If Tyrion and Sansa had a kid , would Roose Bolton step down?

[LordImp]

Tyrion and Sansa was supposed to have a kid and that kid will inheritate Winterfell. Roose Bolton was named warden of the North after the red wedding . When Tyrions kids was of age he would become the new ruler of the North .

If Tyrion and Sansa ever had a kid and this kid came of age , would Roose Bolton step down as warden of the North and swear fealty to Tyrions kid? 

[John Suburbs]

The child would become the new Lord of Winterfell, displacing Ramsey. But Roose would retain the title of Warden of the North if the king (ie, Tywin) commands it. He would rule from the Dreadfort, and Tyrion, Sansa and the child would all have to swear fealty to Roose, and the king of course.

Maybe someday the child will be named WotN, but for now it's Roose.

[aryagonnakill#2]

In addition to the above, Roose would probably simply tell them to fuck off since he holds the north and in legal terms could point out that Robb as the head of his house disinherited Sansa.

[Morgana Lannister]

Well, the way Tywin seem to sell the idea to Tyrion was, if I recall rightly, that the Boltons wouldn't hold the north for long and that Robb's days were numbered, so Tywin would have been unlikely to "let" Roose rule over his "healthy" true born grandson (if the child was a dwarf it might have been another matter...).  Then of course it would depend on when this happened in the story.  If after Tyrion killed Tywin  and both him and Sansa are wanted for regicide the only way they might get their respective inheritances restored would be by sort of way of conquest, or well supporting a monarch who wins by way of conquest like Jon or Dany, say.

I am not sure we know enough about the laws in Westeros, say under the current Baratheon/Lannister rule in terms of fugitives being able to pass on their inheritance to their surviving children.  Of course anyone can be pardoned but that in a way by-passes general legal rules.  In short I think it would be pretty much up to the monarch at the time and well the maquinations of the likes of LF, if still alive.

Now, I couldn't see either Roose or Ramsay giving this up without putting up a considerable fight.  Besides if I were them lol (Sansa and Tyrion with a kid) I think I would have Bronn acting as wet nurse or something, with Ramsay as a competitor his/her odds would not be good.

On the other hand, despite Robb having antagonised the Karkstarks and so on the north might view a grandchild of Ned Stark, even with Lannister blood as a preferable ruler.  This was even part of Tywin's reasoning and Tywin was many things but not stupid, so I think if the child survived other players he/she would have a decent chance.

I am one of the few people here who is kind of convinced that something like this, whether it pertains to Winterfell, Casterly Rock or both, will come to pass.  I could really see a powerful dynasty deriving from their continuation of a political marriage (at least political to begin with), however, if those two or their progeny end up sort of on top it will definitely be due to backing the right horse (or dragon lol) when it all goes to pot in the Battle of Dawn.

I personally think that the way this is going is that the Boltons and Stannis are going to pretty much destroy one another with very heavy casualties on both sides in the next northern battle.  I would be suprised if either father or son Bolton will survive this TBH.  The Lannisters in KL have little support so they will go before all is done and dusted.  Maybe if Jaime and Brienne get it together and she has his child, who would be first in line for Casterly Rock, assuming the prophecy is fulfilled and all of Cersei's kids die of course.  It could actually make sense; Tyrion/Sansa's child gets the north; their cousin, whether out of wedlock or not would probably get Casterly Rock and I have my ideas for the Stormlands as well but that would be a bit off topic here

[Morgana Lannister]

28 minutes ago, aryagonnakill#2 said:

In addition to the above, Roose would probably simply tell them to fuck off since he holds the north and in legal terms could point out that Robb as the head of his house disinherited Sansa.

Oh, he would try that's for sure and yes, you are right but he named Jon his heir so a son of Jon's at this stage yes might legally have a better claim as things stand and I think most of us are pretty certain that Jon is not dead as in forever yet lol but what Jon would do then is anyone's guess; he could restore Sansa's claim or not...Rob's will or not I cannot see Jon displacing Sansa and her children unless he turns back from the death a very different person.  I am inclined to think that Jon too will have children though but they might be intended for higher places than Winterfell.  We shall see... but interesting topic. The only think I am rather adamant on at this stage is that the legalities will matter little, that the political regime will take twists and turns but end up different (although not completely modern or democratic) and that whoever ends where would be partly due to bloodlines but mostly will derive from right of conquest, just like it happened with Robert.

[aryagonnakill#2]

Just now, Morgana Lannister said:

Oh, he would try that's for sure and yes, you are right but he named Jon his heir so a son of Jon's at this stage yes might legally have a better claim as things stand and I think most of us are pretty certain that Jon is not dead as in forever yet lol but what Jon would do then is anyone's guess; he could restore Sansa's claim or not...Rob's will or not I cannot see Jon displacing Sansa and her children unless he turns back from the death a very different person.  I am inclined to think that Jon too will have children though but they might be intended for higher places than Winterfell.  We shall see... but interesting topic. The only think I am rather adamant on at this stage is that the legalities will matter little, that the political regime will take twists and turns but end up different (although not completely modern or democratic) and that whoever ends were would be part due to bloodlines but mostly right of conquest, just like it happened with Robert.

Ya that's 100% right, but I think the answer to the question is simpler, Roose would not simply step aside and let everything he did be undone.

[Morgana Lannister]

7 minutes ago, aryagonnakill#2 said:

Ya that's 100% right, but I think the answer to the question is simpler, Roose would not simply step aside and let everything he did be undone.

Couldn't agree more; and Ramsay even less so lol but tbh if I were lady of one of the north banner houses I would rather have the devil incarnate than Ramsay.  He makes little secret regarding his cruelty, in fact House Bolton advertises it unlike say, House Lannister who is feared and does what "is necessary" in their minds but not for simple pleasure.  At present some northern houses are pissed off at Robb, like the Karkstarks but 20 years of say Ramsay's rule would make them, terrified of him or not, wanting to do to him what Jaime did to the Mad King only worse... or I certainly would lol say if I were Lady Umber or Manderley or something.  The Boltons cannot retain the northern support for long, especially not now without Tywin.  Roose on his own might have had some sort of chance but with Ramsay, "me thinks" nope.

[Universal Sword Donor]

2 hours ago, John Suburbs said:

The child would become the new Lord of Winterfell, displacing Ramsey. But Roose would retain the title of Warden of the North if the king (ie, Tywin) commands it. He would rule from the Dreadfort, and Tyrion, Sansa and the child would all have to swear fealty to Roose, and the king of course.

Maybe someday the child will be named WotN, but for now it's Roose.

Do we know if WotN and the ruling family of the north are the same thing? They are not in the Reach.

“In reward Aegon granted him Highgarden and all its domains, naming him Warden of the South and Lord Paramount of the Mander”

We also know that the RL have their own LP too. Same with the Iron Islands

“Aegon named Edmyn Tully of Riverrun, first of the riverlords to declare for the Targaryens, the Lord Paramount of the Trident, reducing the other riverlords to vassals.”

“Aegon chose a different course. Gathering the remaining lords of the Iron Islands together, he announced that he would allow them to choose their own lord paramount.”

Dorne came into the fold later as well, but we know they are not a Warden either. I always figured they were separate titles, one martial and one social. Given that Ned spoke about about WotE and lordship over the Vale separately, I'd always assumed it was the same in the North. Assuming Sansa and Tyrion weren't attainted, I'd have guessed that Tyrion's son would be the new lord of the north and Tyrion would assume the Warden title. Roose could well be told to keep it until the new lord comes of age.

[aryagonnakill#2]

17 minutes ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

Do we know if WotN and the ruling family of the north are the same thing? They are not in the Reach.

“In reward Aegon granted him Highgarden and all its domains, naming him Warden of the South and Lord Paramount of the Mander”

We also know that the RL have their own LP too. Same with the Iron Islands

“Aegon named Edmyn Tully of Riverrun, first of the riverlords to declare for the Targaryens, the Lord Paramount of the Trident, reducing the other riverlords to vassals.”

“Aegon chose a different course. Gathering the remaining lords of the Iron Islands together, he announced that he would allow them to choose their own lord paramount.”

Dorne came into the fold later as well, but we know they are not a Warden either. I always figured they were separate titles, one martial and one social. Given that Ned spoke about about WotE and lordship over the Vale separately, I'd always assumed it was the same in the North. Assuming Sansa and Tyrion weren't attainted, I'd have guessed that Tyrion's son would be the new lord of the north and Tyrion would assume the Warden title. Roose could well be told to keep it until the new lord comes of age.

Warden is a title assigned by the crown, Robert does not bestow the title on Robert Aryn because he is a sick little boy who cannot lead armies.  Not every region has a warden either, it's north south east and west, so there is no Warden of the Iron Isles , whoever is warden of the west, is by the Kings command in charge of defending that region and would be in charge of any armies assembled there.

So no, the ruler and warden do not have to be the same. 

[Morgana Lannister]

9 hours ago, aryagonnakill#2 said:

Warden is a title assigned by the crown, Robert does not bestow the title on Robert Aryn because he is a sick little boy who cannot lead armies.  Not every region has a warden either, it's north south east and west, so there is no Warden of the Iron Isles , whoever is warden of the west, is by the Kings command in charge of defending that region and would be in charge of any armies assembled there.

So no, the ruler and warden do not have to be the same. 

I am inclined to think that it is likely that in the north these two titles might be held by different people in the end.  Of course Robb created a precedent for King in the North as well and there wasn't a Warden when he was king.  He happened to also be Lord of Winterfell so I guess we will get whatever suits the ruling overall monarch or if the kingdoms become separate whatever suits the King or Queen as it might be in the North.  If Jon doesn't end up in the Iron Throne or his child, I could easily see him as King in the North and Sansa Lady of Winterfell.  Okay, Bran and Rickon might have a better claim than her but I have been convinced for a long time that Rickon will die and Bran appears to have a different destiny which I think he will chose over being Lord of Winterfell

[The Sleeper]

The question is whether he would murder them all discreetly or butcher them openly. It depends on the circumstances. He might have spared Sansa.

I very much doubt the intention was a viable plan to hold the North, but rather to destroy Sansa as a political asset and to send Tyrion into exile and possibly death, so as not to have him interfere with the inheritence of Casterly Rock, as well as to heap further humiliation on house Stark. Does it really sound like Tywin wanted Tyrion in a position of power?

[LordImp]

1 hour ago, The Sleeper said:

The question is whether he would murder them all discreetly or butcher them openly. It depends on the circumstances. He might have spared Sansa.

I very much doubt the intention was a viable plan to hold the North, but rather to destroy Sansa as a political asset and to send Tyrion into exile and possibly death, so as not to have him interfere with the inheritence of Casterly Rock, as well as to heap further humiliation on house Stark. Does it really sound like Tywin wanted Tyrion in a position of power?

He dosent care about Tyrion. He cared about bringing north under Lannister controll , Tyrion was just a tool to acheive this .

But you're right , sending Tyrion north was probably a part of Tywins plan to get rid of him.  And the possibility that the Boltons and the Northerns in general would kill Tyrion is quite big. North is not very fond of Lannisters. 

[the trees have eyes]

15 hours ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

Do we know if WotN and the ruling family of the north are the same thing? They are not in the Reach.

“In reward Aegon granted him Highgarden and all its domains, naming him Warden of the South and Lord Paramount of the Mander”

We also know that the RL have their own LP too. Same with the Iron Islands

“Aegon named Edmyn Tully of Riverrun, first of the riverlords to declare for the Targaryens, the Lord Paramount of the Trident, reducing the other riverlords to vassals.”

“Aegon chose a different course. Gathering the remaining lords of the Iron Islands together, he announced that he would allow them to choose their own lord paramount.”

Dorne came into the fold later as well, but we know they are not a Warden either. I always figured they were separate titles, one martial and one social. Given that Ned spoke about about WotE and lordship over the Vale separately, I'd always assumed it was the same in the North. Assuming Sansa and Tyrion weren't attainted, I'd have guessed that Tyrion's son would be the new lord of the north and Tyrion would assume the Warden title. Roose could well be told to keep it until the new lord comes of age.

I thought the Wardens were Crown-appointed Generals expected to raise and lead armies in times of warfare.  This being a very hierarchical and quasi-feudal society the families that formerly ruled as kings in those regions are the Wardens - to the extent that Ned argues that Robert should name a sickly eight year-old Robet Arryn as Warden of the East as in peacetime it is an empty honorific but in terms of hierarchy and status it is very significant. 

There is the obvious point that there were/are seven kingdoms and eight regions - Dorne, Iron Islands, Riverlands, North, Vale, Stormlands, Westlands and Reach - and only 4 Wardens but in each case the Warden is the former ruling family - Starks in the North, Lannisters in the West, Arryns in the East - with the exception of the Tyrells in the south who are parvenus in historical terms.  The Lord Paramount title is a relatively new invention and seems designed to shore up the status of rulers who were not formerly kings, either because they played second fiddle to the kings (Tyrells to the Gardeners), were newcomers (Barratheons in the Stormlands) or the region was not a kingdom at time of Aegon's conquest (Tullys in the Riverlands).  The Dornish and the Iron Isles keep their own titles as Princes of Drone and Lord Reapers of Pyke and need no additional titles to confer status or underpin their authority.

So my assumption is that the title of Warden and status of ruler go together and that naming someone Warden of the North makes them both the supreme military commander in wartime and the presumed ruler in peace time.

Big emphasis on presumed as the title is distinct from the act of receiving hommage from vassal lords as you point out and, Tywin being Tywin, naming Roose Warden of the North does not in fact confer hereditary rulership staus on him and his family and leaves the door open to later bestowing that tile on Tyrion with the understanding that the Northern Lords will choke down their fury in order to see Ned Stark's grandson ruling the North.  If he had wanted to Tywin would have named him Lord Paramount of the North the way Aegon named the Tyrells, Barratheons and Tullys Lords Paramount and the way Tywin himself named Petyr Baelish Lord Paramount in the Riverlands.

Tywin is of course using Bolton and plans to discard him all along.  What Roose expects to do is a mystery as the Northern Lords largely hate him and his Frey bride and loathe Ramsey with a passion.  If Tyrion was conferred as Lord Paramount of the North could Roose revolt with any hope of success? Seems unlikely and in order to survive he would have to toe the line meekly.

We see a similar sort of politics with Riverrum.  Emmon Frey receives Riverrun and tries to act like this confers Lord Paramount of the Riverlands status on him.  Of course it doesn't as this has explicitly been conferred on Petyr Baelish as Lord of Harrenhall and Riverrun confes no such status, the cadet branch of Freys ruling Riverrun (sotto voce: "for now") becoming his bannermen.  I can only think Tywin kept things murky re the North in order to undermine Bolton more easily when the time is right.

[Eden-Mackenzie]

I would think if Tywin was still alive and if Tyrion and Sansa had a son, Roose would be invited to step down, or he would be sat down.

The example above of Emmon Frey and Riverrun is a good one, but who is Emmon Frey to Tywin? He is no one, the younger son of a lower-tier lord whose engagement to his sister was vociferously protested by Tywin.

But Emmon's children are also Genna's children, and if Tywin survived, Tywin could easily make Emmon's heir Lord Paramont of the Riverlands, and perhaps even Warden of the East depending on the situation the Vale plays out. I can't imagine Tywin relished the idea of Petyr Baelish being his of equal status, and the same goes for Roose.

Roose, the Freys, and even Littlefinger are the WO5K edition of Gregor Clegane and Amory Lorch, doing Tywin's dirty work and then swept under the rug as much d's possible. 

Tywin's legacy seems to be not so much in his children as his grandchildren: Joffrey and then The ommen became King; Myrcella and Trystane could take Storm's End and possibly displace the Tyrells as Warden of the South; Jaime's expected children after he leaves the Kingsguard would inherit the Rock; and Tyrion's children with Sansa inherit the North. Add in Kevan and Genna's kids and you have Lannisters all over the Seven Kingdoms. 

[Lord Lannister]

I believe the idea was to have Roose act as Warden of the North until the Lannistark child came of age. So Roose would have dominion of the North for at least fifteen years. Roose probably would see this as adequate time to entrench himself in his position and make it permanent though. Possibly from a marriage of a daughter of himself or Ramsay down the road. The whole "Arya" thing didn't come into play until after the Purple Wedding.

[sweetsunray]

12 hours ago, Lord Lannister said:

The whole "Arya" thing didn't come into play until after the Purple Wedding.

Actually, IIC Roose tells Jaime about Arya having been found at HH, before he sends Jaime on his way and Roose leaves for the RW, and thus before PW. It was the sweetener that Tywin promised before Roose fully committed to the RW (Roose was sabotaging Robb from the very beginning, but sabotage is still one step away from murdering the king in a "ruse")

[Whitering]

On 11/16/2016 at 0:17 PM, aryagonnakill#2 said:

In addition to the above, Roose would probably simply tell them to fuck off since he holds the north and in legal terms could point out that Robb as the head of his house disinherited Sansa.

They don't know he did that, well, Roose might know, because Robb trusted him, but he couldn't prove that without bringing out the Will, which would have put Jon in charge, not Arya.

[a black swan]

20 minutes ago, Whitering said:

They don't know he did that, well, Roose might know, because Robb trusted him, but he couldn't prove that without bringing out the Will, which would have put Jon in charge, not Arya.

That is still up for debate. George left it all very ambiguous on purpose I think. If Robb included a caveat for there being any surviving Stark heirs. George does not include Arya among his dead siblings when Robb speaks at the Will's sealing. We also have UndeadCat in possession of Robb's iron crown searching the Riverlands for Arya.   

[John Doe]

Hell no. Bolton would probably say something like, it wasn't a northern marriage, or that she was obviously forced, or that an imp isn't able to produce a child, making it illegitimate, or grasp any straw to say the child isn't the rightful heir. The northeners would likely back Bolton, given the choice between a fellow northener and a hated Lannister. 

[the trees have eyes]

5 hours ago, John Doe said:

Hell no. Bolton would probably say something like, it wasn't a northern marriage, or that she was obviously forced, or that an imp isn't able to produce a child, making it illegitimate, or grasp any straw to say the child isn't the rightful heir. The northeners would likely back Bolton, given the choice between a fellow northener and a hated Lannister. 

If the choice was between a fellow northerner and a Lannister then they would choose the Northener.  Except when that fellow Northerner betrayed them and murdered their king and members of their families.  And when that Lannister is married to Ned Stark's Daughter and has the Ned's grandson as his heir.

Expect Tyrion to die in a hunting accident or perhaps even to live to a ripe old age if he was sensible enough about managing the Northern Houses and letting them see the child as a Stark rather than a Lannister.

Bolton would get no support from the likes of Manderly or the Umbers.