Why do people assume that Northmen love the Starks?

[Ramsay Gimp]

So, to recap: "The Starks are loved by all the Northern Houses, except for the Boltons and Karstarks but fuck them. Also, Lady Dustin's grudge against the Starks seems so strong it must be fake! Any Northman who says something bad against the Starks is really just hiding their love for them!"

It's not just a river in Egypt, I suppose

[Sevumar]

It's not just a river in Egypt, I suppose

People have given a number of in-depth explanations for the questions posed in the original post and about the Lady Dustin speculation.

The Boltons have been waiting for a thousand years for a chance to bring down the Starks and rule in their place. They really only seem to have a few allies, despite the relative weakness of the Starks and the backing of the Iron Throne. That's a pretty clear message that the North is not reconciled to Bolton rule. That a number of Houses are actively fighting to restore Stark rule in the face of Iron Throne sanction of the Boltons is a very strong statement about loyalty.

[LuisDantas]

Most of the northerners riding along with Stannis only do so because they want to participate in rescuing Ned's daughter.

Houses Umber, Mormont and Manderly have made their support of the Starks quite plain, as much as they can without becoming suicidal.

And there are assorted hints and statements all along the books, particularly in ADWD. The Boltons and _part_ of the Karstarks are very much the exception.

Also, we know that Wyman Manderly is far more suportive of the Starks that he dares to openly admit, and we have fair reason to suspect that so does Lady Dustin and probably her Ryswell relatives as well.

There is a scene in ADWD that all but says straight out that the only reason why they even tolerate the Boltons is so that they can remain close enough to Roose and Ramsay to decide how much to blame them for the deaths in the Red Wedding. They even say "The North Remembers" out aloud. I personally have no doubt that they will turn against the Boltons when they have their doubts clarified.

[Hear Us Roar]

Starks are the "good guys", so many here will overlook their faults and put them on a pedestal. Northmen are just like Southmen, not more noble or honourable. This is a feudal system where it is every house for themselves. Every house is trying to rise and for that to happen another house must fall. People need to realize the north is not the last realm of the good guys, that the Starks had to keep their bannermen subservient and any crack in that armour would be exploited by the vassals

[Ramsay Gimp]

^Their explanations miss the point, Sevumar, which is that these things happened under Stark rule.

Of course there will be "explanations" for treasons and disobedience. Again, I never said that the Northmen were especially disloyal to the Starks, jumping at any chance to betray them. But the fact that these numerous treasons did occur indicates that the Starks don't command the uber-loyal love from their bannermen that most people suggest.

In that regard, they are no better or worse than any other great House.

EDIT: Thank you Hear us Roar for some common sense. People get really prickly over something which really shouldn't even be controversial to say at this point

[mediterraneo]

I feel that Ramsay Gimp point could be coldly considered.

The thread is becoming passionate, and it does not help much.

But his point, questioning why the northen lords would stick loyally to the Starks is interesting.

Personally yes, I find remarkable that such a number of northern lords still have at least ambigous position on the loyalty to choose between the ruling, winning King and an apparently destroyed house.

Glover, Umber, Mormont, Reed and Manderly all have at least some of their men helping against the Stark's enemies. Lady Dustin has her agenda, as a lot of other people.

To make a comparison, the situation in the Vale is quite different from this. Nobody there is really trying to save Robert from the dangerous outsider: Littlefinger. They just wait for the kid to die to choose one of them (Harry the Heir) as the new Vale lord, with all the good thoughts on Jon Arryn's memory they have.

Maybe it is that the outsiders in the north were the traitors that caused the defeat of the northern side in the recent civil war. Blood is still very fresh, while no blood was seen running in the Vale. At least, there is plausible deniability, even if no one believes the story of Littlefinger "avenging" Lysa behind closed doors. Nobody really liked the Tully woman, in any case. Cat was less hated in the North, at least outside of the Kingslayer thing. And the northmen have the confessed killers of their beloved Young Wolf and of his mother right up in the face, in Winterfell, in the symbolic center of their religion and tradition.

And for all but the Manderly, the fact that these killers are culturally clashing southerners is important, too.

Maybe if it did not meant anything about Winterfell and the connected loyalties dued, the northerners wouldn't care about another round of the Stark-Bolton old feud.

Maybe if it did not meant that southerners are here to enforce the new order, the new order in King's Landing wouldn't bother the northerner a lot.

Maybe if the occupying soldiers were not percieved the "traitors causing the defeat in our generation's war" the northern lords wouldn't be so suspicious against them.

Maybe if the ruptures in the cultural traditions, like hospitality and loyalty of the bannermen, was not the most relevant characteristic that they see in the new northern leaders, the lords wouldn't fear so much for their position in the new Bolton-Frey centered order.

But as no one of my "maybe" is or will be soon realized, I feel that it is quite reasonable that the northen lords feel uncomfortable about the situation. Nobody wants to speak first, but they are quite reforcing one to the others the impression that the appearence of any member of Robb's family would gather massive support. Maybe not strictly to the Stark and not strictly against the Bolton. But still coincidentally thus directed.

And I find that my conclusions at the end of this comparison: "the dinasty crisis in the North and Vale at the end of the War of the Five Kings are handled differently by the local lords because of the different condition they are in" seems to me to actually fit well in what I percieved of these novels and Martin's view of the world as I understand it.

It also leaves room to note that, at least in this case, the northern lords are more fiercely loyal to the Starks than the Vale's lords to the Arryn.

Or at least they would if they could find a Stark to be loyal to.

Cheers!

[Ramsay Gimp]

Most of the northerners riding along with Stannis only do so because they want to participate in rescuing Ned's daughter.

Houses Umber, Mormont and Manderly have made their support of the Starks quite plain, as much as they can without becoming suicidal.

And there are assorted hints and statements all along the books, particularly in ADWD. The Boltons and _part_ of the Karstarks are very much the exception.

Also, we know that Wyman Manderly is far more suportive of the Starks that he dares to openly admit, and we have fair reason to suspect that so does Lady Dustin and probably her Ryswell relatives as well.

There is a scene in ADWD that all but says straight out that the only reason why they even tolerate the Boltons is so that they can remain close enough to Roose and Ramsay to decide how much to blame them for the deaths in the Red Wedding. They even say "The North Remembers" out aloud. I personally have no doubt that they will turn against the Boltons when they have their doubts clarified.

I acknowledged all of this in the OP. My only point of disagreement would be on the Umbers - they definitely would prefer a Stark over a Bolton, but one of them is still siding with Roose as far as we know

[Sevumar]

But the fact that these numerous treasons did occur indicates that the Starks don't command the uber-loyal love from their bannermen that most people suggest.

Nobody's claiming that the Stark bannermen are uniformly loyal or perfectly supportive of their rule, but you have many Houses with very high loyalty and very few willing to throw in their lot with the Boltons. There are really only two who have taken actions of note against the Starks: Bolton and Karstark. The list of Houses and clans working to restore Stark rule is much longer.

EDIT: Thank you Gurkhal for some common sense. People get really prickly over something which really shouldn't even be controversial to say at this point

There are numerous examples in this series of people concealing their motives or speaking falsely about their plans, actions, or loyalties. It is a real possibility that Lady Dustin is among them.

[7V3N]

Ned earned the respect of most of them, as his father may have as well. Robb REALLY won their respect, otherwise they would not have named him the King In the North (THE KING IN THE NORTH!). Bran showed them that he cared for them. And Cat (though not a Stark by blood was Lady Stark) had a kind heart that always showed the courtesies expected of a lady in her position. Not to mention, they never stab their people in the back.

The North has its own culture. Remember Ned's talk of the wolf pack to Arya? That goes for the whole North really.

Except the Boltons. Those flaying bastards (NOT BASTARD!) have always been defiant.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

So her stated hatred of the Starks is evidence that she actually sides with the Starks? Convincing :dunce:

Uh, no. She has a very, very clear motive for wanting to see Ramsay dead. By the way, you never answered my question: Do you seriously think that she holds a grudge against the Starks so much that she'd let her beloved nephew's murderer get away scot-free because of it? Bullshit. And for as few men as she sent Robb, she freely admits that some were killed at the Red Wedding — she thus has motive to turn on the Freys. You can put two and two together and figure out that one of the reasons she has Theon take her to the crypts is to corroborate Manderly's information about Bran and Rickon — why go down there otherwise? Absolutely nothing that went on down there had to have taken place in a crypt; she could have played out her spiel elsewhere. She had a reason to go down there.

What about her line about giving Robb as few men as she dared? You really want me to believe she's saying that to Theon as a ruse so that he will run and tell it to the Boltons? If that were the case, she could just tell it to Roose personally (probably already has). Remember how she clearly tells him not to repeat anything? At this point, what would that accomplish - Roose already believes she is in his camp.

As we said earlier, she's testing Theon to see how far down the rabbit hole he really is. Is there any fight left in him, or has he completely succumbed? Will he keep the secret or will it come out the other end? I'm sure she is saying things for the Boltons' benefit, but at least some of it is her seeing how far gone Theon really is. For all she knows, she might have to use him in some way down the road.

I get it, not all is as it seems in this series. But that doesn't mean black is white

I'm not sure you do get it, based on how you're approaching this. Do you think Wylla is Jon's mother? I mean, they say so right there in the book, amirite? :rolleyes:

[Sevumar]

I acknowledged all of this in the OP. My only point of disagreement would be on the Umbers - they definitely would prefer a Stark over a Bolton, but one of them is still siding with Roose as far as we know

Two pieces of evidence have been given against the loyalty of Hother Umber.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

EDIT: Thank you Gurkhal for some common sense. People get really prickly over something which really shouldn't even be controversial to say at this point

Uh, that wasn't Gurkhal?

[LuisDantas]

I acknowledged all of this in the OP. My only point of disagreement would be on the Umbers - they definitely would prefer a Stark over a Bolton, but one of them is still siding with Roose as far as we know

While the other is siding with Stannis against Roose, and both make no secret of that.

They even make a point of demanding not to be put to fight one against the other directly.

As clear a statement that they would rather not choose sides as one could possibly ask for - particularly when their fellow Umber, the Greatjon, is still a prisoner.

[Greg Miller_2367]

George is my Uncle and he told me that Northmen love the Starks more than any other bannermen love their leige lords.

[Ramsay Gimp]

Uh, that wasn't Gurkhal?

Whoops - they have the same pic :blushing:

fixed

[Ramsay Gimp]

I'm not sure you do get it, based on how you're approaching this. Do you think Wylla is Jon's mother? I mean, they say so right there in the book, amirite? :rolleyes:

You clearly want Lady Dustin to be loyal, because you are a Stark fan yourself. So you project your own feelings onto her. Your explanation for her words/deeds would be very convoluted indeed on GRRM's part, but he is fond of intricate plots so I admit it is possible. Your error is in insisting that it is likely, or obvious to anyone who doesn't need to be spoonfed. I've repeatedly acknowledged there might be a lot more to her than there appears, and I've never disputed that she hates Ramsay and holds the Freys in contempt. But from the evidence in the text so far, she is anti-Stark and respects Roose.

To insist otherwise, you have to play opposite day with almost everything she says and does

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

You clearly want Lady Dustin to be loyal, because you are a Stark fan yourself. So you project your own feelings onto her. Your explanation for her words/deeds would be very convoluted indeed on GRRM's part, but he is fond of intricate plots so I admit it is possible. Your error is in insisting that it is likely, or obvious to anyone who doesn't need to be spoonfed. I've repeatedly acknowledged there might be a lot more to her than there appears, and I've never disputed that she hates Ramsay and holds the Freys in contempt. But from the evidence in the text so far, she is anti-Stark and respects Roose.

To insist otherwise, you have to play opposite day with almost everything she says and does

Answer my question: Do you sincerely believe that her alleged hatred of the Starks outweighs the crime against her family that Ramsay committed? This is the third time I've asked.

I can also easily turn around and say that your dislike of the Starks makes you automatically want to assume the worst of Lady Dustin. Why is house loyalty coloring my views, but an aversion to the Starks not coloring yours?

And again, by your logic, Wylla must be Jon's mother because that's what the book says outright.

[LuisDantas]

I don't think it is that partial a reading, myself.

The Boltons have not only killed her nephew, but are still and consistently acting is a nasty way right before her eyes. She either knows or strongly suspects that they betrayed the other Northern Houses to the Red Wedding as well.

Compare that to her claims that she is hurt for losing Brandon and then Lord Dustin to the Starks. Lord Dustin went of his own accord to fight with Ned. On a destrier that was a gift from her. That it cost him his life is a good reason for her sorrow, but only a barely convincing excuse for a grudge against the Starks, much less one that lasts over fifteen years.

[Ramsay Gimp]

Answer my question: Do you sincerely believe that her alleged hatred of the Starks outweighs the crime against her family that Ramsay committed? This is the third time I've asked.

And again, by your logic, Wylla must be Jon's mother because that's what the book says outright.

False choice. She is supporting Roose, and only his bastard by extension. Domeric, her nephew killed by the bastard, was Roose's son remember? So it's both of their loss, and may partly explain their cozy relationship.

She may well be planning vengeance against Ramsay, or she may be confident that Roose will take care of him in good time. But hating Ramsay doesn't mean she is loyal to the Starks, so your question is kind of irrelevant.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

False choice. She is supporting Roose, and only his bastard by extension. Domeric, her nephew killed by the bastard, was Roose's son remember? So it's both of their loss, and may partly explain their cozy relationship.

She may well be planning vengeance against Ramsay, or she may be confident that Roose will take care of him in good time. But hating Ramsay doesn't mean she is loyal to the Starks, so your question is kind of irrelevant.

By going against the Starks, she's helping to put her nephew's murderer in the driver's seat of Winterfell. That doesn't strike you as odd? This is kind of a zero-sum situation — by going against the Starks, she's helping the Boltons and by extension helping Ramsay. So no, I don't think it's a false choice. You're trying to say, by virtue of the situation, that a grudge over a missed marriage opportunity from 15+ years ago is worth more to her than avenging the murder of a family member (and the Barrowton men the Freys murdered, too). I call bullshit, in spades. And the fact that Roose keeps Barbrey "sweet" implies that he doesn't take her loyalty to his cause for granted.

And again, by your logic, Wylla is Jon's mother because the text says so and the text never lies, right?