King in the North or Warden of the North?

[Third World King]

Do we know that snake fire can kill the Others?

No.

Dragon's flame is not real fire.

[E-Ro]

No.

Dragon's flame is not real fire.

um, what?

[Jon's Queen Consort]

No.

Dragon's flame is not real fire.

Point still stands. Are we sure that firesnakes can kill the Others?

[Evil Jay]

Do we know that snake fire can kill the Others?

No, but it would still make a great scene! :)

It would, however, be effective against the Others-led army of wights. The NW and wildlings are aware of the effect fire has upon the wights. They are also aware of the effects of obsidian swords on the Others. I am, personally speaking, strongly leaning towards some type of alliance or confrontation involving Dany and Jon Snow at the end. How it ends, only GRRM knows.

[Vympel]

Your rank mendacity should be obvious to all, so there's no need to entertain your rhetorical flourishes where you try and ineffectually project your behavior onto others:-

Your quote earlier:

"As I said, the actual argument we were having, until you decisively lost, was based on whether Jon was named heir in the will."

Yeah, and? Do you work for the Mitt Romney campaign, by any chance? What follows that sentence, genius? Oh, that's right, this statement:-

The argument is moot if he is not the heir.

As I said from the very start and proved to anyone who understands English, this argument was always predicated on the assumption that Jon was named as heir without provision for Rickon and Bran. I said that in my first post. You accepted that assumption and continued to do so until you decided it was inconvenient, and tried to change the subject to the exact wording of the will, which is a totally different argument.

Now that we've played the game of out of context theatre:-

Again, where have I specifically stated that Jon was not named heir in the will? Nice strawman there buddy.

What strawman? I challenge you to quote me where I said, anywhere, that you claimed Jon was not named heir in the will?

*sigh*

Yes, even bastards can sometimes marry high-borns and become heirs. It is known.

For example: the Lord of Karhold was willing to give his daughter to anyone (highborn or baseborn) who brings back the head of Jamie.

You are such a deeply silly person now, aren't you? That wouldn't make hypothetical bastard the heir, since Lord Karstark still has a trueborn son, Harrion.

In any event, nothing of what you just said actually contradicts what I said, now does it?

Instead of accusing me of dishonesty

The accusation stands. It really is quite ridiculous what you're trying to do. More on this later.

You know how wills work? Would this be the wills in real-world or in the fantasy realm of westeros? Do you know the laws of westeros in relation to wills?

I believe I've made my position on wills and their status plain as they relate to King Robb. The wills' importance is predicated on Robb's status and the love his bannermen had for him. That forms the basis for my statement that if Jon is named as the heir in the will, then his bannermen will fall in line.

So, your whole argument is based on assumptions? I see.

:) LOL. "I see?" If you had a problem with this assumption - why didn't you raise it the moment I said that - given that was my post to you - pages ago - instead of now?

Oh, that's right - because you got your arse kicked and tried to change the subject. Like I said - dishonest.

Well, if the laws of Westeros are not clear and cut as you say, why did you claim that Jon would REASONABLY stand to inherit Winterfell, before Rickon and Bran? Where is the evidence for such claims?

As above, I've already told you why. Learn to read.

LOL love how you used the, "if you will not agree with me, you are a troll" line to try and discredit my more than valid points. Instead of attacking the poster, why don't you simply address the posts.

I think anyone can see I did addres your breathtakingly idiotic "point". I mocked your foolish argument for implying that the defeat of the Blackfyres had something to do with their bastardry as opposed to, you know, military factors that have nothing to do with whether someone was born a bastard.

You discredit yourself - how do you expect anyone to take seriously the argument that "Northern lords would never support Jon's claim because the Blackfyres lost."

Your arguments are a joke.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

No, but it would still make a great scene! :)

It would, however, be effective against the Others-led army of wights. The NW and wildlings are aware of the effect fire has upon the wights. They are also aware of the effects of obsidian swords on the Others. I am, personally speaking, strongly leaning towards some type of alliance or confrontation involving Dany and Jon Snow at the end. How it ends, only GRRM knows.

I don't think that the Dragons had to play a part at this.

[Dark Rider]

The Kingdom of Westeros will depend upon its united strength if "the Others" are to be repelled and its war torn lands are to survive the winter.

The Starks pledged alliegence to Robert Baratheon during the rebellion and Ned Stark declared for Stannis leading to his death. The Starks are now both duty and honor bound to declare their loyalty to King Stannis as true and loyal Lords. It was a dishonorable thing that Rob Stark did to declare himself "King of the North" and attempt to steal what by right, by birth, and by blood is King Stannis's when he had never done them harm.

Only King Stannis answered the call of the wall to save the realm from what lurks beyond. Only King Stannis raises men based on merit instead of what womb they slithered from. King Stannis is the only true King of Westeros and the North. The Starks would be wise to recognize that and honor their deceased Lord who died for him.

[KhalFrodo]

When Jon becomes King, Rickon will swear fealty and become Warden of the North... I also think some way or another, Stannis becomes Lord of the Stormlands and finally inherits Storm's End.

[Faint]

I'll guess Warden of the North but with the Starks entering the royal line (well, technically, they are already half that line).

[The Summer Islander]

What I'm simply asking is this: was the original AA resurrected back from the dead before defeating the Others some 8 000 years ago?

No. He was a regular living, breathing old dude according to the legend who forged a sword and defeated the blight invasions of the Others. This time around the hero who saves the day will be AAR. Obviously whoever AAR is, there will have to be a change taking place for him to be reborn.

[E-Ro]

No. He was a regular living, breathing old dude according to the legend who forged a sword and defeated the blight invasions of the Others. This time around the hero who saves the day will be AAR. Obviously whoever AAR is, there will have to be a change taking place for him to be reborn.

Blight? LOL the books were around longer then da.(witch takes alot of influence from asoiaf)

[The Summer Islander]

Blight? LOL the books were around longer then da.(witch takes alot of influence from asoiaf)

LOL you caught that one I see! I love that game. Need more like it. Part of the reason I love the books too.

[E-Ro]

LOL you caught that one I see! I love that game. Need more like it. Part of the reason I love the books too.

Yup, great game the human noble comes straight out of asoiaf.

sorry for the ot

[Jon's Queen Consort]

The Starks would be wise to recognize that and honor their deceased Lord who died for him.

I agree with you about Stannis. But Ned didn't died for him...

[Ser Robb]

I don't think the North will retain independence, because Dany will come in with her dragons and unite Westeros against the Others. I also think that Rickon will become the Warden of the North, because Bran just doesn't seem to be a leader to me. His fight is with the Others, not with controlling half the kingdom. He might go down to Oldtown to become a Maester and teach other people how to skinchange? because it cant just be the Starks. I might be completely wrong, but this is how it seems GRRM has written it to me.

Whatever happens, GRRM will write it convincingly. :)

[Buried Treasure]

No. He was a regular living, breathing old dude according to the legend who forged a sword and defeated the blight invasions of the Others. This time around the hero who saves the day will be AAR. Obviously whoever AAR is, there will have to be a change taking place for him to be reborn.

Genuine question, where is this said? I recall legends saying AA saved the world, but nothing about him facing off with the Others. Given that it is easterners (Mel and Salladhor Saan) that talk of AA I've always thought it a bit of an assumption that what he saved the world from was the Others.

[The Summer Islander]

Genuine question, where is this said? I recall legends saying AA saved the world, but nothing about him facing off with the Others. Given that it is easterners (Mel and Salladhor Saan) that talk of AA I've always thought it a bit of an assumption that what he saved the world from was the Others.

You are right it does not explicitly say that AA saved the world from the Others. But the point I as trying to make was that the original AA was a regular dude not brought back from the dead.

[Bastetcat]

The bastard (even a legitimized one) comes last after all the trueborn kids in the customs of inheritance. There is my evidence. Where is yours?

 

If I remember correctly Robb specifically named Jon his heir to even disinherit his sisters. Anyone who married his sisters would have a claim to Winterfell. This happened with Sansa. Robb know this so he made sure only Jon could have Winterfell. No cousin, no one from the Vale, no one from other regions. Robb says this in one of Cat's chapters. So even is Rickon turns up, JON is the hier. (Children can be controlled, Robb is not naive. And only Jon is not a child amongst his siblings) Jon - as a king - can say "after the danger is no more, Rickon is my heir". Jon wouldn't "steal" the Stark-seat, and Robb knows this. This is why he trusted Jon to be the next. Because Jon would never harm his siblings, he would protect them at all costs. So Jon was a good juice, only Catherin had problems, because she is jealous as hell, and her feeling clouded his judgment.  

[Bastetcat]

Then why did Randyll Tarly bother to force Sam to the Wall then and even threatened to commit kinslaying? He could've just proclaimed his younger son his heir.
 

 

Because Randyll is no king. He is a simple lord, no more. He doesn't have the right to disinherit his son, only a king can do that. He had no other choice but to make sure Sam go out of the picture. He didn't wanted to kill Sam, if there is an alternative. Randyll doesn't respect the maesters, so that wasn't an option. So only the wall left. 

I thing this is clear, and we have bean confused by Ramsey's fear of a legitimate heir. Normally the legitimized bastard is the last one? It doesn't matter. Because Ramsay is not afraid of the children. Ramsay knows, that - not like Randyll Tarly- Roose could and would make an "hunter accident" any time Roose's children become more capable then Ramsay. I think Ramsay is not the smartest of the world, but he knows his father well enough to say: "he would kill me the minute I am not useful anymore." IMO this is one of the reasons he is so desperate to become a "true Bolton."

[nyser1]

Its unlikely they will bend their knees for Stannis

They will never bend their knees for Aegon

They will only bend their knees for Dany is she has trained Dragons and even then they would hate her

They would bend their knees for Jon

Aye. I thunk the primary concerns for the North are peace and stability at their Northern/Southern borders, to maintain their culture, and to survive their winters. Peace and survival are important.