The GNC will not come to pass and if it does it will dishonor the North forever

[Frey Pie]

I'm not so sure about that. The phrase "kill the boy and let the man be born" was used often in the chapters leading up to the stabbing. It's possible Jon will wake up with a much different attitude.

Well that can only be speculated on-IF Jon rises, IF he has changed.

The Jon we know at the moment is too Stark to knowingly betray Stannis

[Rhymes with Weak]

I love GRRM's writing, he puts all these little hints at a northern conspiracy and writes characters so that their fans clash with the fans of an opposing character but in the end all these political maneuverings and machinations don't matter at all in the face of the end of the world.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Yea, I don't either. Remotely.

But the thing is, I think Bamf's issue is that he is placing judgment on the Northern Lords for politicizing what is a relative "given," that is, whether the North's desire for independence-- on its own and provided it comes to fruition-- is harmful in terms of the need to rally against the Others, and/ or if there's a moral imperative on the Northmen to swear to Stannis in light of his service to the North.

And that seems to assume that Stannis has something of value to offer where the Others are concerned. I think he's likelier to become a new Night King myself. I'm also not entirely sold on the northerners really owing Stannis much at this point, even considering what happened with the wildlings. Stannis went to the mountain clans for their help; they didn't come to him. And nearly all of what he's accomplished since leaving the Wall was Jon's idea anyway. He's fighting Jon's proxy war. If Stannis had gone with his first plan, he'd've marched to the Dreadfort.

[The Sunset King]

So what is the endgame people see on the Stannis hero plotline?

He unites the North, and engages the Others as the leader of the Northern half of Westeros? He certainly isn't going to defeat Aegon and Daenerys in the South. So Stannis ends up as a southron lord leading the North against the Others. Why do we need a southerner for that in the bigger scheme of the story? If he isn't going to unite the entire Westeros behind him, why is he necessary for the northern plotline?

The only realistic answer is that he isn't necessary. Once the Starks are back, what need is there for a southern king crowding up the leadership role in the North?

There is a decent level of foreshadowing that Stannis is going to continue to be a player in the Game of Thrones. The Iron Bank is one notable case but so is the House of the Undying, as potentially may have been the Daenerys's Trident dream (maybe). The following is one possible way that Stannis could continue to hold the support of the North, or at least many Northern nobles for a sizeable amount of time without being the series's main character or even necessarily the North's final monarch:

Let's say that things go mostly according to plan for Stannis, the tribes, and the northern lords that are working against the Boltons. The Battle of Ice is largely a success, Winterfell subsequently falls, and Rickon is returned to much popular acclaim through the actions of Davos Seaworth. While this is going on, the Aegon project continously gains an escalating momentum, with a very strong prospect that the black dragon will crush the present occupants of the Iron Throne and unite most of the continent outside of the North and the Iron Isles. Additionally, the Iron Bank receives word of Stannis's acceptance of its terms and prepares to furnish the Stag with considerable assistance. On top of that, the Wildling deal is fraying, the Wall increasingly is wracked by chaos and infighting, and the Others make disturbing approaches that suggest a plan to breach the realm's defenses.

At this point, Rickon could be proclaimed the Northern king. However, let us proceed with what happens if Manderly's statements to Davos were genuine and see what scenario might unfold if the northern lords decide mostly en masse to recognize Stannis as Westeros's legitimate sovereign. A few factors that might encourage maintaining this alliance:

1. Aegon shows clear signs of riding to power on a massive wave of religious revivalism, Dornish support, the skill of the Golden Company, Varys's propaganda (including perhaps promotion of Rhaegar's belief that his son would be the PTWP), and a rapidly growing number of defections of major lords throughout most of the realm. What if Aegon, in contrast to other claimants to the throne, decides to accept the High Septon's plan to almost co-rule with the king?

It is quite possible that the sparrow movement will gain power at the expense of the nobility (thus encouraging lords to follow its desires), and crusade zones will be setup at areas in which followers of the Seven will clash with those that adhere to other religions. It could indeed be the case that the realm's majority increasingly heeds calls to drive the Ironborn out of the Reach, to challenge the BWB, and to block Stannis/the North/the Wildlings from advancing beyond the Neck. If the real world has any relevance to the books, it is abundantly clear that this could happen. In such a scenario, the problems between Stannis's followers of R'hllor and the Northmen would actually become less prominent in comparison to the fear of the rising Aegon and the tsunami of zealotry that the Aegon team would be tapping into. As Asha has observed, Stannis's forces already have attempted to forge together/unite many of the realm's minority religions, so it would not be unreasonable for him to increasingly represent them all against the power of the sparrows and escalating religious overtones of the conflict.

2. The North may find Stannis's deal with the Iron Bank attractive. The Bank will likely cutoff support for the North if it ditches Stannis but will be quite willing to help if it does back him. This would be handy in the harsh winter and help resist the Others.

3. In consequence of the aid of the Iron Bank, Stannis still could be useful to the North in defending the Wall, as well as detering rogue defections to Aegon or Daenerys driven by opportunism, fear, or other reasons.

Stannis may not ask the Northerners to immediately march south to claim the rest of the continent. Instead, he might decide to bide his time until he can hire mercenaries, amass gold, address the threat of the Others, recalibrate the Wildling deal, and encourage propaganda against Aegon and/or Daenerys. In the the face of Daenerys's arrival, might not the North believe that his power could help give them a chance of resisting the Dragon Queen? Perhaps Daenery's dream about fighting a "usurper" at the Trident hints that this is a possibility.

In sum, Stannis would cautiously expand his reach, not sending Northerners too much into conflicts to the south but instead await the chance to use sellswords, hoping that attrition and privation would weaken his foes. He would not necessarily survive the series or destroy Daenerys/whoever, yet the alliance does have credible ways in which it could continue.

[WeirwoodTreeHugger]

Well, I hate Dany for so many reasons, but to be fair. The North was sworn to the Iron Throne, Stannis is the king of said throne, so the North owes him fealty. Dany was begging for boats and soldiers, and decided she didn't like slavery, and went about ending it completely wrong, by just killing a bunch of slavers and hoping things settle themselves.

Tommen is on the Iron Throne. By that logic they should neither declare independence or pledge fealty to Stannis.

Don't get me wrong, I'd rather have Stannis on the IT than the Lannisters. That doesn't the fact that Stannis lost at Blackwater.

[Pyrrhus]

Tommen is on the Iron Throne. By that logic they should neither declare independence or pledge fealty to Stannis.

Don't get me wrong, I'd rather have Stannis on the IT than the Lannisters. That doesn't the fact that Stannis lost at Blackwater.

Well I was speaking as a reader with the knowledge that Tommen is indeed Jaime's child, and as such has no claim to the throne. Yes, his butt currently polishes the throne, but in reality, we as the readers know Stannis is Robert's lawful heir, and upon Robert's death, he became king.

[Frey Pie]

I actually think the point of Jon's character/story arc is to show how like them he isn't. Not that he's nothing like them, but that when face with similar choices, he doesn't make the same decisions they make. He has honor but also common sense (unlike Ned), and he too loved a girl and had to choose between keeping the vows he'd made or keeping the girl, and he chose the former while Robb chose the latter. So what he will and will not do wrt Stannis has nothing to do with what Ned or Robb would do, imho.

I'd say Ned made far more sensible decisions in his life than insensible ones e.g. Marrying his brothers betrothed. Jon going south to find Robb, and later "arya" is not sensible, and is seen as breaking an oath as much as Robb did. In addition Jon betraying the NW would have been a far bigger deal than Robb choosing Jeyne- it would be akin to Robb joining the western army because he married a girl from there

In any case you do have a point, but he is far far more like his family then different, and when the point of contention is so huge, he will likely go back to what he knows best which is the way he was brought up to rule and that's with honour. Betraying Stannis is not honourable and so I find it highly unlikely Jon will do so

[TheMysteriousOne]

Perhaps Daenery's dream about fighting a "usurper" at the Trident hints that this is a possibility.

I think that dream is far more likely to be foreshadowing of Dany defeating Stannis as the NK reborn than of her fighting the Northmen, as we know that she's going to be the one to slay the lie about Stannis being AA, even if she is not AA herself.

[The Sunset King]

I think that dream is far more likely to be foreshadowing of Dany defeating Stannis as the NK reborn than of her fighting the Northmen, as we know that she's going to be the one to slay the lie about Stannis being AA, even if she is not AA herself.

I agree that the Stannis = second Night's King scenario is a very strong and probable one. Though, it may be the case that few people would immediately notice the changes wrought in Stannis's transformation, thus forestalling for a time the backlash and desertion/abandonment that such knowledge would generate.

[StannisBamfatheon]

And that seems to assume that Stannis has something of value to offer where the Others are concerned. I think he's likelier to become a new Night King myself. I'm also not entirely sold on the northerners really owing Stannis much at this point, even considering what happened with the wildlings. Stannis went to the mountain clans for their help; they didn't come to him. And nearly all of what he's accomplished since leaving the Wall was Jon's idea anyway. He's fighting Jon's proxy war. If Stannis had gone with his first plan, he'd've marched to the Dreadfort.

What the north owes him? Restoring the Glovers to Deep Wood Motte? Saving the north from the Wildlings? If he wins at Winterfell destroying and routing the men who betrayed and murdered their king? The north would owe him everything Apple.

Just because what he's doing is Jon's idea doesn't mean he isn't doing it. Whether it's his or Jon's plans he's still assisting the north militarily and strategically, with their men yes but with all of his own as well. Whatever Stannis would or wouldn't have done at the Dreadfort is moot now also.

[butterbumps!]

And that seems to assume that Stannis has something of value to offer where the Others are concerned. I think he's likelier to become a new Night King myself. I'm also not entirely sold on the northerners really owing Stannis much at this point, even considering what happened with the wildlings. Stannis went to the mountain clans for their help; they didn't come to him. And nearly all of what he's accomplished since leaving the Wall was Jon's idea anyway. He's fighting Jon's proxy war. If Stannis had gone with his first plan, he'd've marched to the Dreadfort.

Yes, that's pretty much what I've been arguing for most of this thread-- that when you fold the magic into this, which is more important than anything about who's ruling what-- that it doesn't follow logically that Stannis is the panacea for an Other-free Westeros.

But I think this is outside of what it seems the GNC is stating. The GNC-- from what I understand-- is entirely political, that is, not accounting for the magical common enemy, right? That is, the Northmen who might conspire for a KitN are not doing so because it's a requirement for the apocalypse, right? It's about wanting a Stark king?

I think that's why bamf is arguing this. If the GNC is merely dealing with this from a political side only-- that is, the North wants a Stark king no matter what-- it seems this is what he considers this a little dishonorable from the perspective of using someone as a means to an end. I think it's a smart political move, to be sure-- letting your "enemies" destroy themselves and filling the vacuum is pretty efficient if not the most "honorable" way of conducting business. (I have to say though that "dishonoring themselves forever" is a bit of hyperbole).

But I guess the real issue is how all of this political bickering plays out when you fold the magic side onto this because that's not part of the calculus of the GNC from the best of my understanding of it, yet the most important part of what's happening with Winterfell. I don't think Stannis is the answer to the Battle for the Dawn, but if it's true that the Houses are intra-fighting, and fighting against Stannis for political reasons alone, this is not something to praise. I think that's part of what he's having a problem with-- Stannis might not be the "answer" but political infighting of the North is really not good either.

[Chaircat Meow]

What the north owes him? Restoring the Glovers to Deep Wood Motte? Saving the north from the Wildlings? If he wins at Winterfell destroying and routing the men who betrayed and murdered their king? The north would owe him everything Apple.

Just because what he's doing is Jon's idea doesn't mean he isn't doing it. Whether it's his or Jon's plans he's still assisting the north militarily and strategically, with their men yes but with all of his own as well. Whatever Stannis would or wouldn't have done at the Dreadfort is moot now also.

I haven't heard that Jon telephoned him with that plan to destroy the Freys on the ice.

edit: Woops, botched that.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

What the north owes him? Restoring the Glovers to Deep Wood Motte? Saving the north from the Wildlings? If he wins at Winterfell destroying and routing the men who betrayed and murdered their king? The north would owe him everything Apple.

Just because what he's doing is Jon's idea doesn't mean he isn't doing it. Whether it's his or Jon's plans he's still assisting the north militarily and strategically, with their men yes but with all of his own as well. Whatever Stannis would or wouldn't have done at the Dreadfort is moot now also.

And none of that actually means that the northerners have any actual or honest intention of letting him rule over them. You're arguing what you think they SHOULD do. I'm arguing what I think they WILL do.

[StannisBamfatheon]

Yea, I don't either. Remotely.

But the thing is, I think Bamf's issue is that he is placing judgment on the Northern Lords for politicizing what is a relative "given," that is, whether the North's desire for independence-- on its own and provided it comes to fruition-- is harmful in terms of the need to rally against the Others, and/ or if there's a moral imperative on the Northmen to swear to Stannis in light of his service to the North.

The biggest problem with GNC is that it weakens their position against the Others, there will be bloodshed on both sides Stannis/Northmen. Like who cares who the hell the "king in the north" is when ancient snow demons come to fuck shit up?

And yes I don't find it particularly moral to war with Stannis after he's done so much for them.

[Nyrhex]

And none of that actually means that the northerners have any actual or honest intention of letting him rule over them. You're arguing what you think they SHOULD do. I'm arguing what I think they WILL do.

And yet, it must be asked. Why not? It's void of any logic. Stannis needs the North. The North needs Stannis. Probably more. They want a Stark to rule them. Stannis accepts the price. Why refuse him? Why should they not take him as king? Why does the Stark have to be a king, even when it is clear that alone they will fail?

[butterbumps!]

The biggest problem with GNC is that it weakens their position against the Others, there will be bloodshed on both sides Stannis/Northmen. Like who cares who the hell the "king in the north" is when ancient snow demons come to fuck shit up?

And yes I don't find it particularly moral to war with Stannis after he's done so much for them.

Ok, well let's not get carried away. Let's not pretend that Stannis is doing this out of pure altruism or concern for the North. There are aligned goals, but by this sort of logic, the Northmen should be sending the Queen of Thorns and Varys congratulatory fruit baskets and honey baked hams for their good work in bringing down common enemies. The enemy of my enemy is not always my friend. I'd be careful of placing too much moral imperative on the North to swear to Stannis merely out of a sense of obligation.

[C0bR]

The problem is that we don't know what the northmen planned to do without Stannis, so we don't know how high added value to their cause he in fact presents.

We can surely give give the whole saving of NW and defeating of the wildlings.

Calling of the clans: If we accept that the clans were included in GNC from the start and combine it with the fact that they are said to march only for the Stark, there is a possibility the clans would've come down with or without Stannis.

Liberating of Deepwood Motte: Again, there is a possibility that it would've been liberated even without Stannis. GNC assumes that there are communication channels between the whole North, so assuming that the clans would've marched down the same way they do with Stannis and they allied themselves with Allysane Mormont and her men, it is possible that the northmen planned to get rid of the ironmen with or without Stannis and he just came on a ride.

March to WF: Stannis' men are nothing but a hindrance and the slowness of his men may have even put some problems into the northern plan.

Defeating of the Freys: We don't yet know how that will happen but again: Stannis' forces are pretty much made of the northmen (about 85%). Strategy with ice might be nice, but well, the crucial thing will be the Freys getting backstabbed by Manderlys, other northmen.

Defeating of the Bolton: Nothing to base it on, but the force defeating Bolton will again be made manly by the northmen.

Retrieving of Rickon by Davos: Do we really believe that Manderly would have let Rickon, the only avaiable true Stark rot on Skaagos for the rest of his life if a blind struck of luck did not bring him Davos?

So in the end, what Stannis did for the North is welcomed and honorable, but in the end, the added value he provided according to the northern plans might not be enough for the northmen to exchange it for bending the knee. Of course, this is just a pure speculation, but there were surely actions by the northmen that were planned without Stannis being featured in them

And again, the want for intependence might not be fully rational, so I would stop trying to put rational thoughts behind it. The North simply wants independence, without thinking of consequences.

[StannisBamfatheon]

And yet, it must be asked. Why not? It's void of any logic. Stannis needs the North. The North needs Stannis. Probably more. They want a Stark to rule them. Stannis accepts the price. Why refuse him? Why should they not take him as king? Why does the Stark have to be a king, even when it is clear that alone they will fail?

This. The king in the north resurrection lasted but little. Stannis is willing to give them a stark liege-lord and defend them from enemies within and without. Why must the stark be a king?

[Barty]

I partly agree with the OP - The Northmen wouldn't want to attack and kill Stannis since they gain nothing from it. However they would still want freedom - Once Robb's will comes out in the open, I dont see the Northmen ignoring their last King's dying wishes. The North(the majority of them anyways) clearly loves the Starks and Robb was the first King in the North in 300 years, they will want to fight for his legacy.

I see a situation in which the Northerners crown Rickon/Jon as King and tell Stannis he is welcome to stay in the North as a guest/exiled King but the North will not fight for him against the IT. Stannis obviously wouldn't agree to this but he has no choice in the matter now - he is not stupid enough to wage war against the North when he only has a few hundred men and no supplies and base of operations.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

And yet, it must be asked. Why not? It's void of any logic. Stannis needs the North. The North needs Stannis. Probably more. They want a Stark to rule them. Stannis accepts the price. Why refuse him? Why should they not take him as king? Why does the Stark have to be a king, even when it is clear that alone they will fail?

You say the they need each other but that Stannis as king outweighs the North wanting only Stark rule. Why can't the opposite also be considered? Stannis needs the North and because of that, is forced to accept northern independence? Why is Stannis as king the default here? Why should the northerners be the ones to give?