Night's Watch: independent entity or servants of the Iron Throne?

[Sansa's Bad Memory]

I'm not sure how relevant this seems to you all that have studied Westeros extensively, but I would say that the answer lies in "The Gift." Those lands were given to the NW and I believe they cannot be taken away from them by the IT. That would indicate to me a certain amount of independence. Otherwise, it would be a grant or a holding. Kings can make or break landholders within their kingdoms, but not the lands of the NW. No?

[Lady Sharya]

Jon's last chapter in ADofD

“The Night’s Watch takes no part in the wars of the Seven Kingdoms,” Jon reminded them when some semblance of quiet had returned. “It is not for us to oppose the Bastard of Bolton, to avenge Stannis Baratheon, to defend his widow and his daughter. This creature who makes cloaks from the skins of women has sworn to cut my heart out, and I mean to make him answer for those words … but I will not ask my brothers to forswear their vows.”

How would the NW serve the throne without forswearing their vows?

It has no allegences. It has no obligation to pay taxes. It owns all rights to the Wall and 50 leagues south of it, including taxes from any profit made off it by Westerosi citizens.

How does the IT uphold it's end of the arrangement if it does consider NW under it's rule? It only gives men & supplies out of charity or the get rid of.

We can't ignore the fact that the NW has been at the Wall for >8,000yrs and the IT has existed for only 300.

They had the same oath to protect the realm when it was made up of 100 small kingdoms, and were not conquered by Aegon I.

You can't argue that it's part of the North and therefore became subject to the IT because the King in the North swore allegiance and the NW takes no part in the affairs of the Seven Kingdoms.

[RumHam]

The council pick whoever the king tells them to pick. Such was the last 3 High Septons at least. Either way the Faith still has to follow the law of the realm, placing them below the king.

Where is this established? The one Cersei had killed was "suggested" by Tywin, I'll grant you that. No one is staying the Most Devout are immune to pressure from the crown. The current one of course was not suggested by the crown. I don't recall reading that the fat High Septon torn apart by the mob was appointed by/at the suggestion of a king. I don't know that the High Septon before him was ever even mentioned. But I might be wrong.

[Ferocious Veldt Roarer]

There was no IT for 2,000-8,000 years of the watch's existance.

Correct. The Faith and the Citadel, too, are much older than the Iron Throne. Most great Houses sworn to the Iron Throne have been around longer than the Targaryens and the Baratheons.

That certainly isn't worthless, mind you. There are privileges attached to being such an old and venerable institution. Customs. Traditions that are generally respected. That doesn't mean the king can't command them around, though.

I think it is pretty clear that the NW doesn't answer to kings, as Jon Snow doesn't obey Stannis's command to become Jon Stark,

I wouldn't call that "command". Anyway, you cannot take Jon Snow's rejection of Stannis' offer as an indicator of the Watch's independence from the throne. Actually, the Lord Commander of the Kingsguard got, and rejected, a similar offer: "take off your black white cloak, even though by law and tradition you're obliged to wear it for life, and become Lord of Winterfell Hand of the King". He said no, yet it (obviously) doesn't imply that the Kingsguard don't need to obey the king.

nor does the NW help Stannis take Winterfell. (While he is not on the IT, Jon does call him the King, so it is implied that he accepts his claim.) By this logic, his vows are paramount, even higher than a direct order from a king.

The Night's Watch didn't assist in Stannis' march, but it also wasn't asked to assist in Stannis' march. Only to let him into their armory and let him take whatever he needed.

Jon called king anyone who wanted to be called king. Stannis and Tommen alike. Remember his "Pleasing one king is difficult enough. Pleasing two is hardly possible"? By the way, apparently it's Lord Commander's duty to please the king(s) now. Doesn't sound completely independent for me, to be frank.

[three-eyed monkey]

The Watch was established to protect the realm of men at a time when there was more than one Kingdom. I think a lot of kingdoms contributed to the watch and the watch took no sides in any disputes between the kingdoms. This would have been a sensible policy as it would have prevented internal rifts in the watch, like riverland men and stormland men or northerners and ironmen fighting each other if those two regions were at war. Once men swore the oath they became brothers of the Night's Watch and left the politics behind.

Things would have actually become more complicated, however, when Aegon established the Iron Throne. By the time Dorne was added to the realm, all recruits would have essentially have been from the one Kingdom, and even if regional and family allegiances remained, the recruits would have had the same king in common. Of course, the black brothers would have continued to swear their oaths and set their parochial allegiances aside, but the realm of men they were defending was no longer made up of several, or indeed "a hundred kingdoms", but just one Kingdom, ruled by one king from the Iron Throne, and so it would be quite natural to start seeing the Watch as an extension of that kingdom, and therefore subject to the king.

When there was five kings in the realm it was very much like a return to the old times when the realm was made up of several kingdoms, and I believe that strictly speaking the Watch would have to recognise each King, even if the Iron Throne considered four of the Kings to be rebels. Jon certainly seems to see it that way and addresses Stannis as a king even though the crown saw him as nothing more than a traitor. Bowen Marsh did not share Jon's view and cautioned Jon against defying the crown, as he saw it. So it seems to me like it is currently very much a grey area with different in-world characters having different interpretations.

[oopeed]

Well the oath is a holy one, tied to the gods rather than a figure of authority.

When the Watch first came to be, the IT was non existant, in fact I think the Targaryens, Dragons and such hadn't appeared yet in the world... I am not sure of the timeline, but I think back then even the North was not the strong united kingdom under the Stark Banner that we all came to know.

They swear to watch over the realms of men and protect them, they don't build walls around their castles in the south side as an assurance that they mean no ill will to the realms but as far as I see it, they don't serve the crown. They turn to anywhere for help, and the IT simplified this, but they are not vassals, and as we see they have a noticeable degree of autonomy since they choose whomever they wish for command, they house criminals who only took the black to escape from justice and even the crown consider it a place to keep uncomfortable prisoners away without killing them, but far from any power whatsoever.

Only to an institution autonomous of the crown you can send a prince to prevent him from taking the crown.

[Ferocious Veldt Roarer]

Guys, there surely must be at least one line in the entire series to the effect of "king's commands have no power over the Night's Watch"? Somebody must have said it somewhere? Write it? Think it?

I mean, when Stannis commented on the election of the new LC, Aemon, acting in his usual capacity of the Watch's lawyer, protested that the king should not influence that specific issue, because that had been the Watch's privilege since always. Surely, there must be someone, somewhere, saying outright that no king had any business giving any commands to the Watch, period. A quote, please?

[Lady Sharya]

Guys, there surely must be at least one line in the entire series to the effect of "king's commands have no power over the Night's Watch"? Somebody must have said it somewhere? Write it? Think it?

I mean, when Stannis commented on the election of the new LC, Aemon, acting in his usual capacity of the Watch's lawyer, protested that the king should not influence that specific issue, because that had been the Watch's privilege since always. Surely, there must be someone, somewhere, saying outright that no king had any business giving any commands to the Watch, period. A quote, please?

Look for it & post it then.

[Ferocious Veldt Roarer]

Look for it & post it then.

I certainly would, if there was such a line anywhere. You should, too, after all, it would support your position. If such a line existed. Does it?

[Lady Sharya]

I certainly would, if there was such a line anywhere. You should, too, after all, it would support your position. If such a line existed. Does it?

Ha, I didn't start the tread. I have provided a quote (& good arguments) that support my position. There are so many factors that can be be quoted that support it but alas I haven't found one with your parameters.

I did find one that you may like. It kinda supports the premise that "might makes right." It's lengthy, but gives a clear picture of attitudes:

Jon's second chapter in ADofD

“Jon read from the letter. “The Night’s Watch takes no part in the wars of the Seven Kingdoms. Our oaths are sworn to the realm, and the realm now stands in dire peril. Stannis Baratheon aids us against our foes from beyond the Wall, though we are not his men …”

“Sam squirmed in his seat. “Well, we’re not. Are we?”

“I gave Stannis food, shelter, and the Nightfort, plus leave to settle some free folk in the Gift. That’s all.”

“Lord Tywin will say it was too much.”

“Stannis says it’s not enough. The more you give a king, the more he wants. We are walking on a bridge of ice with an abyss on either side. Pleasing one king is difficult enough. Pleasing two is hardly possible.”

“Yes, but … if the Lannisters should prevail and Lord Tywin decides that we betrayed the king by aiding Stannis, it could mean the end of the Night’s Watch. He has the Tyrells behind him, with all the strength of Highgarden. And he did defeat Lord Stannis on the Blackwater.”

[three-eyed monkey]

A Feast for Crows - Cersei IV

"An outrage," declared Lord Merryweather. "We cannot allow the Night's Watch to join its strength to that of Lord Stannis."

"We must declare this Snow a traitor and a rebel," agreed Ser Harys Swyft. "The black brothers must remove him."

Grand Maester Pycelle nodded ponderously. "I propose that we inform Castle Black that no more men will be sent to them until such time as Snow is gone."

Pycelle, who we might expect to be knowledgeable on such matters, proposes a deal (no more men until Snow is removed) rather than a straight up royal command.

Swyft, on the other hand, seems to think that declaring Snow a traitor and a rebel should be enough to obligate the Night's Watch to remove Jon on behalf of the Crown.

Personally, I tend to favour Pycelle on this matter. But again it shows that there are different in-world interpretations as to how independent the Watch is.

[Dire Dawg]

When the Gold cloaks try to take Gendry in COK -Arya II

"You'll have no one," Yoren said stubbornly. "There's laws on such things."

The gold cloak drew a shortsword. "Here's your law."

Don't know what those laws are but its more evidence I guess.

[Monoman32]

Well, the Iron Throne has all but destroyed the Night's Watch

[Lady Sharya]

A Feast for Crows - Cersei IV"An outrage," declared Lord Merryweather. "We cannot allow the Night's Watch to join its strength to that of Lord Stannis."

"We must declare this Snow a traitor and a rebel," agreed Ser Harys Swyft. "The black brothers must remove him."

Grand Maester Pycelle nodded ponderously. "I propose that we inform Castle Black that no more men will be sent to them until such time as Snow is gone."

Pycelle, who we might expect to be knowledgeable on such matters, proposes a deal (no more men until Snow is removed) rather than a straight up royal command.

Swyft, on the other hand, seems to think that declaring Snow a traitor and a rebel should be enough to obligate the Night's Watch to remove Jon on behalf of the Crown.

Personally, I tend to favour Pycelle on this matter. But again it shows that there are different in-world interpretations as to how independent the Watch is.

This is good. My money would be on Pycelle knowing laws better than Swift. I was trying to find the discussion in KL on how they planned to influence to election of new LC.

[Lady Sharya]

When the Gold cloaks try to take Gendry in COK -Arya II

"You'll have no one," Yoren said stubbornly. "There's laws on such things."

The gold cloak drew a shortsword. "Here's your law."

Don't know what those laws are but its more evidence I guess.

Hello! Are we expecting Yoren to site the penal code number here? NO but clearly he knows there are laws protecting NW autonomy.

[Ferocious Veldt Roarer]

A Feast for Crows - Cersei IV

"An outrage," declared Lord Merryweather. "We cannot allow the Night's Watch to join its strength to that of Lord Stannis."

"We must declare this Snow a traitor and a rebel," agreed Ser Harys Swyft. "The black brothers must remove him."

Grand Maester Pycelle nodded ponderously. "I propose that we inform Castle Black that no more men will be sent to them until such time as Snow is gone."

Pycelle, who we might expect to be knowledgeable on such matters, proposes a deal (no more men until Snow is removed) rather than a straight up royal command.

Swyft, on the other hand, seems to think that declaring Snow a traitor and a rebel should be enough to obligate the Night's Watch to remove Jon on behalf of the Crown.

Personally, I tend to favour Pycelle on this matter. But again it shows that there are different in-world interpretations as to how independent the Watch is.

There are countless instances where the Iron Throne, instead of just issuing a royal decree and considering it a done deal, backed its authority with a carrot, or a stick, or both. Lands and titles given, or taken away. Marriages offered. Hostages threatened. So the Crown uses with Castle Black the same carrot-and-stick approach they use with Highgarden, Sunspear, the Eyrie, Pyke, the Arbor, White Harbor, and so on, and so forth. Long story short, the way Pycelle proposes to settle the issue is almost a standard way of the throne closing a deal with one of its bannermen.

When the Gold cloaks try to take Gendry in COK -Arya II

"You'll have no one," Yoren said stubbornly. "There's laws on such things."

The gold cloak drew a shortsword. "Here's your law."

Don't know what those laws are but its more evidence I guess.

Sure there are laws on such things. Once a man is the Watch's, he's theirs. I never suggested that the Watch had zero legal protection and no special status whatsoever.

Ser Barry was shocked when he got dismissed from the Kingsguard, and for the same reason: there's laws on such things. Which, again, doesn't imply that the Kingsguard don't serve the king.

[three-eyed monkey]

There are countless instances where the Iron Throne, instead of just issuing a royal decree and considering it a done deal, backed its authority with a carrot, or a stick, or both. Lands and titles given, or taken away. Marriages offered. Hostages threatened. So the Crown uses with Castle Black the same carrot-and-stick approach they use with Highgarden, Sunspear, the Eyrie, Pyke, the Arbor, White Harbor, and so on, and so forth. Long story short, the way Pycelle proposes to settle the issue is almost a standard way of the throne closing a deal with one of its bannermen.

Of course there are elements of both carrot and stick in the politics of Westeros. We see both alliances and aggression between different Houses and the Crown, depending on the political situation. All houses are ultimately independent. They can decide to serve the crown or oppose the crown anytime they wish, and many have. The Crown is one house seeking the fealty of other houses, who may or may not have greater strength than the royal house, by way of carrot or stick. Weaker houses get more stick and stronger houses get more carrot usually. That's politics. But that is not really the issue here.

We don't ever see the Crown using a carrot to back its authority over other institutions of the crown, such as the Kingsguard. Royal decree is all that is required, because an institution like the Kingsguard exists to serve the crown. It was formed by a king, to serve the king, no questions asked. It is not an independent entity that is to be allied with the Crown, for the very existence of the Kingsguard depends on the Crown.

You are asking if the Night's Watch is an independent entity or servants of the Iron Throne. I'm saying that, judging by Pycelle's response in which he proposes a carrot rather than the stick of royal decree, the Night's Watch are not servants of the Iron Throne.

However, as I stated, I think different characters see it differently, be it Jon and Bowen Marsh or Swyft and Pycelle. The reason for that, in my opinion, is because it is a grey area. Unlike the Kingsguard, the Night's Watch was not founded by the Iron Throne, and hence not created to serve the Iron Throne. It was created to protect the realm of men, which at the time had a number of thrones. The fact that they traditionally took no part in the wars of the seven kingdoms suggests that they were created to be independent of those thrones, so I don't see why they would not still be independent of the one throne those several merged into over time.

[Lady Sharya]

ASofS ch 33 Samwell

"The choice of a Lord Commander belongs to the Sworn Brothers, and to them alone, insisted Ser Denys Mallister. ..Maester Aemon, calm as always, said, Your Grace, the Nights Watch has been choosing its own leader since Brandon the Builder raised the Wall. Through Jeor Mormont we have had nine hundred and ninety-seven Lords Commander in unbroken succession, each chosen by the men he would lead, a tradition many thousands of years old.

Stannis ground his teeth. It is not my wish to tamper with your rights and traditions.

So the King of the Seven Kingdoms (which Stannis won't abid to be considered anything but) cannot rightfully interfere with the choosing of leadership within the NW.

And you must know that whilst we are thankful for the aid you rendered us against Mance Rayder, we can offer you no help in your contest for the throne. The Nights Watch takes no part in the wars of the Seven Kingdoms. For eight thousand years

I know your history, Ser Denys, the king said brusquely. I give you my word, I shall not ask you to lift your swords against any of the rebels and usurpers who plague me. I do expect that you will continue to defend the Wall as you always have.

...And the King can't ask the NW to lift their swords for him...

"The Gift was given to the Nights Watch in perpetuity, Your Grace, Bowen Marsh insisted.

Which means it cannot be lawfully seized, attained, or taken from you. But what was given once can be given again," (Stannis said)

...And the King can't take lands, castles or holdings from the NW.

The King of the Iron Throne has no legal power over the Nights Watch, therefore, the NW has no obligation to serve anything except the protection of the Realm at the Wall.

[Mithras]

The NW serves the Realm of Men. It is irrelevant of how many kingdoms there are or who sits the IT. There is a mutual, two-sided agreement between the NW and the Realm of Men about taking no parts and minding their own business. But this agreement breaks down when any of the sides violate it. The King in the North had every right to intervene when various LC’s went to war against each other and put the primary mission of the NW into danger. Jon had every right to take parts since the Realm of Men intervened with the affairs of the NW.

[TheNinjaDC]

The Night's Watch is sort of like Hong Kong & China. Technically they are part of the realm, but they are mostly left to there own devices as it works out best for everyone.

And like with Hong Kong, that status quo for generations now seems to be changing for the worse.