The North Remembers What?

[Stannistician]

15 minutes ago, NutBurz said:

1-Can´t you think on the Lannister link for yourself? Who would the north rise up around if not a better claimant to the throne - as in, Sansa´s offspring with anyone? Do they have to spell everything out?

Sansa was never put on trial, she can´t be guilty of anything, and it would be the easiest thing for the Lannisters to find her innocent if they had an interest on it - you know, like they found Tyrion guilty.

 

2-Sansa didn´t have anything. Sansa had a fit the last time she talked to the man who actually has armies. Are you people even watching the series?

1.  This abstract possible Lannister link was never mentioned on the show by Roose or anyone, And:

a. You can't have it both ways; saying the north would rise up around Sansa's offspring, while at the same time justifying the north not rising up for the Starks now.  The same reasons you have for the north not supporting the Starks now, would also equally apply to any of Sansa's offspring.  Hell, probably even more so if child had a Lannister (Southron) father.

b. It was also well known around KL that the Tyrion-Sansa marriage was never consummated. 

c. Not having to spell things out does not = viewers having to pull shit out of their asses to justify the plot. 

d. Since when does the crown have to put anyone on trial, especially the daughter of a confessed traitor, in order to find them guilty.  I don't envision Cercei deciding to "pardon" or find Sansa not guilty on a whim so that her family can claim WF; her son was murdered. 

2.  Yes, I have been watching the series.  Sansa would have had the Vale army at that point if she hadn't fucked up the negotiations at Moles Town.  Or alternatively, she could have told the Glovers she had them and then sent the letter to LF (offering him what he wanted - which is what she did anyway).

[Darkstream]

@NutBurz

I apologize for the patronizing tone, 

I believe we have veered off the point here.

What I'm disputing here is that you were claiming that these were the "Starks wars". This is simply not true. The fact that some of the issues that Rob and Ned have had to deal with had personal family ties is not relevant. Being Warden of the North, and the King in the North, both Ned and Rob had an obligation to take action against whomever committed these transgressions. 

It was Ned's duty as Warden of the North to investigate the murder of the Hand of the King. It was his duty to investigate the attempted murder of Bran, not only as his father, but also as the Warden of the North. These events that eventually led to the WotfK's cannot be simply attributed to a family squabble between the Starks and the Lannisters. The Lannisters committed acts that threatened the security of the King and the Seven Kingdoms, requiring Ned to take action as the Warden of the North and as a sworn liege lord to the King.

There is also the fact that this conflict evolved into a war for the independence of the North. Rob was declared the King in the North by his vassals and the entire North was fighting for it's sovereignty from the Crown. 

These were as much the Umber's wars as they were the Starks. It goes against all logic that they would not continue to support the Starks against a house that betrayed their cause and murdered several Starks and Umbers. It's even more far fetched that the Umbers would actually support the Boltons after the atrocities that they committed against not only their King, but their own House.

The Umbers have a sworn duty to support the Starks, and even if they didn't care about their pledge, they would still have a greater personal interest in exacting revenge or vengeance against the Boltons for their crimes, than being bitter at Rob for making a selfish and stupid mistake.

[Magog]

15 hours ago, Prince Jon said:

Despite no foreshadowing on the show, I  thought the Northmen would mutiny on Ramsey.  They knew of his evil side from previous instances.  Then he plays target practice with straight running Rickon.  Then he sacrifices a ton of them when he lets the arrows fly.  They see Jon's bravery to protect his brother.  Yet they still follow the crazy Ramsey bastard to the death while he just sits there watching?

Now are the Umbers and Karstaks are pretty much extinct.  It would have been wise to remember at some point that the Starks weren't that bad to live under.  

I get your point, but i think that there was a need for some armies in the North to remain unharmed, and to be available to Starks now. If LF lays his claim for the North, and Sansa refuses him (and judging from the trailer, that is what is going to happen), who will fight off the Knights of the Vale? Manderlys would soon be forgiven if they present enough man and horses for this purpose.

Leaving that aside, Glovers, Umbers and Karstarks still have legitimate heirs, some of which are still captives of Lannisters and Freys (I have no doubt that they would free BigJon Umber if he resolutes to avenge his son and attack Starks)... In next episode, Jon says to Sansa "We have so many enemies now"...

The North is still not to late to remember, and it will not be late as long as Starks are in threat, and they still are. 

[NutBurz]

28 minutes ago, Stannistician said:

1.  This abstract possible Lannister link was never mentioned on the show by Roose or anyone, And:

a. You can't have it both ways; saying the north would rise up around Sansa's offspring, while at the same time justifying the north not rising up for the Starks now.  The same reasons you have for the north not supporting the Starks now, would also equally apply to any of Sansa's offspring.  Hell, probably even more so if child had a Lannister (Southron) father.

b. It was also well known around KL that the Tyrion-Sansa marriage was never consummated. 

c. Not having to spell things out does not = viewers having to pull shit out of their asses to justify the plot. 

d. Since when does the crown have to put anyone on trial, especially the daughter of a confessed traitor, in order to find them guilty.  I don't envision Cercei deciding to "pardon" or find Sansa not guilty on a whim so that her family can claim WF; her son was murdered. 

2.  Yes, I have been watching the series.  Sansa would have had the Vale army at that point if she hadn't fucked up the negotiations at Moles Town.  Or alternatively, she could have told the Glovers she had them and then sent the letter to LF (offering him what he wanted - which is what she did anyway).

1. How is it abstract? She´s married to Tyrion Lannister, who is very much alive.

 

a. The North could back a real army for Sansa´s claim, like in case the Lannisters decided to come and put Tyrion on the throne. Not Wildlings.

b. So what? They´re both alive and well.

c. blablabla

d. She was the daugther of a confessed traitor when she married both Joffrey and Tyrion, so I don´t think that was an issue any longer. And the crown will do as it pleases, as it benefits itself the most, which would be finding Sansa innocent if they could manage to control her and her son somehow, even if through the promise of violence.

Cersei is not the crown, Cersei was never the crown and people die all the time. For all they know, the Imp could show up any moment and murder her and take Casterly Rock for himself. If Sansa was not put on trial and judged and executed, she´s still a player.

 

2. Yeah, "if Sansa didn´t suck, all would be well".

Too bad, she told Littlefinger she didn´t want his help, and later regreted it. Why would a character have feelings and let them interfere with their judgement, that´s so idiotic.

 

ps- the fact is that she did not know whether he would help her or not, if he would get there in time or not, and probably didn´t want to tell Jon that she "screwed up".

[NutBurz]

@Darkstream

I understand both wars were justified.

If I didn´t believe that the people fighting in Robert´s Rebellion/TwotfK would have been there in the first place, I would never consider asoiaf a good book. I agree everyone was doing their duty in order to maintain what they believe to be the most stable and thriving society. I fully understand the need for people to go to war over meaningful acts of diplomacy.

The problem are the results and the cumulative stress generated by War.

The marginal benefits that people perceive in the acts of war are greatly reduced the longer/more frequently that wars take place. It gets harder  and harder to convince them that going out there and dying for House X is the best thing to do for the future, when the crops have barely been sown and the only men alive are either too young or too old. People start to look to a more immediate future in which there will be nothing for them to eat (but the great lord won´t starve).

 

The wars were necessary, but if you put them on scale of how necessary they were perceived to be by the people taking part on it, they would be just barely necessary.

They were more Stark wars than they were "people" wars.

They have a thinner justification that´s easily broken by weight of several military campaigns.

[Magog]

2 minutes ago, NutBurz said:

1. How is it abstract? She´s married to Tyrion Lannister, who is very much alive.

a. The North could back a real army for Sansa´s claim, like in case the Lannisters decided to come and put Tyrion on the throne. Not Wildlings.

b. So what? They´re both alive and well.

c. blablabla

d. She was the daugther of a confessed traitor when she married both Joffrey and Tyrion, so I don´t think that was an issue any longer. And the crown will do as it pleases, as it benefits itself the most, which would be finding Sansa innocent if they could manage to control her and her son somehow, even if through the promise of violence.

Cersei is not the crown, Cersei was never the crown and people die all the time. For all they know, the Imp could show up any moment and murder her and take Casterly Rock for himself. If Sansa was not put on trial and judged and executed, she´s still a player.

 

2. Yeah, "if Sansa didn´t suck, all would be well".

Too bad, she told Littlefinger she didn´t want his help, and later regreted it. Why would a character have feelings and let them interfere with their judgement, that´s so idiotic.

 

 

Marrige holds ground only as long as it is consumed - at least once. She is not married to Tyrion, because they did not consume. 

She was married to Ramsey, though, but he just died, so that marriage is over as well.

She is now a widow who defeated her husband, the Usurper in the North together with her bastard brother and an ally no one can afford not to have. 

Now, the omitted houses (Mandarlys) can appear, ask to be pardoned, and offer their forces to Starks. The question is: to whom, really? Sansa is a women, and sorry, she cannot inherit on her own, or rule - this is North, after all. Jon is a bastard yet to legitimized. Rickon and Robb are dead. Bran is considered dead. Arya will appear, but she is still a female.

So, Jon needs to be legimized or Sansa will have to marry LF. 

The issue her is whether Sansa will call herself a Queen in the North before she legitimizes Jon, or Warden of the North. The latter makes no sense, she has no allies on the Iron Throne, but next episode will remove Cercei and possibly install Tyrels at the Iron Trone, and Sansa does have a friend in Margery. 

Stay tuned.

 

 

[Stannistician]

2 minutes ago, NutBurz said:

1. How is it abstract? She´s married to Tyrion Lannister, who is very much alive.

 

a. The North could back a real army for Sansa´s claim, like in case the Lannisters decided to come and put Tyrion on the throne. Not Wildlings.

b. So what? They´re both alive and well.

c. blablabla

d. She was the daugther of a confessed traitor when she married both Joffrey and Tyrion, so I don´t think that was an issue any longer. And the crown will do as it pleases, as it benefits itself the most, which would be finding Sansa innocent if they could manage to control her and her son somehow, even if through the promise of violence.

Cersei is not the crown, Cersei was never the crown and people die all the time. For all they know, the Imp could show up any moment and murder her and take Casterly Rock for himself. If Sansa was not put on trial and judged and executed, she´s still a player.

 

2. Yeah, "if Sansa didn´t suck, all would be well".

Too bad, she told Littlefinger she didn´t want his help, and later regreted it. Why would a character have feelings and let them interfere with their judgement, that´s so idiotic.

 

 

1.  Its abstract in that nobody in the show universe made any decisions based on this odd claim.  Honestly, I was taken aback by you even arguing that Roose married Ramsay to Sansa so that the Lannisters will never have a claim to WF through the Tyrion-Sansa marriage.  And then you went into Roose being worried about offspring between Sansa and Tyrion.  This argument is way out there and kind of bizzare.  This is not what the showrunners were thinking at all. 

a.  The Lannisters putting Tyrion on the throne?  What?  Are YOU even watching the series?

b. ...and a million miles apart (even when they were together).

c. you have to really want it to jump through the mental gymnastics you've gone to in order to justify the show's plot.

d.  She never married Joffrey.  The confessed traitor thing becomes an issue again when the King is murdered (you know, the same King her father publically denounced as being illegitimate). 

Look, do you really think the Boltons thought that "oh, you know some day there is some remote possibility that the crown might absolve Sansa of regicide and, and, and, um.....her and Tyrion might get back together and produce offspring, and, and, and, um...well....um... they might decide that their offspring should be Wardens of the North, so ...um... we should break our pact with the crown and marry Ramsay to Sansa and just jump the gun and make enemies with the crown now because there is this extremely remote possibility that this could all happen....yeah, sounds like a plan." 

Really?  Bull shit.  The show is not that deep.  They thought (knew) that most people won't remember or give a shit about what happened in earlier seasons, and they really wanted the Jeyne Poole rape plot and really wanted it to be Sansa so they fucked up the northern plot in order to get twitter hits and shock.  Now they are stuck putting it back together.

2.  Please, D&D could give a fuck less about characters have feelings and their judgment.  They wanted to make the Starks underdogs to create tension for their precious ep. 9, but they fucked up because everyone knew they would win anyway.  And they wanted LF and his stupid Vale army to be the saviors, so that they could retcon back to the LF-Sansa book plot. 

[NutBurz]

My last post is gone, probably because all I said is how very smart the guy above must be, so I´ll have to ask something.

35 minutes ago, Stannistician said:

d.  She never married Joffrey. 

What?

 

All I read from most of your post is unjustified arrogance to jump on the bandwagon "hur dur the writers suck".

Anyone who´s plotting about thrones will keep track of whom the heir to the throne is or have been married to.

"The Lannisters" don´t "put" anyone in the Throne - Tyrion Lannister is a Lannister and if he gets enough people willing to kill and die for him, he is "the Lannisters".

And just because you can´t comprehend a shallow character´s depth that doesn´t mean the writers don´t care about character´s feelings and judgements.

[Stannistician]

1 minute ago, NutBurz said:

My last post is gone, probably because all I said is how very smart the guy above must be, so I´ll have to ask something.

What?

 

All I read is from most of your post is unjustified arrogance to jump on the bandwagon "hur dur the writers suck".

Anyone who´s plotting about thrones will keep track of whom the heir to the throne is or have been married to.

"The Lannisters" don´t "put" anyone in the Throne - Tyrion Lannister is a Lannister and if he gets enough people willing to kill and die for him, he is "the Lannisters".

And just because you can´t comprehend a shallow character´s depth that doesn´t mean the writers don´t care about character´s feelings and judgements.

I apologize if my tone seemed personally offensive in any way.  Not what I intended.  I was just trying to argue the points being made.  Sometimes I get carried away (especially online).  Honestly, I've enjoyed the discussion.

Back to the discussion:

I don't think the Boltons are plotting for the throne.  In the books I think that Roose felt the Red Wedding was his only play because Ramsay forced his hand by sacking WF (and he is hanging on to dear life by the end of Dance).  In the Show, they don't have this problem because they don't have Ramsay sacking WF.  I'm not sure what Roose's motivation was in the show other than to grab Warden of the North - but certainly not the Iron Throne.

I know that the Lannisters don't "put" anyone on the Iron Throne, I was responding to your post in which you said "The North could back a real army for Sansa's claim, like in case the Lannisters decided to come and put Tyrion on the throne. Not Wildlings."  Maybe I misunderstood what you were saying here.

And its not that I don't understand the shallow character's depth, I just feel that they intended to show the audience something about the character, but the way it was portrayed on screen came across a different way.  I could be wrong about their intentions - the show may have in fact wanted to portray Sansa as a selfish schemer, and I guess we will find out next episode (hopefully).

[Darkstream]

7 minutes ago, NutBurz said:

<snip>

They were more Stark wars than they were "people" wars.

 

I would agree with most of your post, but I would argue that they were not the "Starks wars", but more the wars of "the Lords".

It was not the peasants who forgot that "the North Remembers", it was the Umber Lords that have forgotten. It was the Lords of Umber that refused Jon and Sansa.  And I understand a Lords desire to do what's best for his small folk, but the unfortunate reality is that you can't just take a time out from war because your tired. They are already pledged to a cause that is still being fought by their liege lords, and switching allegiances because the odds look dire is still a treasonous and traitorous act. They have forgotten that they were fighting a war not only for the Starks, but a war for themselves. Supporting the treasonous Boltons, is not only forgetting, but it is turning your backs on your liege lord and your own cause, and your own people, who's well being and sovereignty you were fighting for in the first place.

Can I understand the Umbers motivations and find some justification in it? Of course. But I can't defend that it is an honorable or loyal move, or that it would benefit the small folk in the long run to install an authority such as the Boltons. And I don't see any justification in claiming that they were fighting in another house's war. They were fighting in a war for the North, not a war for the Starks.

 

[Gertrude]

53 minutes ago, Magog said:

Sansa is a women, and sorry, she cannot inherit on her own, or rule - this is North, after all.

Lady Lyanna Mormont would like a word with you.

[Rippounet]

4 minutes ago, NutBurz said:

@Darkstream

I understand both wars were justified.

The problem are the results and the cumulative stress generated by War.

The marginal benefits that people perceive in the acts of war are greatly reduced the longer/more frequently that wars take place.[...] People start to look to a more immediate future in which there will be nothing for them to eat (but the great lord won´t starve).

The wars were necessary, but if you put them on scale of how necessary they were perceived to be by the people taking part on it, they would be just barely necessary.

They were more Stark wars than they were "people" wars.

They have a thinner justification that´s easily broken by weight of several military campaigns.

All this is true. But the thing is, while these arguments do explain what happened in the show, it's still a huge deviation from the books. In the books, both the lords and the smallfolk are fond of the Starks. Enough to blame their mistakes on other people if need be. What I mean by that is that the smallfolk can blame the wars and -most importantly- their consequences on others (the Boltons being perfect candidates, since they took over) ; (we) the readers have a better notion of who might be to blame, but most people in Westeros have neither our knowledge nor the education to understand the politics involved. Two quick examples: although we know Robert was a terrible king, the BwB shows us that he was loved by most nonetheless, and I do remember an old Northerner on the road regretting the Starks at some point because the roads aren't safe anymore.

I think in your arguments you don't take into account the fact that Ned won his war, and that Robb was winning his. From a Northern perspective, both were only taken down by treachery. From a Northern perspective, it's still perfectly possible to blame it all on other people than the Starks. In the books, only the Karstarks have any good reason to betray the Starks. For most of the North, they are still associated with honor, valor, victory and -most importantly- stability. Yes, Northerners may focus on the immediate future, but there's every reason to believe that they still regret the Starks, if only because they don't know -as we do- that the wars and their consequences can be -to some extent- blamed on Ned and Robb. What does "The North Remembers" mean? It means Northerners remember the Starks' honor and the treachery that led to their downfall, but also that they remember the Starks as good rulers.

Now, is this enough to overlook Jon letting the Wildlings go South or deserting the NW? Depends on what they're told or what they're willing to believe, I'd say. Given the love Northerners have for the Starks and how well the Starks cared for the NW, I don't think they would be too quick to condemn Jon and turn their backs on their liege.

To sum up: image matters, in ASOAIF as much as in modern international relations.

 

[NutBurz]

1 hour ago, Stannistician said:

I apologize if my tone seemed personally offensive in any way.  Not what I intended.  I was just trying to argue the points being made.  Sometimes I get carried away (especially online).  Honestly, I've enjoyed the discussion.

Back to the discussion:

I don't think the Boltons are plotting for the throne.  In the books I think that Roose felt the Red Wedding was his only play because Ramsay forced his hand by sacking WF (and he is hanging on to dear life by the end of Dance).  In the Show, they don't have this problem because they don't have Ramsay sacking WF.  I'm not sure what Roose's motivation was in the show other than to grab Warden of the North - but certainly not the Iron Throne.

I know that the Lannisters don't "put" anyone on the Iron Throne, I was responding to your post in which you said "The North could back a real army for Sansa's claim, like in case the Lannisters decided to come and put Tyrion on the throne. Not Wildlings."  Maybe I misunderstood what you were saying here.

And its not that I don't understand the shallow character's depth, I just feel that they intended to show the audience something about the character, but the way it was portrayed on screen came across a different way.  I could be wrong about their intentions - the show may have in fact wanted to portray Sansa as a selfish schemer, and I guess we will find out next episode (hopefully).

Problem is that we don´t really have a tone in writting, do we? Or at least, the same tone can be interpreted in a lot of different ways depending on the reader´s spirit at the moment.

I´m also having a lot of fun here, if I sound personally offensive, put it down to the akward generalizations of the english language. Most times that I say "you" without any specifier, I mean the plural, as in "people".

 

Pleasantries apart ^^ The Bolton are plotting for the Throne of the North, so they will always keep every possibility of legitimate claim in mind, at least the smart ones like Roose.

They have always wanted to be main house of the North. They were never absolutely trustworthy, but the Red Wedding is also something absolutely unexpected. The Red Wedding would happen with or without the Boltons, they were simply in a position to be given the choice of which side of the butchery they wanted to be in.

It is not more of a stretch to suppose that Sansa could escape Ramsey and ally herself to Tyrion and some mercenaries in order to retake Winterfell with a heavy claim than it was to suppose that Daenarys could do something similar, and yet here we are. Sansa doesn´t have dragons but she also doesn´t want the entire Seven Kingdoms - all she needed was an actual chance to be victorious over the saddistic maniacs.

Because there´s no losing against people like the Boltons. Fear plays a huge part in these decisions, no one would raise banners against them without being pretty sure they wouldn´t end up being flayed.

Regarding Sansa, I don´t know what to say. My first and only possible interpretation of the things I saw was that she was conflicted between what she would have to give up in order to make up for her scene with LF and the fact she didn´t know if he could actually even help her.

I try to imagine the scene of her giving the news to Jon - "there´s this very large army that could be helping us right now, and they could still come at some point, but they´re not here because they belong to the man who gave me to the Boltons in the first place and I already said I don´t want or need his help." Of course, she could ommit almost everything, but for how long? 

[Camara]

It seems the Mormonts and the Hornwoods will have some extra castles in their demesnes.

[ummester]

The north remembers to shake the beer out of flies, growling, "Speet it out ye wee shiet, speet it out!"

[Magog]

2 hours ago, Gertrude said:

Lady Lyanna Mormont would like a word with you.

True. But, in my defense, Lady Mormont is not a threat to anyone, nor she is to become a Wardeness of the North / Queen in the North. No one really cares about Bear Islands, they cannot mess up anyone's plans. But, to rule over North... well... it would be smarter to somehow legitimize Jon.

That would be a punch in the face that LF deserves.

[Rhollo]

4 hours ago, Gertrude said:

Lady Lyanna Mormont would like a word with you.

As do Ladies Beth Cassel, Barbrey Dustin, Maryia Darry or Larra Blackmont.

I don't know why the concept of a Lady being head of a house seems so absurd to some people or where the idea that they can't inherit on their own comes from.

 

btw. Sansa is head of House Bolton now, isn't she ?

[Tijgy]

 

On 21-6-2016 at 10:49 AM, Rippounet said:

All this is true. But the thing is, while these arguments do explain what happened in the show, it's still a huge deviation from the books. In the books, both the lords and the smallfolk are fond of the Starks. Enough to blame their mistakes on other people if need be. What I mean by that is that the smallfolk can blame the wars and -most importantly- their consequences on others (the Boltons being perfect candidates, since they took over) ; (we) the readers have a better notion of who might be to blame, but most people in Westeros have neither our knowledge nor the education to understand the politics involved. Two quick examples: although we know Robert was a terrible king, the BwB shows us that he was loved by most nonetheless, and I do remember an old Northerner on the road regretting the Starks at some point because the roads aren't safe anymore.

I think in your arguments you don't take into account the fact that Ned won his war, and that Robb was winning his. From a Northern perspective, both were only taken down by treachery. From a Northern perspective, it's still perfectly possible to blame it all on other people than the Starks. In the books, only the Karstarks have any good reason to betray the Starks. For most of the North, they are still associated with honor, valor, victory and -most importantly- stability. Yes, Northerners may focus on the immediate future, but there's every reason to believe that they still regret the Starks, if only because they don't know -as we do- that the wars and their consequences can be -to some extent- blamed on Ned and Robb. What does "The North Remembers" mean? It means Northerners remember the Starks' honor and the treachery that led to their downfall, but also that they remember the Starks as good rulers.

Now, is this enough to overlook Jon letting the Wildlings go South or deserting the NW? Depends on what they're told or what they're willing to believe, I'd say. Given the love Northerners have for the Starks and how well the Starks cared for the NW, I don't think they would be too quick to condemn Jon and turn their backs on their liege.

To sum up: image matters, in ASOAIF as much as in modern international relations.

 

The first person who says the North remembers is Robb Stark: 

Robb shook his head. "Even if Harrion were that sort, he could never openly forgive his father's killer. His own men would turn on him. These are northmen, Uncle. The north remembers."

Robb and Ned were culturally obliged to fight against the murderers of their fathers. It is a Northern war. It became a war of the Northerners from the moment they killed of the guys who represent the North. Did we anyone see openly against the Starks? No, they were all just fighting about who is going to lead the army. They were all so happy to smash some Lannisters. Just like they are all now so happy to smash some Boltons and Freys in the books. And regarding to Robert Rebellion, we know Jon Arryn, Robert and Hoster Tully had some trouble with some loyalist houses. Do we know any house turning against the Starks at that time? 

In the books the Northern houses are (mostly) represented as bunch of houses loyal to the Starks and their cause while at the same time they squabble between each other and and still want to advance their houses. 

[TheSerb]

I always felt this was a smallfolk thing. Yeah, the peasants and farmers do remember because they were happier under the Starks. But a Glover, for example, is not gonna leave his ancestral home to fight alongside wildlings. Not to mention that Robb Stark's follies were the reason North got in that entire mess.

[Tijgy]

4 minutes ago, TheSerb said:

I always felt this was a smallfolk thing. Yeah, the peasants and farmers do remember because they were happier under the Starks. But a Glover, for example, is not gonna leave his ancestral home to fight alongside wildlings. Not to mention that Robb Stark's follies were the reason North got in that entire mess.

In the books Glover refuses to recognize Stannis as his king so long his liege lord is not returned. In the books The North remembers is said by Northern bannermen. The Young Wolf is their martyr.

Even in the show the Boltons are the reason why so many people died at the RW. The Boltons have flayed lord Cerwyn.