Jump to content

Kings in the North vs. Kings of Winter


Seams

Recommended Posts

I didn't understand the difference, so I finally did a search on the two titles, "King in the North" and "King of Winter."

Based on a few of uses of the phrase "King in the North" I had noticed before doing the search, I expected to find that "King in the North" was an incorrect title, and might explain why Robb's reign didn't last long - he never set foot in the north after being crowned, he had been born at Riverrun and just didn't qualify as a true King of the area north of the neck, in my thinking. If one of his brothers later becomes King, I expected we would see them adopt the title "King of Winter" and be more successful than Robb had been.

Instead, looking first at only AGoT search results, I found an apparent distinction between living and dead kings. Characters discussing the historic Stark kings and their battlefield activities or other history would refer to the rulers as Kings in the North. Characters in the Winterfell crypt, looking at the swords across the laps of the stone likenesses of each man, would use the term Kings of Winter.

Somehow I know I have to go down there, but I don't want to. I'm afraid of what might be waiting for me. The old Kings of Winter are down there, sitting on their thrones with stone wolves at their feet and iron swords across their laps, but it's not them I'm afraid of. I scream that I'm not a Stark, that this isn't my place, but it's no good, I have to go anyway ...

(AGoT, Jon IV)

The first Lords of Winterfell had been men hard as the land they ruled. In the centuries before the Dragonlords came over the sea, they had sworn allegiance to no man, styling themselves the Kings in the North.

(AGoT, Eddard I)

But then there's this, near the end of AGoT:

Maege Mormont stood. "The King of Winter!" she declared, and laid her spiked mace beside the swords. And the river lords were rising too, Blackwood and Bracken and Mallister, houses who had never been ruled from Winterfell, yet Catelyn watched them rise and draw their blades, bending their knees and shouting the old words that had not been heard in the realm for more than three hundred years, since Aegon the Dragon had come to make the Seven Kingdoms one … yet now were heard again, ringing from the timbers of her father's hall:
"The King in the North!"
"The King in the North!"

"THE KING IN THE NORTH!"

(AGoT, Catelyn XI)

Someone had pointed out to me in another thread that Mormont's voice was different here. Why is Maege Mormont using the term associated with a dead King, while the other northern bannermen are using the term for a living Stark king? Do the Mormonts know something about the Starks, and/or about the north, that would cause her to choose that title instead of the title everyone else is shouting?

And then there's this insight from Osha, who seems to know a lot about the north and old gods and lore and legend (or history, depending on your perspective):

He wished they were here now; the vault might not have seemed so dark and scary. Summer stalked out in the echoing gloom, then stopped, lifted his head, and sniffed the chill dead air. He bared his teeth and crept backward, eyes glowing golden in the light of the maester's torch. Even Osha, hard as old iron, seemed uncomfortable. "Grim folk, by the look of them," she said as she eyed the long row of granite Starks on their stone thrones.
"They were the Kings of Winter," Bran whispered. Somehow it felt wrong to talk too loudly in this place.
Osha smiled. "Winter's got no king. If you'd seen it, you'd know that, summer boy."

(AGoT, Bran VII)

So I pressed on and looked at the search results for each royal title in ACoK, to see if the distinction was any clearer. We don't have as many scenes or flashbacks to the Winterfell crypt, so the use of the phrase "Kings of Winter" are fewer in number. But the ones that occur don't seem to follow the pattern more-or-less established in the first book. First Catelyn in a POV and then a line of dialogue from Jaime to Catelyn:

The ancient crown of the Kings of Winter had been lost three centuries ago, yielded up to Aegon the Conqueror when Torrhen Stark knelt in submission. What Aegon had done with it no man could say. Lord Hoster's smith had done his work well, and Robb's crown looked much as the other was said to have looked in the tales told of the Stark kings of old; an open circlet of hammered bronze incised with the runes of the First Men, surmounted by nine black iron spikes wrought in the shape of longswords. Of gold and silver and gemstones, it had none; bronze and iron were the metals of winter, dark and strong to fight against the cold.

(ACoK, Catelyn I)

"My son may be young, but if you take him for a fool, you are sadly mistaken . . . and it seems to me that you were not so quick to make challenges when you had an army at your back."
"Did the old Kings of Winter hide behind their mothers' skirts as well?"
"I grow weary of this, ser. There are things I must know."

(ACoK, Catelyn VII)

Catelyn is recalling the historical event of a living Stark king surrendering the crown to the living Aegon the Conqueror, so why is the crown described as being from the Kings of Winter? Jaime's choice of words might just be a mistake because he is not from the north and might not be clear on the distinction. But he does know enough about the north to later explain to Brienne that the Boltons used to flay the Starks and make cloaks of their skin. These examples seem particularly important in sorting out why GRRM would use two different terms to describe the traditional Stark kings.

The Bran VII chapter of ACoK has references to both types of kings, and they don't seem to follow the living / dead distinction. First, Bran describes crypt Starks using the term I tought denoted living Starks:

Their footsteps echoed through the cavernous crypts. The shadows behind them swallowed his father as the shadows ahead retreated to unveil other statues; no mere lords, these, but the old Kings in the North. ... He had never feared the crypts; they were part of his home and who he was, and he had always known that one day he would lie here too.

But now he was not so certain. If I go up, will I ever come back down? Where will I go when I die?

Bran did say a page earlier that, "It looked for an instant as if the dead were rising" with the movement of shadows cast by a newly-lit torch. So maybe the message is that these dead Starks have now come to life. I have noticed a few references to a sword as a shadow. If swords and shadows are supposed to be compared, it would make sense that movement of shadows in the Winterfell crypt might free the spirits of dead Starks: their tombs are built with swords across the laps of each lord's statue, with the iron in the sword ensuring that the spirit of the dead person can't wander out of his crypt. Moving shadows could symbolize moving swords, freeing those spirits. Bran and his party remove four literal swords from the tombs just before the excerpt I cited, above. The swords belong to Lord Eddard (taken by Osha), Lord Richard (taken by Meera) and uncle Brandon (taken by Bran). Hodor takes an old rusty blade from an unidentified tomb.

The cited passage also includes Bran referring to himself, to feeling at home in the crypt and to speculation about his own interment. So maybe GRRM uses the "living" king title because Bran is about to put himself in the context of the long line of Stark kings. At the end of the chapter, however, Bran refers to himself as living but switches to the use of the "Kings of Winter" title to refer to his predecessors:

... it was hard to tell that the castle had been sacked and burned at all. The stone is strong, Bran told himself, the roots of the trees go deep, and under the ground the Kings of Winter sit their thrones. So long as those remained, Winterfell remained. It was not dead, just broken. Like me, he thought. I'm not dead either.

Instead of the difference between living and dead kings, could the difference be between kings who fight men and kings who "fight against the cold," as Catelyn says in her description of the crown? Do all dead Stark kings fight against Winter? Is that what the afterlife is like for Starks?

I may try to follow up and search the "Kings of Winter" and "Kings in the North" phrase for the remaining books, to see whether the pattern becomes clearer. Or feel free to share examples or evidence if you think you've discovered why there are two different titles.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would suggest that the difference isn't about living and dead but about kings before the Wall went up and after the Wall went up... Or before the Nights King and after the Nights King...

The crown could easily be the same...

And it would also correlate frequently with your living/dead thing, but might explain why of all the examples of shouting supporters, it's the old northern family that says king of winter...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

King of Winter is from before they united all the North under their rule. Back then you had many different Kings in the North. The Kings of Winter(fell), the Red Kings, the Barrow Kings, the Marsh Kings etc. After the Boltons knelt to Winterfell, there was only one King in all the North, and thus they could truly call themselves the King in the North.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

King of Winter is from before they united all the North under their rule. Back then you had many different Kings in the North. The Kings of Winter(fell), the Red Kings, the Barrow Kings, the Marsh Kings etc. After the Boltons knelt to Winterfell, there was only one King in all the North, and thus they could truly call themselves the King in the North.

I like this explanation.  I was considering the possibility of myth's and stories that originated from the timeframe that they were the King's of Winter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm an "heretic", so I would like to live to see a "dark" explaination for the "king of winter", shouting "winter is coming" and coming to get you.

But it must be said that TFN's explaination is the simplest, the most straightforward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

King of Winter also changes the context of Winter is coming.  As mediterraneo mentions

Also it gives a likely origin for the Karstark sigil and motto. "The Sun of Winter" = "The Son of the Kings of Winterfell" It's a pun. Puns often popular in medieval heraldry.

4 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

King of Winter is from before they united all the North under their rule. Back then you had many different Kings in the North. The Kings of Winter(fell), the Red Kings, the Barrow Kings, the Marsh Kings etc. After the Boltons knelt to Winterfell, there was only one King in all the North, and thus they could truly call themselves the King in the North.

That's what I figured. That it's probably the same with the King of the Rock/King of the West. 

Both the King of Winter and King of the North titles could be used and make sense. But one predates the consolidation of the Kingdom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spoiler

 

Seams - I like your thinking:
""Kings of Winter" and "Kings in the North""
Two different kingdoms to rule over in my opinion. 

I think that since it has been so long since the OTHERS were a problem to the people of Westeros that everyone has forgotten the true meaning of having and supporting the KING of WINTER.
(and also the NIGHT's WATCH for that matter)
 
I wish I could offer more thoughts on the topic but thanks to you I've only started to think about it - thanks!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I recall the crypts beneath Winterfell are larger that Winterfell itself.  Entrances to descending tunnels are collapsed or impassable.  I would think that the lowest and furthest out crypts would be where the oldest kings are buried.   Kings of Winter, being the ancient title, would be in the lower levels, right?   If The Kings of Winter ceased to be used formally when the North united under a single king some 8000 years ago there is no way Bran could physically be in those lower levels, could he?   

Perhaps the terms are used interchangeably for ambience.   The kids can really only get to so many levels, but depending on how much they hope to frighten each other they may use one term to invoke more fear, such as ghosts instead of spirits.   

@Seams, does Old Nan have a preferred title when she tells her stories?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, LiveFirstDieLater said:

I would suggest that the difference isn't about living and dead but about kings before the Wall went up and after the Wall went up... Or before the Nights King and after the Nights King...

 

17 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

King of Winter is from before they united all the North under their rule. Back then you had many different Kings in the North. The Kings of Winter(fell), the Red Kings, the Barrow Kings, the Marsh Kings etc. After the Boltons knelt to Winterfell, there was only one King in all the North, and thus they could truly call themselves the King in the North.

Can either of you cite evidence for these ideas? I haven't gotten to AWOIAF yet, in my search for evidence in the books. Maybe there is a clear definition there?

So far, the evidence I am finding does not seem to support these ideas, unless we are seeing the "unreliable narrator," and several characters are confusing their historical terms. For instance, in the original post, I cited this passage:

The first Lords of Winterfell had been men hard as the land they ruled. In the centuries before the Dragonlords came over the sea, they had sworn allegiance to no man, styling themselves the Kings in the North.

(AGoT, Eddard I)

Ned seems like someone who would have carefully studied the Stark history, and he is referring to a time "centuries" before Aegon the Conqueror using the Kings in the North title. And this passage may address the surmise about the more distant history:

"Aye," said Ygritte. "Together with his brother Gendel, three thousand years ago. They led a host o' free folk through the caves, and the Watch was none the wiser. But when they come out, the wolves o' Winterfell fell upon them."
"There was a battle," Jon recalled. "Gorne slew the King in the North, but his son picked up his banner and took the crown from his head, and cut down Gorne in turn."

(ASoS, Jon III)

13 hours ago, GallowsKnight said:

King of Winter also changes the context of Winter is coming.  As mediterraneo mentions

Also it gives a likely origin for the Karstark sigil and motto. "The Sun of Winter" = "The Son of the Kings of Winterfell" It's a pun. Puns often popular in medieval heraldry.

I like the idea of a new connotation for "Winter is coming." Makes it sound less like a Calvinist expectation of punishment for one's sins and more like a threat to anyone who gets in the way. Sort of like the double meaning of "Lannisters Always Pays Their Debts" could be interpreted as a vow to honor all contracts OR a promise of retribution for any perceived slight.

Love the Karstark- related pun, and the connection to medieval heraldry.

12 hours ago, Yaya said:

Seams - I like your thinking:
""Kings of Winter" and "Kings in the North""
Two different kingdoms to rule over in my opinion. 

I think that since it has been so long since the OTHERS were a problem to the people of Westeros that everyone has forgotten the true meaning of having and supporting the KING of WINTER.
(and also the NIGHT's WATCH for that matter)

This seems a likelier line of explanation. The Stark kings rule the upperworld of the north when they are alive, and the underworld when they are dead. But they don't discuss this distinction with children or with non-Starks. And maybe the system has been messed up by the closing of the passage under Castle Black or the gradual loss of magic in Westeros before the return of the dragons.

Maybe the Mormonts know about the two realms and the two kings, so Maege is already thinking a step ahead to the restoration of the King of Winter when Robb is being crowned as the King in the North. Or here's an idea: In most stories, people shout, "The King is dead. Long live the King!" when the old monarch has died and the new monarch is raised up to replace him. Maybe Maege is uttering "The King is dead!" portion of that expression by shouting "The King of Winter" - referring the recently-deceased Ned Stark? And the other bannermen (many of whom are river lords, according to the POV) are shouting the "Long live the King!" portion by yelling about "The King in the North!" with reference to Robb.

9 hours ago, Curled Finger said:

As I recall the crypts beneath Winterfell are larger that Winterfell itself.  Entrances to descending tunnels are collapsed or impassable.  I would think that the lowest and furthest out crypts would be where the oldest kings are buried.   Kings of Winter, being the ancient title, would be in the lower levels, right?   If The Kings of Winter ceased to be used formally when the North united under a single king some 8000 years ago there is no way Bran could physically be in those lower levels, could he?   

Perhaps the terms are used interchangeably for ambience.   The kids can really only get to so many levels, but depending on how much they hope to frighten each other they may use one term to invoke more fear, such as ghosts instead of spirits.   

Does Old Nan have a preferred title when she tells her stories?  

Oh. If they unified 8,000 years ago, then I guess my examples of before the conquest and 3,000 years ago might still be consistent with the "before unification / after unification" theory of the change in the title. I've never been interested in the ancient timelines, but I guess I should go back and try to get a better grasp if I'm going to sort this out. And I will continue to use the search site to look at each of the books for more evidence.

The Bran excerpts in the OP are still puzzling. Maybe you're right that (if I understand your point correctly) the Kings of Winter are in the inaccessible lower levels, and Bran feels secure just knowing they remain there, even though he's never gone down to the lower levels.

The crown design is definitely from the King of Winter, though. Why was it important to mention the crown in connection with the KoW, instead of simply updating the reference to the crown along with the commonly-used "new" title of the KitN?

I have not yet come across a paragraph with Old Nan and either of the titles. She tells the Night's King story, right? Maybe I need to examine that third title alongside the KoW and KitN titles. They are all Starks, if Old Nan can be relied upon for that detail. Maybe also the King Beyond the Wall should be examined with the others.

The mention of the KitN title in Ygritte's telling of the Gendel and Gorne story seems significant, though, especially in connection with the lost tunnels and levels of the Winterfell crypts. The king who is killed by Gorne is above ground and is the KitN. But he dies and his son picks up his crown. If the lost wildlings are "living" in the caves, maybe they joined the kingdom of the underworld and were ruled by the KoW, who had been the KitN until Gorne killed him. That all seems consistent with the notions that there are two worlds ruled by Starks, and that most characters cannot access the oldest, underworld level.

Free Folk don't like it when kneelers or non-Starks talk about certain things, and I already cited Osha's "You know nothing, Jon Snow," moment with Bran in the crypt:

Rowan pulled Theon away from the northmen praying before the tree, to a secluded spot back by the barracks wall, beside a pool of warm mud that stank of rotten eggs. Even the mud was icing up about the edges, Theon saw. "Winter is coming …"
Rowan gave him a hard look. "You have no right to mouth Lord Eddard's words. Not you. Not ever. After what you did—"

(ADwD, Theon I)

... as she eyed the long row of granite Starks on their stone thrones.
"They were the Kings of Winter," Bran whispered. Somehow it felt wrong to talk too loudly in this place.
Osha smiled. "Winter's got no king. If you'd seen it, you'd know that, summer boy."

(AGoT, Bran VII)

So the free folk may feel they are re-educating the Starks, Jon Snow and Theon with the things they have forgotten or that were interpreted incorrectly about their northern and family heritage. They need these boys to step up and become the next generation of kings. Or maybe the idea is that they need to become specifically the KitN, and slay or imprison the KoW back into the Underworld where he belongs (they belong?). We saw White Walker activity long before Bran and his group took the swords from the Winterfell crypt, but maybe someone had taken swords from the lower levels of the crypt some years earlier, freeing some ancient KoW to come up to the surface and recruit an army to take back his old territory.

I just had a crack-potty idea about this but I'm going to put it in a new comment because it's not really supported by evidence, and it may just be a tangent. Anyone who dislikes crackpot speculation should skip my next comment on this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's the largely speculative idea that popped into my head:

I had done a relatively recent re-read of ACoK, and was struck by the amount of clothing, jewelry, dagger, etc. owned by Theon as he gets dressed in his father's castle (not to mention the valuable horse). Where did he get all this stuff? Clearly, his family had not been sending him money while he was a hostage at Winterfell. I'm sure the Starks provided him with necessities, but you never hear them talk about fancy outfits for their own children. The boys were still using wooden swords right up through the visit from King Robert, so they would not have "owned" their own daggers such as Theon owns. (I suppose they might have opened the treasury to pay for Robb's war effort, and Theon might have been equipped at that time. Still, I don't remember any description of fancy outfits worn by Robb.) And Theon acknowledges that he did not "pay the iron price" for his accessories. So where did he get the spending money?

What if he had gone down to the lower levels of the Stark crypt and stole swords from the tombs? And then sold them for cash or traded them for clothes and a broach and up-to-date weapons? This would not be justified by the "paying the iron price" philosophy of his family because he would be robbing the grave of someone he didn't defeat in battle. He does talk about hiding his treasures in the gods wood in Winterfell. Maybe he was hiding the stolen swords.

But we know that the belief is that taking the sword from a Stark tomb frees the spirit of that person to wander Winterfell (at least, if not beyond). So Theon would have been like a Westeros Pandora, setting free the old Stark ghosts to create whatever problems the swords were intended to prevent. (If the theory in the previous posts about an underworld KoW is correct, Theon may have been setting the "Kings" free to go above ground and invade the realms of men.) So the anger of the wildling "washerwomen" at Theon at the time of Ramsay's wedding may be because they know about his role in letting loose the White Walkers, aka the spirits of the dead Starks.

Maybe the hooded man Theon encounters out in the snow at Winterfell is one of the Stark spirits, and Theon recognizes the man because he has seen the stone effigy and/or he stole the guy's sword. What if the people being mysteriously killed at Winterfell are the people who bought the swords that Theon stole, and the swords are being reclaimed by the spirits. (I'm assuming Theon would sell to a middleman, who would then peddle the second-hand swords at castles or tournaments around the region.)

If there's any truth to this line of thinking, the visit of Lady Dustin to the crypt with Theon takes on a whole new meaning. She is the head of House Dustin, and maybe a symbolic gatekeeper to the underworld as the Lady at barrowtown. (Barrows are ancient graves, dating to the Celts or earlier in our world.) She is also from the north and has a special connection to the Starks. So she might know something about graverobbing at Winterfell (either magically or after hearing about nice swords that suddenly came on the market.) She wants to get to the bottom of the story, and she suspects Theon, so she invites him to accompany her into the crypt where she become something of a confessor figure for him. She may realize that he's not entirely in his right mind, and isn't sure how much he will recall of his past.

Did anyone see the movie Shutter Island? I'm picturing Lady Dustin accompanying Theon to reconstruct the scene of the crime and see what the perpetrator can remember.

"My lady," Theon broke in. "Here we are."
"The steps go farther down," observed Lady Dustin.
"There are lower levels. Older. The lowest level is partly collapsed, I hear. I have never been down there." He pushed the door open and led them out into a long vaulted tunnel, where mighty granite pillars marched two by two into blackness.

(ADwD, The Turncloak)

Maybe he didn't go to the lowest level, but did he go to one or more levels below the current one?

It was true. Theon did not recall which king it was, but the longsword he should have held was gone. Streaks of rust remained to show where it had been. The sight disquieted him. He had always heard that the iron in the sword kept the spirits of the dead locked within their tombs. If a sword was missing …
There are ghosts in Winterfell. And I am one of them.
(ADwD, The Turncloak)

Reek is no man. Not Reek. Not me. He wondered if Lady Dustin had told them about the crypts, the missing swords.

(ADwD, A Ghost in Winterfell)

I am conscious that Bran and his traveling companions removed four swords from the crypt, and I'm not sure how that fits with the idea that Theon is Pandora for stealing swords. The tomb swords included the last one made by Mikken, for Eddard's tomb (taken by Osha), Lord Rickard's sword (taken by Meera), uncle Brandon's sword (taken by Bran) and an old rusty sword taken from an unidentified tomb (taken by Hodor). If these spirits were unleashed by the removal of the swords, I don't know if they will join the "side" of the Kings of Winter, or if they will somehow be allied with the "good" side.

If this theory is accurate, it could help to explain the nine swords in the crown of the King of Winter. Bran's group took four swords, but maybe Theon had already taken five swords. Perhaps placing Robb's crown in the crypt will make up for the nine stolen swords and lock the Stark spirits back in the underworld where they belong.

Still a lot to sort out, if this notion is valid. It does seem to tie in with some tiny unexplained hints, and that seems consistent with GRRM's modus operandi.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Seams said:

I haven't gotten to AWOIAF yet, in my search for evidence in the books. Maybe there is a clear definition there?

From TWOIAF (AWOIAF is an app):

Quote

Song and story tell us that the Starks of Winterfell have ruled large portions of the lands beyond the Neck for eight thousand years, styling themselves the Kings of Winter (the more ancient usage) and (in more recent centuries) the Kings in the North. Their rule was not an uncontested one. Many were the wars in which the Starks expanded their rule or were forced to win back lands that rebels had carved away. The Kings of Winter were hard men in hard times.

and

The greatest castle of the North is Winterfell, the seat of the Starks since the Dawn Age. Legend says that Brandon the Builder raised Winterfell after the generation-long winter known as the Long Night to become the stronghold of his descendants, the Kings of Winter. As Brandon the Builder is connected with an improbable number of great works (Storm's End and the Wall, to name but two prominent examples) over a span of numerous lifetimes, the tales have likely turned some ancient king, or a number of different kings of House Stark (for there have been many Brandons in the long reign of that family) into something more legendary.

Since Bran the Builder, the legendary ancestor of the Kings of Winter, is said to have built the Wall and Winterfell, I don't think there were Stark kings prior to the Long Night (based on current knowledge, at least). It's not confirmed in print yet, but @Free Northman Reborn's explanation makes sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Nittanian said:

From TWOIAF (AWOIAF is an app):

Since Bran the Builder, the legendary ancestor of the Kings of Winter, is said to have built the Wall and Winterfell, I don't think there were Stark kings prior to the Long Night (based on current knowledge, at least). It's not confirmed in print yet, but @Free Northman Reborn's explanation makes sense.

Well that settles it! I should have started there, I guess. I'm still curious about the distinctions within references by the characters in the current generation. Sometimes they don't seem to be consistent.

And I wonder why "in more recent centuries" the name changed? What happened that caused the change, and does it have a substantive basis?

Thanks for the input, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎9‎/‎27‎/‎2016 at 3:30 PM, Seams said:

I may try to follow up and search the "Kings of Winter" and "Kings in the North" phrase for the remaining books, to see whether the pattern becomes clearer. Or feel free to share examples or evidence if you think you've discovered why there are two different titles.

Always great to see you at it Seams. I would like to bring to your attention this quote

The stone is strong, Bran told himself, the roots of the trees go deep, and under the ground the Kings of Winter sit their thrones. ACOK Bran VIII

to sit a throne seems to be an active verb. What I think about here is why the swords are on their laps...to keep their souls in. This makes little sense however. The First Men, whom the starks proudly claim to be descendant from, buried their bones under the trees in order to become part of the weirnet ostensibly. Why would the starks want to protect the souls of the Kings of Winter? I picture the first men burying their dead very much in the way we see the bones in Bloodraven's lair.

 

Moreover, it is specifically noted that it is only the kings of winter that get a statue and a sword. That Ned made one for Lyanna and Brandon is pointed out as being out of place. So it is fine for the Starks who are not Kings of Winter / of the north / lords of winterfell to just be buried and becoming one with the collective but not for the Kings of Winter? Why? It isn't because of some ill fate that might befall because of course if they believed that they would want to save their families from the same ill fate. I feel it is more that there is a responsibility for the head of house Stark even after his death. "The Kings of Winter sit their thrones" they are actively doing something down there. THey need those thrones and the swords on their lap to keep them from the collective so that they can....what? rule something? Winter?  Attend to the wall? Keep the Long Night at Bay? Ned notices that one of the older swords is missing when he is in the crypts with Robert. I assume this isn't the first time he has been down there in a very very long time (not enough that he would have noticed a sword the last time and it would be missing the next) so what has, in relatively recent times, removed that sword and were there any repercussions (you know like magic returning to the world or the kick off for the long night or something?)

 

I think it is important to note the difference between when the Kings of Winter are called the Kings of Winter (for instance, when referring to them as dead) and THe Old Kings of Winter which seems to be a colloquialism used by Northerners.

 

Now the idea that the Kings of Winter are the former Kings of the North / Lords of Winterfell sitting their thrones in the crypt and have some kind of duty to do (like keeping the peace between the realms of the dead and the realms of the living?) makes sense because we hear of kings of winter sending fleets to the vale and kings of winter ruling winterfell etc etc etc.

I would make a start by looking at all the times King of Winter is used and then looking at who uses it. The Maester who writes WOIAF uses King of Winter constantly, but has no real connection to that world. I would wonder about uses of King of Winter specifically by the Starks and other old houses of the north who have been around since the rule of the kow

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, YOVMO said:

to sit a throne seems to be an active verb. What I think about here is why the swords are on their laps...to keep their souls in. This makes little sense however. The First Men, whom the starks proudly claim to be descendant from, buried their bones under the trees in order to become part of the weirnet ostensibly. Why would the starks want to protect the souls of the Kings of Winter? I picture the first men burying their dead very much in the way we see the bones in Bloodraven's lair.

Moreover, it is specifically noted that it is only the kings of winter that get a statue and a sword. That Ned made one for Lyanna and Brandon is pointed out as being out of place. So it is fine for the Starks who are not Kings of Winter / of the north / lords of winterfell to just be buried and becoming one with the collective but not for the Kings of Winter? Why? It isn't because of some ill fate that might befall because of course if they believed that they would want to save their families from the same ill fate. I feel it is more that there is a responsibility for the head of house Stark even after his death. "The Kings of Winter sit their thrones" they are actively doing something down thereTHey need those thrones and the swords on their lap to keep them from the collective so that they can....what? rule something? Winter?  Attend to the wall? Keep the Long Night at Bay? 

I think it is important to note the difference between when the Kings of Winter are called the Kings of Winter (for instance, when referring to them as dead) and THe Old Kings of Winter which seems to be a colloquialism used by Northerners.

Now the idea that the Kings of Winter are the former Kings of the North / Lords of Winterfell sitting their thrones in the crypt and have some kind of duty to do (like keeping the peace between the realms of the dead and the realms of the living?) 

You know I'm on an active quest to figure anything out about The Others. You also know that I am a huge fan of the magic swords in universe.  Yovmo, I'm sure I'm overreacting, but what if those Old Kings of Winter who presumably served The Old Gods or perhaps just The Gods back in the day are in fact The Others?  Even if I am completely wrong it's something to consider.   Too much correspondence between old swords and new, Old Gods and new and names for Kings in the North.  I love this and have bolded your words that spoke most resoundingly with my madness.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Curled Finger said:

You know I'm on an active quest to figure anything out about The Others. You also know that I am a huge fan of the magic swords in universe.  Yovmo, I'm sure I'm overreacting, but what if those Old Kings of Winter who presumably served The Old Gods or perhaps just The Gods back in the day are in fact The Others?  Even if I am completely wrong it's something to consider.   Too much correspondence between old swords and new, Old Gods and new and names for Kings in the North.  I love this and have bolded your words that spoke most resoundingly with my madness.   

That's what I was thinking, too:

11 hours ago, Seams said:

Here's the largely speculative idea that popped into my head:

I had done a relatively recent re-read of ACoK, and was struck by the amount of clothing, jewelry, dagger, etc. owned by Theon as he gets dressed in his father's castle (not to mention the valuable horse). Where did he get all this stuff? Clearly, his family had not been sending him money while he was a hostage at Winterfell. I'm sure the Starks provided him with necessities, but you never hear them talk about fancy outfits for their own children. The boys were still using wooden swords right up through the visit from King Robert, so they would not have "owned" their own daggers such as Theon owns. (I suppose they might have opened the treasury to pay for Robb's war effort, and Theon might have been equipped at that time. Still, I don't remember any description of fancy outfits worn by Robb.) And Theon acknowledges that he did not "pay the iron price" for his accessories. So where did he get the spending money?

What if he had gone down to the lower levels of the Stark crypt and stole swords from the tombs? And then sold them for cash or traded them for clothes and a broach and up-to-date weapons? This would not be justified by the "paying the iron price" philosophy of his family because he would be robbing the grave of someone he didn't defeat in battle. He does talk about hiding his treasures in the gods wood in Winterfell. Maybe he was hiding the stolen swords.

But we know that the belief is that taking the sword from a Stark tomb frees the spirit of that person to wander Winterfell (at least, if not beyond). So Theon would have been like a Westeros Pandora, setting free the old Stark ghosts to create whatever problems the swords were intended to prevent. (If the theory in the previous posts about an underworld KoW is correct, Theon may have been setting the "Kings" free to go above ground and invade the realms of men.) So the anger of the wildling "washerwomen" at Theon at the time of Ramsay's wedding may be because they know about his role in letting loose the White Walkers, aka the spirits of the dead Starks.

...

Reek is no man. Not Reek. Not me. He wondered if Lady Dustin had told them about the crypts, the missing swords.

(ADwD, A Ghost in Winterfell)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Seams, it's frightening what you and I get up to isn't it?   Well, i guess it's out then.   Sorry to have missed your revelation.  Please forgive me!   I was focused on your Theon thoughts and missing swords...which is quite clever all by itself.   

sweetsunray gave me a lesson about the underworld so many more of the references you made are clearer to me now.   So what do you make of those lower levels of the crypts?  Do you think the Stark who must always be in Winterfell is part of the tethering of the spirits?  Oh who am I kidding, we both know I think the pact was broken and this is a final straw.  (I am still sort of stunned at this so go easy with me)  

If we are right or even close in our thinking why should the Others be fearsome?   We know they are beautiful and otherworldly but we don't know what they want.   If the Starks are the Others what???  What then are we to expect of them?  Those Kings of the Winter and North were brutal hard men.  What could they possibly want at this point in the game?  Lay it on me I'm ready for anything now.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Seams said:

Love the Karstark- related pun, and the connection to medieval heraldry.

Thanks. It's funny that I never see anyone explaining this elsewhere and I've never seen it confirmed by GRRM.  But I'm sure it has to be the reason for the sigil and motto. It's little details like this GRRM is great at.

A good example of a pun sigil in real life is the welsh name Trebarfoote. Their heraldry features 3 bears feet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm thinking that the "Kings of Winter" name may even be a sign of Stark MO before they completed their conquest; the Starks have Winterfell, which seems to be the perfect sanctuary to use in Winter while the weather and famine destroys your foes. Winter is Coming may very well be a rare triple entendre: Winter is coming, and we all know its going to suck; Winter is coming, and its our greatest weapon; Winter is coming, so a Stark's gonna kill you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...