Jon Snow winds of winter

[Bright Blue Eyes]

(1) The majority of whom? All the rangers, the younger generation of stewards and recently the builders support Jon. Bowen Marsh and his two cronies are literally the only remaining opposition we know of.

(2) That's politics. The King does not have any authority. At all. All he can do is ask the Watch. Like Stannis did concerning castles and stuff. The Watch refused and that was the end.

[nelsontropical]

(1) The majority of whom? All the rangers, the younger generation of stewards and recently the builders support Jon. Bowen Marsh and his two cronies are literally the only remaining opposition we know of.

(2) That's politics. The King does not have any authority. At all. All he can do is ask the Watch. Like Stannis did concerning castles and stuff. The Watch refused and that was the end.

1) Nevertheless, they could still decide to expel Jon Snow for whatever reason. Maybe they honestly think he's needed more elsewhere, like leading the wildlings. Or perhaps Sam Tarly can persuade them all that his watch really did end at death and that he has fulfilled his oath. The point I was trying to make is that there are potential scenarios in which Jon remaining with the Watch is no longer a choice. And in that case, his leaving could be both more likely and not dishonorable from a Stark point of view.

2) Further, I have to dispute that the King has no power over the watch. Their members can be executed under the King's law. Although they can't take part in political intrigue among the kingdoms, I still believe they serve at the King's pleasure. Otherwise, the King would lack the ability to order the death of deserters. No way they are 100% autonomous. The example you gave regarding Stannis I think is more a result of his difficult position, more than his theoretical authority as king. You overlook the fact that he takes up residence at Castle Black and pretty much does whatever he wants. His "asking" for concessions was not so much a request, but a way to avoid unnecessary conflict at the Wall in the event that the Watch isn't keen to do everything that is asked. Tellingly, Jon Snow still considers him King and acknowledges his power. He's also concerned that Stannis might execute him for turning down those "requests" for castles. There's never an indication that Stannis would be exceeding the scope of his powers. The only indication is that Jon is very worried about failing to comply with his King's wishes. Which leads to my earlier hypothetical -- if Stannis had ordered Jon to leave in order to become Lord Stark, it would have been a real predicament.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

I consider Queen Elizabeth II a Queen. Nevertheless, she is not my Queen.

[nelsontropical]

I consider Queen Elizabeth II a Queen. Nevertheless, she is not my Queen.

Respectfully, I don't think this a strong counter to my argument, or much of a retort at all really. It's pretty clear in the books that Jon Snow considers Stannis to be his King, and someone with the power over all the kingdoms, including the Night's Watch. Example: Stannis offers Jon Winterfell. Jon does not react by saying no on the ground that Stannis lacks authority to do this. He declines on the ground that taking this lordship would conflict with his oath to serve on the WAll. And back to my original point -- Jon Snow could very well be forced out of the Watch by royal decree. If members of the Watch are still kingly subjects, and the king orders you to do something, then you're now faced with two conflicting oaths to choose from, and that is not a loophole. As Jamie Lannister once explained and perhaps foreshadowed, add up enough oaths and your'e damned no matter what you do.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

...except that the members of the Watch are not kingly subjects. They are currently not, and they never were.

Presently, that's a mess because there is only one King in Westeros, but earlier? Who do you claim the Watch was subject to before the Conquest?

[Valyrian Lance]

Perhaps the Execution of deserters by the King's people (Warden of the North) came from decree by the Watch instead of the other way around.

I am also not sure that Jon makes all those decisions because he believes Stannis is the true king. He may but there are other motivations that make sense as well. The fact that Stannis could execute everyone in the Night's Watch if he so chose. The fact that Stannis saved them from the Wildlings and hospitality is due him for that. The fact that Ned died for Stannis, sort of. Not to mention, if Stannis does come out on top, they wouldn't want to have wronged him. I think Jon believes Stannis to be the true king, but that does not mean all his decisions regarding Stannis are merely due to that.

[nelsontropical]

...except that the members of the Watch are not kingly subjects. They are currently not, and they never were.

Presently, that's a mess because there is only one King in Westeros, but earlier? Who do you claim the Watch was subject to before the Conquest?

Now this is an interesting point, but I think it's more debatable than you suggest. I'll grant that the Watch enjoys a degree of autonomy, but it cannot be absolute. The example I keep going back to is the execution of the Night's Watch deserter from the first chapters of the series. If Ned Stark carried this out under the King's law, then the Watch lacks some measure of authority over its members. How could the Crown have legally ordered that death unless the person was considered one of his subjects? One could argue that a Watchman forfeits his independent status by leaving the Wall and coming under the jurisdiction of the Crown, but this is actually very close to the Jon Snow's scenario right now. If it's fair to say that the Watch expels him by knifing him to the point of death, and Jon Snow thereafter gets a royal decree to leave, I think the royal decree wins out without it being a dishonorable loophole.

Before the Conquest, I think it's pretty clear that the Watch would have fallen under the jurisdiction of the Kings in the North. After all, the Wall was built by Bran the Builder -- a Stark -- and as its founder, House Stark has always been the biggest supporter of the institution. I'm guessing that if the King in the North ordered a watchman to hang up his black cloak to go on some important mission, no one would have dared speak against it.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

Now this is an interesting point, but I think it's more debatable than you suggest. I'll grant that the Watch enjoys a degree of autonomy, but it cannot be absolute. The example I keep going back to is the execution of the Night's Watch deserter from the first chapters of the series. If Ned Stark carried this out under the King's law, then the Watch lacks some measure of authority over its members. How could the Crown have legally ordered that death unless the person was considered one of his subjects? One could argue that a Watchman forfeits his independent status by leaving the Wall and coming under the jurisdiction of the Crown, but this is actually very close to the Jon Snow's scenario right now. If it's fair to say that the Watch expels him by knifing him to the point of death, and Jon Snow thereafter gets a royal decree to leave, I think the royal decree wins out without it being a dishonorable loophole.

Not at all. That is just cooperation and an international warrant.

Before the Conquest, I think it's pretty clear that the Watch would have fallen under the jurisdiction of the Kings in the North. After all, the Wall was built by Bran the Builder -- a Stark -- and as its founder, House Stark has always been the biggest supporter of the institution. I'm guessing that if the King in the North ordered a watchman to hang up his black cloak to go on some important mission, no one would have dared speak against it.

Robb Stark, King in the North, goes to the Watch, crown in one hand and a juicy offer in the other, begging that they may release his brother. And if the Watch says no, he'd have to accept that.

Stannis Baratheon, King of Westeros, goes to the Watch, carrot in one hand, stick in the other, asking for lands and castles, accepting that if the Watch refuses to take the bait and endure the stick, he would get nothing.

Realpolitics would have demanded the Watch to take the power difference into consideration, but legally the King, any King, has no authority.

[nelsontropical]

You're just stating things as facts without any argument to support it. You also moved the goalposts on me. Your initial question was which kingdom would have jurisdiction over the wall prior to the Conquest. My answer was obviously the Starks. Now you respond by saying well, post-Conquest the King in the North could expect nothing. However, that is a different issue, as well as a dubious claim. If Robb Stark had declared authority over the Wall, I suspect that the Watch would say yes, and that if they didn't then Robb would deal with them. You say the contrary but without anything to support that claim.

As for "cooperation and an international warrant," I think you use the same tactic here -- making claims without any reasoning. I rely on the books when I say that Ned executed the deserter as per King's Law. There is no mention of warrants or enforcement of Night's Watch law. In fact, we hear nothing about Night's Watch law having any legal effect at places other than the Wall. Your assumption that the execution was just carrying out Night's Watch policy is completely unfounded.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

Robb Stark continues the authority and power of the old Kings in the North. He should know what those were and he begs.

Stannis Baratheon flat-out states that he has no legal authority over the Watch. He should know what the authority of the King of Westeros is.

Those examples are straight from the books.

As for Ned executing Gared, King's law backs up NW law. If you want to doubt that, the burden of proof is on you.

[nelsontropical]

Robb Stark continues the authority and power of the old Kings in the North. He should know what those were and he begs.

Stannis Baratheon flat-out states that he has no legal authority over the Watch. He should know what the authority of the King of Westeros is.

Those examples are straight from the books.

As for Ned executing Gared, King's law backs up NW law. If you want to doubt that, the burden of proof is on you.

I don't know, man. We are so far afield from my initial points, that I'm not even sure how we got here. All I was saying in one of two of my main arguments was that Jon Snow might very well receive binding directives from outside of the Night's Watch. I'm not even sure if you disagree with me. Are you actually saying that the King of Westeros could never give binding commands to a person who has arguably been expelled from the Night's Watch? Instead of addressing any of my points, first you reject them out of hand without any examples. Then when I call you on that, you present very general statements contrary to my arguments and then say that the burden is now on me to refute you. I'm not even sure if your statements are factually accurate, and I can't confirm it because your examples are so general. I don't happen to remember Robb Stark begging the Night's Watch for anything. What I do remember is that he wanted to name Jon Snow as his heir despite knowing he was sworn to the Wall. Why would he do that if he felt his will would have no legal force? I also don't remember Stannis saying he had no authority at the Wall. Actually, I recall him exerting a lot of authority over them. But again, these points are all so tangential to the main thrust of my original post that I don't even see the value of debating them in this manner.

Honestly, I'm a bit disappointed in your style of argument over these points. Having read many of your previous writings elsewhere, I'd had the impression that you approached this stuff with a bit more rigor and intellectual honesty.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

Jon Snow can't be expelled from the Nights Watch. It's literally impossible. Even if it may be possible for others, that would be the decision of the Lord Commander and the Lord Commander can't expel himself.

Robb Stark, in the very argument with Cat about naming Jon as an heir, states flat out that he wants to offer the Watch a trade, 100 men for him, and hopes - hopes! - that they accept, because he has no authority over them.

Stannis similar, he flat-out states that he can't interfere with the administration of the Watch and that he hopes that the Watch gifts him the lands and castles. Gifts, because he can't legally take it, or order the Watch to give them to him. He does not have that authority.

The problem is: I know the relevant passages by heart. I do point you at them. But I do not want to spend half an hour digging them up from ~200 pages and literally cite them from my paper format books.

So, please, read them yourself.