man into a "sword in the darkness" but also, possibly, as Jon Snow discovered, a steward. And then there's this from the man known as The Norrey (whose name might be wordplay around "The North" or "Torrhen" and whose fighting men are described as looking "fearsome as the face of winter,"):

"Aye, and why not?" Old Flint stomped his cane against the ice. "Wards, we always called them, when Winterfell demanded boys of us, but they were hostages, and none the worse for it."

"None but them whose sires displeased the Kings o' Winter," said The Norrey. "Those came home shorter by a head. So you tell me, boy … if these wildling friends o' yours prove false, do you have the belly to do what needs be done?"

Ask Janos Slynt. "Tormund Giantsbane knows better than to try me. I may seem a green boy in your eyes, Lord Norrey, but I am still a son of Eddard Stark."

(ADwD, Jon IX)

(A side note: Benjen called Jon a green boy when he was new to the Wall, and Uncle Aeron said Theon was "a lordling of the green lands" when he returned to Pyke.)

 

This dialogue seemed relevant here because the Stark honor, as represented by Ned, was best represented by his refusal to kill children. The war between the Starks and the Aryns over the three Sister Islands supposedly involved northmen eating children - did the Starks participate in that? Is the taking and keeping of wards and/or the blood of children somehow part of the northern / Old Gods / CotF pact for survival?

 

Norrey is the only one to refer to the Kings of Winter as the Kings o' Winter, as far as I can tell. It could be just a way of showing that he speaks with a dialect, but GRRM doesn't really do that much with his characters. So maybe there is a slight twist of some kind here - maybe he's alluding to a specific era of the rule of the Starks. Or maybe the Red Kings were the top kings at some point? This bloodlust seems more consistent with what we know of the Boltons. (Or of the Lannisters, if you really want to complicate things.)

 

[Curled Finger]

21 hours ago, Seams said:

I love the image this conjures in my mind of the Stark Monsters, lurking in their double-walled compound, flying around spying on people and making kills while inhabiting their animals, then taking turns dying and regenerating. Theon would be standing off to the side, mouth agape and eyes wide, wishing he could participate. Or, if they were suppressing this magic, as you theorize, the death of a Lord of Winterfell would unleash something like a nuclear explosion of magic - maybe the double wall around Winterfell was designed to contain this "radioactive" fallout.

The idea of the shared northern/Stark blood recipe makes sense. These families have been intermarrying for generations, and the idea that the Starks would have picked up and retained aspects of each old king's bloodline makes sense.

In addition to marriage, though, there's something about wards that is important to the blood recipe, I think. Maybe it goes back to the wards and swords and words wordplay - as people have pointed out, "saying the words" of the Night's Watch vow turns a young man into a "sword in the darkness" but also, possibly, as Jon Snow discovered, a steward. And then there's this from the man known as The Norrey (whose name might be wordplay around "The North" or "Torrhen" and whose fighting men are described as looking "fearsome as the face of winter,"):

"Aye, and why not?" Old Flint stomped his cane against the ice. "Wards, we always called them, when Winterfell demanded boys of us, but they were hostages, and none the worse for it."

"None but them whose sires displeased the Kings o' Winter," said The Norrey. "Those came home shorter by a head. So you tell me, boy … if these wildling friends o' yours prove false, do you have the belly to do what needs be done?"

Ask Janos Slynt. "Tormund Giantsbane knows better than to try me. I may seem a green boy in your eyes, Lord Norrey, but I am still a son of Eddard Stark."

(ADwD, Jon IX)

(A side note: Benjen called Jon a green boy when he was new to the Wall, and Uncle Aeron said Theon was "a lordling of the green lands" when he returned to Pyke.)

 

This dialogue seemed relevant here because the Stark honor, as represented by Ned, was best represented by his refusal to kill children. The war between the Starks and the Aryns over the three Sister Islands supposedly involved northmen eating children - did the Starks participate in that? Is the taking and keeping of wards and/or the blood of children somehow part of the northern / Old Gods / CotF pact for survival?

 

Norrey is the only one to refer to the Kings of Winter as the Kings o' Winter, as far as I can tell. It could be just a way of showing that he speaks with a dialect, but GRRM doesn't really do that much with his characters. So maybe there is a slight twist of some kind here - maybe he's alluding to a specific era of the rule of the Starks. Or maybe the Red Kings were the top kings at some point? This bloodlust seems more consistent with what we know of the Boltons. (Or of the Lannisters, if you really want to complicate things.)

 

Ah Seams, it's so good to see you back in action.   I understand everyone needs a break now and then.   I think I can speak for @YOVMOand myself at the very least in telling you that your contributions to the forum, in original topics, replies and contributions is invaluable and we enjoy you to no end.  I'm positive we aren't alone.   

That said, let's get to your comments.    I'm fascinated by the lack of intel about The Red Kings.   Why describe the magic the other northern kings possess and make no mention of the power of The Red Kings?   We know in the few battle descriptions that they were resourceful, independent and brutal.   All descriptions ascribed to the Stark Kings of Winter.   Still one has to suspect something unique, not necessarily hinted at in The Red Kings, but in the actions of the current Boltons.   I enjoyed your dark illustration of the amalgamation of the magics the Starks may have er, um, enjoyed.   I have to compare this to the amazing power of the Targaryans.  Targs weren't subject to any restrictions or limits on the public displays of power and understood in later generations that they were god-like.  In Ned Stark there is a humility before The Old Gods.   He understands some of the finer points of rulers, duty, honor, righteousness, protection.  Sorry, he's the only one I really see it in as both his father and son were warriors where Ned was a dutiful soldier called to arms for intensely personal reasons.   That's not to say that Rickard and then Robb didn't also experience personal attacks, it is only that Ned circumvented participation in the Battle at the Trident to secure the object of his personal reasons.  We are privy to his disgust at the actions taken in the sack of the Red Keep.    Ned was even minded in Robert's Rebellion if nothing else.   I'm trying to apply this to the "god-mind" of the magical Kings of Winter and Valyrians or specifically, Targs.   All that magical power can't be an easy thing to suppress and I doubt prozac was available to the Kings of Winter.   In this same train of thought I can't help but think that all this great magic has some counter balancing trait or quality.    The Targs had madness and deformity (off the top of my head).   What could be a counter to necromancy?   Telekinetic Marsh Kings power?   Skinchanging and warg?  @sweetsunray recently wrote a topic about the possibility that Ned's spirit may be roaming free with some intent because he wasn't buried with his binding.    That's sort of where I'm thinking there is a cause and effect here to both the powers and burials of the KOW and KItN.

Above you made mention of the 4 Kings: King Beyond the Wall, Kings of Winter, The Night's King and Kings in the North.  I find that extremely interesting in this current mindset of the 4 magics we are told about of the original 4 magical families in the North.   I don't recall a specific date of conquest for any other families by the Starks except perhaps the Red Kings, who were last.  Nor do I recall specific dates for the appearances of the various northern Kings with the big titles.  As always, correct were required.  Is it possible that each were Starks with a recently acquired power perhaps added to the first power won or even the non power of a "virgin" First Man family? Or as even early proposed, to the incredible power of Brandon the Bloody Blade, magical son of Garth Greenhand? 

[Seams]

20 hours ago, Curled Finger said:

I'm fascinated by the lack of intel about The Red Kings.   Why describe the magic the other northern kings possess and make no mention of the power of The Red Kings?   We know in the few battle descriptions that they were resourceful, independent and brutal.   All descriptions ascribed to the Stark Kings of Winter.   ...

Above you made mention of the 4 Kings: King Beyond the Wall, Kings of Winter, The Night's King and Kings in the North.  ...

It came to me as I was reading your thoughtful post that the first death in the book is Ser Waymar Royce. What if "Royce" is supposed to evoke "roi," the French word for king, the plural of which is "rois." That makes the first kill for the Others "Kings." And not just any "kings," but a guy from a family that is ancient and that possesses and uses armor covered in runes. (I realize Ser Waymar is a younger son and does not seem to have runes on his armor or sword.)

We also see runes on the hammer that is part of the carved stone image of the ancient king at the tomb of King Tristifer at Oldstones, for what it's worth.

We've all been assuming that the Others were looking for someone else when they killed Ser Waymar, but what if they are trying to kill all of the lines of the old kings of the First Men? Or what does Ser Waymar or the Royce family represent about kings on a symbolic level?

I think this is going to come back to the little throw-away comment in the World book where GRRM mentioned that Aegon the Conqueror did not destroy the swords he took from the northmen when Thorren Stark bent the knee. Those swords were not melted and made part of the Iron Throne. So where are they, and why were they left intact? Were the swords spared in order to use in the fight against the Others?

I'm going to be busy today with holiday preparations, so I'm sorry I can't flesh this out more with the quote from the World book or the description of Tristifer's tomb, etc. I'll try to put some thought into it an get back to it after the holiday.

[Curled Finger]

@Seams, ah yes it the holidays.   It's fine and I hope you have a wonderful long weekend filled with feasts and presents and interesting company.   I recall the runes on both the Royce armor and the Oldstones King Tristifer.  I read a topic once that proposed The Others were looking for a Stark, not Waymar.   It was good, but I tend to think that attack as you put forth, had more to do with "claiming" the First Men families than killing Starks.   The Royce's lost Lamentation, after all.   If Others can turn baby boys into Others it's not a stretch to imagine they could turn a grown person into one.  Could be they knew Waymar was a First Man and just wanted his sword, their foil, and killed him when they found he didn't have it.    Let's get Brienne up North and see what they think of her.   I'd love to see what method The Others use to determine what's worthy of saving and what is not.    

Enjoy yourself Seams!   We will chat after the big weekend.

[YOVMO]

On ‎12‎/‎21‎/‎2016 at 6:50 PM, ravenous reader said:

And it's also connected to Arya and the faceless men passing the liberating 'gift' of death to the pilgrims via the cup taken from the black pool.

I had made the connection of Brandon (ned's brother) and the cup being passed to him as well as Bran when the cup is literally passed to him when he sits the high seat as the Stark in Winterfell, but didn't connect it to the cup that fetches the water from the black pool. Thank you very much. THis is very, very good.

[YOVMO]

On ‎12‎/‎24‎/‎2016 at 6:37 AM, Seams said:

We also see runes on the hammer that is part of the carved stone image of the ancient king at the tomb of King Tristifer at Oldstones, for what it's worth.

We've all been assuming that the Others were looking for someone else when they killed Ser Waymar, but what if they are trying to kill all of the lines of the old kings of the First Men? Or what does Ser Waymar or the Royce family represent about kings on a symbolic level?

Here is something that strikes me odd, as a kind of the first men Tristopher IV Mudd should not have been buried in a tomb at all. He should have been buried in a barrow as would have been customer for the first men...ostensibly so that their souls can return to the collective in the tree that is, taken together, known as the old gods.

 

The reason that this strikes me odd is because it is for this very reason that I first started to suspect odd goings on with the Kings of Winter entombed in the crypts. They too should not have been entombed. All their family was laid to rest in the way of the first men. My original question is, if the kings are laid to "rest" differently than their families is it the case that 1) The kings are getting a privilege that non kings do not get or 2) The kings are making a sacrifice on behalf of the other family members? As you know, I sided with the second. It wouldn't make sense. Of course the kings, with the blood of the first men, would want to be laid to rest as all first men and worshippers of the old gods are. So why not? This is what leads me to the blood debt for Brandon The Bloody Blades crimes. Remember that every mention of the old kings of winter shows their spirts as "vengeful" or in some other way misfortunate. We know from the start that the swords on the laps of the stone kings keep their souls in. I had thought maybe it is possible that as a final act, as their penance, the king of winter would end his life with an iron sword and would, in some way, have his soul go in that sword which is why the broken swords are so worrisome (and possibly The Others).

However, If King Tristopher was also entombed rather than being placed in a barrow near a Weirwood tree as would have been standard custom we are left to ask whether or not all the kings of old were forced to make a pact and that the Starks, as the last kings of winter / KITN were simply the last that had to. I would be interested to see if the Red Kings were entombed.

Is there some list of Northern Houses that were, at one time, kings before bending the knee to winterfell? If they are all first men, which I assume they would be, it would be interesting to find out if prior to bending to the Stark they were all entombed rather than buried in traditional first men manner.

[Luddagain]

Flicked back here via a link and it is a great discussion

Certainly the ROYCES are important and somehow linked to the North and the first men.  Note the number of Royces in the Stark geneology. Also note the similarity of NAMES (GRRM is a name o philiiac ie they always mean something). Essentially in Welsh the names Reece and Royce are THE SAME just as in Welsh Brandon and Bryndnen are essentially the same name.

However the connection to the word Royal also should not be ignored.

 

So who uses the name Reece (Royce) - never the Starks it seems - instead it is Dustins and Ryswells and Boltons.

 

Somehow I think we are missing a whole idea here - the Dustins and the Boltons are implacably opposed to the Starks. I think that they are NOT part of the pact. Rather their loyalty is lie Craster's to the "others. Lady Dustin is a Ryswell and her role is confused.

[TMIFairy]

On 27.09.2016 at 11:04 PM, Free Northman Reborn said:

King of Winter is from before they united all the North under their rule.  [...] After the Boltons knelt to Winterfell [...] they could truly call themselves the King in the North.

Incredible that after this answer the thread has run another four pages

[TMIFairy]

25 minutes ago, Luddagain said:

Lady Dustin is a Ryswell and her role is confused.

Lady Dustin is a "woman scorned" and pissed off as hell. She wanted to wed Brandon Stark - and he could had been amiable to the idea as well - but Rodrik Stark ordered Brandon to marry Catelyn and betrothed him to the Tully girl. So Barbery got William Dustin instead.

No love lost for the Starks for her at this point.

And THEN Ned Stark "got her husband killed".

And THEN Ned Stark brought back William's horse and not his bones from the war.

The Lady Dustin would not piss on a Stark if he were on fire. A "just reward" for the "husband stealers" in her opinion. That she reinforces the Ryswel-Bolton block is a bit of a coincidence. Had William - who seems to have been a close chum of Ned's, as he had accompanied him on the quest for Lyanna - survived the war, it seems unlikely that the Dustins would had been the third of the "anti-Winterfell" alliance of Ryswell-Bolton.

Lots of butterflies this makes - maybe Roose would re-marry, as to bring a third House into the block?