Why does house Bolton still exist?

[Mithras]

Perhaps the winter never came for them, not until now.

[butterbumps!]

Re: feudal balance, it's a bit more complicated and less formulaic than either side is suggesting. It is about balance, but it's not a formula. It's more about gambling and political currency.

Every time you take a significant action like wiping out a House, you aren't necessarily upsetting the balance, but you are taking a chance with it. You can do it and get away with it, but it's a huge risk. Particularly if it's a significant house...you are threatening every other house, and what's more, your weapons to destroy the original house are other houses. And if it's a house significant enough to have other houses subject to it, you're pretty much assured of some level of imbalance.

If you have garnered a lot of political currency, you might be more willing to take that chance. But it's still not an assuredly safe one. If it's a cadet branch of your own house, other houses might be less threatened, but again, not a no-brainer. It's also a chance to do nothing when challenged, but again, not formulaic.

I described it as chaotic, and this is what I meant. There is never a safe play, there are just plays which seem to be much safer than others, and there are ones which will work more than others but are not evident.mit's like that old game where there's a tower built of cards and you're trying to extract cards lower down without bringing the house crashing down. You can do it and get away with it.

As an aside, in a situation where a major house with subject houses and a cadet branch if your house unite against you, that might be one which affords you the ability to send out all the right messages; you can be destroyed if you betray us, but we also respect the institution. By destroying a house identified with you, more might see that as justice. By preserving a great house which has merely over time come under your feudal umbrella, more might also see that as a demonstration of judgment and control, which will soothe concerns. But even this situation is perllous; you ultimately never know which card brings down the house, but experience and a lot of political currency will probably help you make the wisest choice.

Lastly, 2 or 3 rebellions in several millennia doesn't remotely speak to a pattern if betrayal in RL, there are PEOPLE who rebelled more than once in a lifetime and survived. Feudal valance is also about pressures; subject houses push back against authority, and authority pushes for more. It's important to remember that fealty is a voluntary arrangement. It can even be withdrawn, legally and honourably. But 2/3 times in thousands of years? That's ridiculously long; the people involved in any of them would have literally nothing to do with one another other than the name. That would be like saying Iran is a threat because of Cyrus the Great.

First, we don't actually know how many times the Boltons formally rebelled. I'm not sure where this idea that they only did every few thousand years keeps coming from. The last time the Boltons allegedly formally rebelled was 1,000 years ago. Prior to that last rebellion, we don't know how often they got cute.

I hasten to point out, though, that the Bael story speaks of a Lord of Winterfell, which would place him in the last 300 years. Bael's son was flayed by a Bolton after he unknowingly killed his father. If this is accurately dated, it means the last Stark flaying occurred in the last 300 years. And that flaying was hardly the first time. We know the Boltons made a practice out of flaying their overlords. And wearing them. This goes above and beyond acceptable levels of insolence, I'd think.

It's rather curious that the Boltons were repeat offenders (formal rebellion, and general insolence) yet remain, while first time offenders were erased for rebelling. If precious feudal order is the answer to this, you'd think the Starks would have decided the Boltons had had their run, eradicate them, severely chasten the Greystarks, and let them have another chance.

And it's not like the Starks didn't play with the feudal order-- I listed various occasions where they did change things up, so a simple appeal to feudal order seems a bit thin.

[The Dragon King]

Most of the major paramount regions seem to have a major house that in the past has been a rival or serious enemy of the current leading house. Yronwood in Dorne, Florent in the Reach, Reyne in Westerlands, Bolton in the North, etc. I assume the leading houses kept them around because they strengthen the region, and so the leading houses position, as a whole. It offers a greater variety of leading figures so you have more battle commanders, more administrators, more wealth, etc.

The Lannisters wiped out their rival house and now they top of the Westerlands is all Lannister and it doesn't seem to have worked out all that great. If the Reynes had been around they could have been a threat to Robb in the West, alternative choice for Cersei when she was looking for a hand, etc.

It is possible to just start a cadet branch of your House in their place.

[Bog Devil of Greywater]

And it's not like the Starks didn't play with the feudal order-- I listed various occasions where they did change things up, so a simple appeal to feudal order seems a bit thin.

And a jump to a magical war between Stark Snarks and Bolton Grumpkins seems a bit much.

It's pretty well established by this point that there's not enough information to draw a consensus on the long rivalry. From what we know now, there's just no right answer or conclusion to make.

[Maia]

that it's only the Boltons, and then later a Stark offshoot branch, who's made serious enough challenges against the Starks to be mentioned in history. Outside of wildling kings, we don't hear about any other revolts or continued insolence from other Houses.

Skagosi? And as far as I understand it, the Starks agreed to leave them pretty much alone in the end. Besides, it is very possible that we are going to learn more about revolts against the Starks and history of their conquest of the North in the world book.

We know from the clans that the King of Winter would demand hostages on occasion to ensure good behavior, but nothing like going to war against the other Houses that remain in tact.

Well, it seems to me that the practice of taking hostages from the clans and occasionally executing them doesn't lie as far in the past as doing it to the other Northern Houses. And it is pretty clear, IMHO, that the practice existed because the clans were causing problems. Maybe they used to be more like wildling clans of the Mountains of Moon until fairly recently, comparatively speaking?

Also, we have no idea how many northern Houses may have become extinct over the years, and Stark involvement in such events.

I really think that Tywin was in a fairly unique position, where he was able extinguish the Reynes (and Tarbecks, but they weren't really an ancient rival) quickly, and they have given him enough "just cause" as well as pissed off most other nobles in the West sufficiently, that those were willing to accept it. Also, Reynes and Tarbecks didn't have the wit to surrender and grovel, once they were beaten, but continued to be insolent and defiant to the end, which solidified Tywin's support among the other nobles.

His Sack of KL, by contrast, didn't find nearly as much understanding among his peers and in the end hurt House Lannister a lot.

OTOH, it seems to me that the Starks were never in position to actually storm or otherwise destroy the Dreadfort, so they had to agree to negotiated settlements with Boltons in the end.

Oh, and in addition to other recalcitrant bannermen - how about House Peake? It seems to me that they have participated in the first 3 Blackfyre rebellions at least, and killed king Maekar when he tried to put an end to them! Yet they are still around.

It all depends on the circumstances, I guess. Starks were in position to extinguish the Greystarks and possibly whatever bannerman/ally of Boltons owning what later became Karstark lands. But not Boltons themselves.

I also don't understand how Robb trusting a Bolton was obviously foolish, given that the revolts et al. lie centuries in the past and recent Boltons were likely reasonably well-behaved.

Ned supposedly not trusting Lord Bolton was an obvious hindsight on Jon's part, because if he felt that Roose was a possible problem, he would have warned Catelyn about him when he was warning her about an impending war and telling her to keep a watch on Theon.

[JoeyBanana]

I think there's more to the story than just Stark mercy.

The logical explanation would be a Stark-loyal Bolton, either on their side during the rebellion or a captured son fostered/controlled by them. Roose's comments about "child lords" may hint at young Boltons being Stark puppets in the past. Maybe a Bolton married to a Stark girl decided to fight with his wife's family instead of his own.

It's also not impossible that the rightful Lord Bolton was exiled/usurped by other Boltons and those rebelled/refused to yield when Starks supported him.

Another one of those cases where we simply don't know the full story and have to base our speculation on unreliable sources.

[LordBloodraven]

Yeah,but still..after second rebellion i would expect more drastic measures, maybe take 50% of their lands and give it to some proven loyal bannerman. (surely if that happened it would be mentioned?)

I bet they think that third time is the charm right now :P

My hope is that they wont exist anymore after the conclusion of the novels :bowdown:

As mentioned earlier, it could be that Karlon Stark was given lands from the Bolton fief and installed as Lord after he helped put down their last rebellion. The present House Bolton could be hailing from a distant cousin or a brother of the rebellious lord, 800 years ago. We don't know but it's a stretch to assume that the Starks just let them be after they surrendered.

Also, concerning the Rains of Castamere, it has been stated that it was a unique occasion. And the ConCarolinas reading showed that King Aegon V was particularly displeased with the situation in the East, Tytos's inactitivity. And you have the Reynes and Tarbecks taking forcibly lands from neighbouring Houses, which must have given them a bad rep.

Feudal balance is just that. Any time you threaten the rule of one noble, you indirectly threaten the rule of all nobles. Any time other nobles feel threatened, they might react. And your power to deal with any reacting nobles comes from other nobles, who might also feel threatened. It's a chaotic form of government, but it does have it's own gravitational elegance.

Very true. I think this is the reason Aerys lost the Rebellion. Any House that was not threatened by the Rickard/Brandon fiasco was daring death with Aerys on the throne.

What if the ancient Boltons got into the flaying business as a response to skinchanging being a known Stark atribute.

It makes sense.

This is a theory going around actually. Bolton's flaying rituals stemming from Stark skinchanger envy or whatever.

[butterbumps!]

And a jump to a magical war between Stark Snarks and Bolton Grumpkins seems a bit much.

It's pretty well established by this point that there's not enough information to draw a consensus on the long rivalry. From what we know now, there's just no right answer or conclusion to make.

There isn't enough to draw a conclusion about it- I don't contest that. In fact, my first post in here was to say "there's more to the story." I lean toward something magic-oriented, but the one thing I'm confident about is that there's just more to the story. The feudal balance explanation is particularly unsatisfying to me, because it can cut the other way just as easily (make an example of the Boltons as they are repeat offenders and put someone else in charge).

We of course need more info about this. But in the meantime, what we have is one extremely insolent House who not only rebelled multiple times, but flaunted their insolence by flaying their overlords multiple times. We also see that the Starks did not shy away from restructuring the order, and creating and replacing lords. We also see that the Starks were nearly uncontested in terms of true revolts by their bannermen. Except for these two Houses, one of which is a House with Stark genes, and the other is the Boltons. And the one with Stark genes gets erased, while the Boltons are allowed to persist. In fact, going on to allegedly flaying the Lord of Winterfell 700 or more years after they last apparently rebelled.

What makes the most sense for why this was allowed is one of following: either the Boltons are somehow too powerful, or the Boltons are far too useful, despite being clearly disloyal. Either option requires more information.

A magical rivalry isn't actually far-fetched. We know the Starks are a magical House. We know they've maintained nearly uncontested dominance for ages. Do you think the Starks used their powers solely for bonding with their wolves? We know that they were ruthless back in the day-- I mean, that little stunt by Brandon Ice Eyes Stark in the Wolf's Den, involving hanging bowels on the heart tree as an offering isn't exactly the Stark-model we see through Ned. It's curious that the Greystarks were the ones wiped out in that last rebellion-- the House that would have Stark genes. The purely political cost-benefit of choosing to erase that House kind of neutralizes itself-- in purely political terms, neither sparing nor erasing them comes out as the clearly profitable choice.

And it's not like we don't have another example of a group of people who achieved and maintained total dominance for millennia through sorcery. Who were finally challenged by another group that practices magic.

Skagosi? And as far as I understand it, the Starks agreed to leave them pretty much alone in the end. Besides, it is very possible that we are going to learn more about revolts against the Starks and history of their conquest of the North in the world book.

Well, it seems to me that the practice of taking hostages from the clans and occasionally executing them doesn't lie as far in the past as doing it to the other Northern Houses. And it is pretty clear, IMHO, that the practice existed because the clans were causing problems. Maybe they used to be more like wildling clans of the Mountains of Moon until fairly recently, comparatively speaking?

Also, we have no idea how many northern Houses may have become extinct over the years, and Stark involvement in such events.

I really think that Tywin was in a fairly unique position, where he was able extinguish the Reynes (and Tarbecks, but they weren't really an ancient rival) quickly, and they have given him enough "just cause" as well as pissed off most other nobles in the West sufficiently, that those were willing to accept it. Also, Reynes and Tarbecks didn't have the wit to surrender and grovel, once they were beaten, but continued to be insolent and defiant to the end, which solidified Tywin's support among the other nobles.

His Sack of KL, by contrast, didn't find nearly as much understanding among his peers and in the end hurt House Lannister a lot.

OTOH, it seems to me that the Starks were never in position to actually storm or otherwise destroy the Dreadfort, so they had to agree to negotiated settlements with Boltons in the end.

Oh, and in addition to other recalcitrant bannermen - how about House Peake? It seems to me that they have participated in the first 3 Blackfyre rebellions at least, and killed king Maekar when he tried to put an end to them! Yet they are still around.

It all depends on the circumstances, I guess. Starks were in position to extinguish the Greystarks and possibly whatever bannerman/ally of Boltons owning what later became Karstark lands. But not Boltons themselves.

I also don't understand how Robb trusting a Bolton was obviously foolish, given that the revolts et al. lie centuries in the past and recent Boltons were likely reasonably well-behaved.

Ned supposedly not trusting Lord Bolton was an obvious hindsight on Jon's part, because if he felt that Roose was a possible problem, he would have warned Catelyn about him when he was warning her about an impending war and telling her to keep a watch on Theon.

Tywin was indeed unique. He raised the stakes of the game to a zero-sum. But we're talking about a pre-conquest situation. The Conquest changed the social order, and House eradications by former kings (now lords) of their bannermen became less normalized. Tywin brought that back, and for relatively little instigation. Tywin erased an insolent House for refusing to pay a debt. And in a Pre-Conquest world, the Boltons were a House that periodically flays Starks and flaunts it by wearing the skins, with no apparent eradication by their overlords (who were their kings at that point in time).

The examples of allowing certain Houses to remain in Post-Conquest rebellions doesn't give us much insight on the Stark situation I don't think, at least not yet. The Peakes aren't a good example yet, until we know more. The Blackfyres were trying to become kings instead of the Targs. The Peakes supported them. But were either the Boltons or Grestarks trying to becomes kings and replace the Starks? If so, which House was the leader? It sounds like the Boltons were the leader and the Greystarks their allies (the Greystarks apparently joined the Boltons rebellion). So if we're extending this to the Blackfyre example, then that parallel would lead us to think the Boltons should have been eradicated, while the Greystarks spared, like the Peakes.

I'm not sure if that bit about trusting the Boltons now was meant for me, but I didn't say anything about Robb's being stupid for trusting Roose.

[kiasyd]

(...)

What makes the most sense for why this was allowed is one of following: either the Boltons are somehow too powerful, or the Boltons are far too useful, despite being clearly disloyal. Either option requires more information.

(...)

Yes! I'm currently betting my money in the later - Boltons being useful.

I have a personal crackpot-theory that the Boltons perform a thousand-years mystical role of regulating rogue Starks. Bael's folklore is somewhat significant to this: Bael's bastard son resembles Mordred in Arthurian legend by being cursed-kinslayer, and is eventually killed by a Bolton.

So, maybe the current Bolton generation (Roose / Ramsay) is the anomaly and rebelling, and the previous generations were actually acting in the best interest of the North?

[RumHam]

I've proposed this theory in other threads, it's about the only thing that makes sense to me.

So they fight the war, wipe out the Greystarks and send the surviving Boltons running back to the Dreadfort. The Stark forces besiege the Dreadfort, because that's really the only thing you can do in that situation. Then the white raven comes from the Citadel and suddenly Lord Stark has to decide between eradicating the Boltons and going home to make one last harvest and prepare for winter. Also a siege in the north becomes impractical during winter. So some kinda compromise is reached and House Bolton lives to flay another day.

[RumHam]

The wiki is written by fans. It's neither omniscient nor in detail.

While I agree with you, I believe the wiki has this one right.

Lord Rickard had spoken truly, Catelyn knew. The Karstarks traced their descent to Karlon Stark, a younger son of Winterfell who had put down a rebel lord a thousand years ago, and been granted lands for his valor.

I don't recall any mention that that lord was a Bolton, or that they were granted Bolton lands. It's not on the concordance either.

[butterbumps!]

Yes! I'm currently betting my money in the later - Boltons being useful.

I have a personal crackpot-theory that the Boltons perform a thousand-years mystical role of regulating rogue Starks. Bael's folklore is somewhat significant to this: Bael's bastard son resembles Mordred in Arthurian legend by being cursed-kinslayer, and is eventually killed by a Bolton.

So, maybe the current Bolton generation (Roose / Ramsay) is the anomaly and rebelling, and the previous generations were actually acting in the best interest of the North?

I'm honestly not sure what I believe. I lean toward the former, but am open to the latter. There was another poster (RedViper9) who was a big advocate of the "Boltons perform an important function" position.

I guess, I'll I've been really trying to say is that if we're only looking at the mundane, political strategy reasons this would have occurred, we get a stalemate. Allowing the Boltons to continue for political reasons doesn't make more sense than eradicating them. If it were once, I'd chalk it up to some politically advantageous thing, and an unwillingness to shake things up or something. But it's multiple times, and multiple flauntings of that insolence. Which I think becomes harder to explain.

I like the magical rivalry possibility, because then it solves the question completely. Not only that, but I think it actually makes the Boltons look less cartoonishly evil. I really do think the Starks have a much darker history than we're led to believe. That family tree that was released shows more incest in their line than a Targ family reunion. And dominance for allegedly 8k years? With supposedly only 2 Houses on the mainland making serious challenges? We already know they are connected to magic, and their reign rivals Valyria's in length and domination. They even conquered a bit (they took the Neck).

Not that this is an argument in favor of it or anything, but I think it would be extremely interesting if the Starks began as oppressive overlords, forcing a monopoly on magic like the Valyrians did, and using it to maintain dominance. Then those historic Bolton revolts start looking a lot different. They become more like the Faceless Men and less like complete jerks. They'd be challenging what would be total dominance. I think this would round out both Houses a lot more-- the cuddly, delightful Starks have a nefarious reason why they held the North, and the sociopathic Boltons come from a line who used magic to challenge that oppression.

[kiasyd]

I'm honestly not sure what I believe. I lean toward the former, but am open to the latter. There was another poster (RedViper9) who was a big advocate of the "Boltons perform an important function" position.

I guess, I'll I've been really trying to say is that if we're only looking at the mundane, political strategy reasons this would have occurred, we get a stalemate. Allowing the Boltons to continue for political reasons doesn't make more sense than eradicating them. If it were once, I'd chalk it up to some politically advantageous thing, and an unwillingness to shake things up or something. But it's multiple times, and multiple flauntings of that insolence. Which I think becomes harder to explain.

I like the magical rivalry possibility, because then it solves the question completely. Not only that, but I think it actually makes the Boltons look less cartoonishly evil. I really do think the Starks have a much darker history than we're led to believe. That family tree that was released shows more incest in their line than a Targ family reunion. And dominance for allegedly 8k years? With supposedly only 2 Houses on the mainland making serious challenges? We already know they are connected to magic, and their reign rivals Valyria's in length and domination. They even conquered a bit (they took the Neck).

Not that this is an argument in favor of it or anything, but I think it would be extremely interesting if the Starks began as oppressive overlords, forcing a monopoly on magic like the Valyrians did, and using it to maintain dominance. Then those historic Bolton revolts start looking a lot different. They become more like the Faceless Men and less like complete jerks. They'd be challenging what would be total dominance. I think this would round out both Houses a lot more-- the cuddly, delightful Starks have a nefarious reason why they held the North, and the sociopathic Boltons come from a line who used magic to challenge that oppression.

Yeah, there is certainly more to the whole affair. All the occult hints (burning books, ice-pale eyes, leeching, bad blood, Domeric, etc.) cannot be just red herrings.

tWoW, where are you??? :bang:

[butterbumps!]

Yeah, there is certainly more to the whole affair. All the occult hints (burning books, ice-pale eyes, leeching, bad blood, Domeric, etc.) cannot be just red herrings.

tWoW, where are you??? :bang:

lol, just to put this out there, if there is indeed a parallel to draw here between Starks/ Valyrians and Boltons/ Faceless in terms of challenging a sorcerous authority, it's kind of interesting that the theme of wearing the skins of the dead is common to both. I don't think there's a Bolton-Faceless connection or anything, but it's a cute parallel.

[kiasyd]

lol, just to put this out there, if there is indeed a parallel to draw here between Starks/ Valyrians and Boltons/ Faceless in terms of challenging a sorcerous authority, it's kind of interesting that the theme of wearing the skins of the dead is common to both. I don't think there's a Bolton-Faceless connection or anything, but it's a cute parallel.

Right, I think this has to do with the underlying metaphysics of ASOIAF. it seems to me that several of the magical abilities presented have underlying common mechanics without necessary implying in plot connections.

For instance, I think the way Mel glamours Mance using Rattleshirt's shirt strikes some resemblance with the Faceless Men MO and Bolton folklore. Similarly, the glass candles dream-inception parallels with Bloodraven's MO and so on and so forth.

[theriveryeti]

Between "Southron Ambitions" and "there must always be a Stark in Winterfell," it makes me wonder if there isn't a host of supernatural responsibilities that both the Starks and the Boltons have largely forgotten about.

[butterbumps!]

Just as a general comment, I think the easiest, non-magical explanation for why the Greystarks were erased but the Boltons remained, despite the Boltons' allegedly being the ringleaders of it, would be if the Boltons made a deal to turn on the Greystarks, helping to crush them. That then begs the question of whether the Starks believed the Greystarks were the greater threat, and/or why the Starks didn't seek making that deal with the Greystarks to finally crush the obnoxious Boltons once and for all.

I think that's a plausible explanation for that one rebellion. The Dreadfort siege might have been abandoned for winter or something, so that possibly explains two. But it doesn't sound like there were only 2 of these unpleasantnesses:

The flayed man was the sigil of House Bolton, Theon knew; ages past, certain of their lords had gone so far as to cloak themselves in the skins of dead enemies. A number of Starks had ended thus. Supposedly all that had stopped a thousand years ago, when the Boltons had bent their knees to Winterfell.

It sounds like Bolton insolence was rather common, and that it was only 1,000 years ago that they actually bent to the Starks. Had they not recognized the Starks as kings prior to that or something? I'm not sure, but this comment makes it sound like they were regularly insolent with some degree of impunity. Until 1,000 years ago. And then it sounds like they might have just become more quiet about their transgressions.

[The WolfSpider]

I suspect a kinship between the two houses. The laws against kinslaying would forbid extermination.the karstark execution works against the theory i know. I suspect some additional wrinkle

[marsyao]

Ancient and Once powerfull Houses extinct all the time in the song of ice and fire, the reason Bolton House survives could be they are too powerful and by tradition and alliance, they got too much local support in their territory, House Stark could defeat them, but it would pay a price too high to destroy them. Besides, you can not blame Rob trusting Boltons, before the Red Wedding, House Bolton remains loyal to Starks for more than one thousand years, would you hold a grude to someone who killed your ancestor in Battle of Hastings ?

[Hrafntýr]

Yes! I'm currently betting my money in the later - Boltons being useful.

I have a personal crackpot-theory that the Boltons perform a thousand-years mystical role of regulating rogue Starks. Bael's folklore is somewhat significant to this: Bael's bastard son resembles Mordred in Arthurian legend by being cursed-kinslayer, and is eventually killed by a Bolton.

So, maybe the current Bolton generation (Roose / Ramsay) is the anomaly and rebelling, and the previous generations were actually acting in the best interest of the North?

I think that there could be a grey area between "too powerful" and "useful." I like your theory about Boltons regulating Starks, which seems rather in line with butterbumps! idea of magical rivalry, since what you seem to be suggesting might not always feel particularly "useful" to the Starks at the time. For the Boltons to serve some "useful" function of regulating Starks, they would need to be powerful.

I'm honestly not sure what I believe. I lean toward the former, but am open to the latter. There was another poster (RedViper9) who was a big advocate of the "Boltons perform an important function" position.

I guess, I'll I've been really trying to say is that if we're only looking at the mundane, political strategy reasons this would have occurred, we get a stalemate. Allowing the Boltons to continue for political reasons doesn't make more sense than eradicating them. If it were once, I'd chalk it up to some politically advantageous thing, and an unwillingness to shake things up or something. But it's multiple times, and multiple flauntings of that insolence. Which I think becomes harder to explain.

I like the magical rivalry possibility, because then it solves the question completely. Not only that, but I think it actually makes the Boltons look less cartoonishly evil. I really do think the Starks have a much darker history than we're led to believe. That family tree that was released shows more incest in their line than a Targ family reunion. And dominance for allegedly 8k years? With supposedly only 2 Houses on the mainland making serious challenges? We already know they are connected to magic, and their reign rivals Valyria's in length and domination. They even conquered a bit (they took the Neck).

Not that this is an argument in favor of it or anything, but I think it would be extremely interesting if the Starks began as oppressive overlords, forcing a monopoly on magic like the Valyrians did, and using it to maintain dominance. Then those historic Bolton revolts start looking a lot different. They become more like the Faceless Men and less like complete jerks. They'd be challenging what would be total dominance. I think this would round out both Houses a lot more-- the cuddly, delightful Starks have a nefarious reason why they held the North, and the sociopathic Boltons come from a line who used magic to challenge that oppression.

I sometimes wonder if the Bolton "magic" or power doesn't get activated if and when the Starks start concocting "Southron ambitions." For example, what's the history of the conflict with the Vale that resulted in the Talon laying siege to the Wolf's Den? Could this have provoked one of those "periodic" Bolton uprisings? This would work with the current situation, to some extent, though it admittedly doesn't work so well with the story of Bael the Bard, unless Bael is not, in fact, a straight-up First Men wildling but rather an outsider, which might be hinted at by his name, with that characteristic Targaryen diphthong. But this could also be a tie in with the "always a Stark in Winterfell" line. Ah, looks like theriveryeti is thinking along these lines, too:

Between "Southron Ambitions" and "there must always be a Stark in Winterfell," it makes me wonder if there isn't a host of supernatural responsibilities that both the Starks and the Boltons have largely forgotten about.

lol, just to put this out there, if there is indeed a parallel to draw here between Starks/ Valyrians and Boltons/ Faceless in terms of challenging a sorcerous authority, it's kind of interesting that the theme of wearing the skins of the dead is common to both. I don't think there's a Bolton-Faceless connection or anything, but it's a cute parallel.

I really like this, and I really like this whole analogy of Starks:Valyrians::Boltons:Faceless Men. Good to think with!