Jump to content

Jon Snow, King of the north and Vale


Recommended Posts

17 hours ago, Kytheros said:

I'm not sure the Vale lords were swearing allegiance to him, but were supporting him becoming the King in the North, the Vale is separate but allied. And that assumes that there were Vale lords in there other than Littlefinger.

Besides, most of the Vale lords had wanted to join up with Robb in his war. The only reason they didn't was because of Lysa Arryn (under Littlefinger's influence) keeping them in the Vale and staying out of things.

 

Plus, Lyanna Mormont had just shamed the hell out of the Northern Lords and thrown down the gauntlet for Jon Snow, King in the North - Jon, taking up Robb's mantle, so to speak. Which lord was going to argue with her? None of the Northerners could, and the Valemen couldn't either - they didn't aid Robb Stark.

Agree.  The Vale was allied and supporting the Starks.  Not necessarily involved in naming Jon KitN, and  not part of the Kingdom of the North.  Lord Royce was there.  He was the Vale person who voiced the opposition to siding with 'wildling invaders'.  He and other Vale lords who were present would have just been showing respect to their ally (and another Great House) if they did raise their swords during Jon's acclamation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, HellasLEAF said:

I've re-watched this scene many times now.  

It was beautifully done.  Many goose bump moments

Yes and I am in belief that Sansa's smile to Jon's KitN Ceremony as genuine every time. She only stops smiling when she catches eye with Littlefinger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Lee-Sensei said:

Agin, that's not the point. There's no reason for the Vale to swear fealty to Jon.

I am saying Sansa isn't screwed over the queen of the north title because for sure in the book Martin intends to give it to Jon (after the battle and there's Robb's will) and there is high possibility Sansa isn't there at the battle at all. The show writers just screw over the characters arc for the sake of Sansa's fan base. However, they can't give her the title that Marin does not intend to give her. That's why Sansa's fans are bitching all over the internet that Jon steals her birthright etc while in fact her role in this battle in the book might be equal to none. Or simply because in the book they found Robb's will and he clearly stated that he named Jon his heir, not Sansa.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Chib said:

I am saying Sansa isn't screwed over the queen of the north title because for sure in the book Martin intends to give it to Jon (after the battle and there's Robb's will) and there is high possibility Sansa isn't there at the battle at all. The show writers just screw over the characters arc for the sake of Sansa's fan base. However, they can't give her the title that Marin does not intend to give her. That's why Sansa's fans are bitching all over the internet that Jon steals her birthright etc while in fact her role in this battle in the book might be equal to none. Or simply because in the book they found Robb's will and he clearly stated that he named Jon his heir, not Sansa.

No. Objectively, he did steal her birth right. Bran is presumed dead, Rickon is dead, Jon's illefitimate so Sansa is the rightful Lady of the Vale. Besides, this isn't what this thread is about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Lee-Sensei said:

No. Objectively, he did steal her birth right. Bran is presumed dead, Rickon is dead, Jon's illefitimate so Sansa is the rightful Lady of the Vale. Besides, this isn't what this thread is about.

 
 
 
 

He stole her birthright? Lol, it was the Northen lords hailed him as King in the north and ignore her. He does not steal anything. And Queen in the north is NOT Sansa's birthright. Her birthright is Lady of Winterfell and the Northen lords DID NOT dismiss her of that. They did not only hail Jon as lord of Winterfell. They hailed him as King in the North and that is a huge difference. That means the Northen lords agree that Jon is their leader against whatever war and battle coming in the short term. They did not say Sansa does not deserve to be called as Lady of Winterfell. 

And at this moment I am sure in the book the event in the book will play out very much different. Sansa in the book technically never meets Ramsay and she is still staying at Vale. Little Finger in the book is way more smarter so he will not sell her to the Bolton. The thing is, the show only follow big events in the book, not closely follow. They messed up Sansa's arc because they want to give her more screen time. I am not surprised if in the book she is not even at Winterfell (still building some snow castle at Vale) when the Northen lords hail Jon as their King. 

Technically D&D can't steal anything from Sansa to give it to Jon. They made him King in the North because Martin intended it to be that way. In the book there is even a will from Robb to dismiss Sansa's rights because Robb did not want Sansa's husband to get a hold of Winterfell. Robb chose Jon in the book. So even in the book, Jon technically has higher claim than Sansa and no one steals anything from her both in the show and in the book. If Sansa is not hailed as Queen of the north at this point (which is not her birthright both in the book and in the show), then it means Martin does not want to because it is a major event in the book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Chib said:

Snip

Technically, you are mixing the show with the books, there is no such thing in the show called Robb's Will, and KitN is the lord of Winterfell, the lords usurped the right of Sansa as stark to rule winterfell and  Jon didn't say anything, so yes let's call the things with their name without the politically correct bullshit :  it's usurping and this is why a feud is coming  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Future Null Infinity said:

Technically, you are mixing the show with the books, there is no such thing in the show called Robb's Will, and KitN is the lord of Winterfell, the lords usurped the right of Sansa as stark to rule winterfell and  Jon didn't say anything, so yes let's call the things with their name without the politically correct bullshit :  it's usurping and this is why a feud is coming  

 
 
 

I am not mixing it. My point is, Sansa is not hailed as Queen of the North in the book By GRR Martin, so D&D don't make her Queen of the North in the Show. It is not usurping, it is following the major events in the book while messing up characters' storylines because they're horrible writers.

Let's not forget that Sansa is not present in the North in the book at the moment, if all the battles and events happen so differently, it makes sense why in the book Northen lords hail Jon as King in the north. But in the show they cut a lot of events and mess up a lot of characters' arc so you guys are saying "it's usurping, Jon steals Sansa's birthright". 

You tend to forget that even though this is an adaptation, D&D can't make Sansa Queen if in the Book Martin does not write so. 

They mess up LF and Jon's characterization to please Sansa's fans with her screentime and some kind of empowering plotline, but at the same time they can't change her status in the book and make her Queen of the north because in the book it does not say so. You want more screen time for Sansa, you get what you want.

Next season Sansa turns dark the same as the original plotline that Martin wrote in 1993 (Sansa betrays her own family) then you will scream it's unfair etc.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Future Null Infinity said:

Technically, you are mixing the show with the books, there is no such thing in the show called Robb's Will, and KitN is the lord of Winterfell, the lords usurped the right of Sansa as stark to rule winterfell and  Jon didn't say anything, so yes let's call the things with their name without the politically correct bullshit :  it's usurping and this is why a feud is coming  

What was he supposed to say. Oh no thanks guys. That would be disrespectful. Jon really can't refuse it and by Sansa being the one that should be legally rulling. This why we have feud where both sides are kinda right or you can't really hate them. 

Lords proclaimed him King in the North so she should be really mad at them and not only Jon. Jon acknowledged that she was the one to save them, Northern Lords didn't said a word. It wasn't supposed to be coronation and Jon was surprised like Sansa. 

Their feud is coming also because she's like her mother and she can't trust him. Sophie said it so their rivalry has roots in their childhood. That' why we had subtle hints of their animosity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Lord Friendzone said:

What was he supposed to say. Oh no thanks guys. That would be disrespectful. Jon really can't refuse it and by Sansa being the one that should be legally rulling. This why we have feud where both sides are kinda right or you can't really hate them. 

I also don't like where the story is going if this rumor of the feud is true, I don't like see starks fighting starks, especially Jon and Sansa, I was talking simply from storywise point of view, I just wanted to say that the show created a problem which will inevitably lead to a feud

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Future Null Infinity said:

I also don't like where the story is going if this rumor of the feud is true, I don't like see starks fighting starks, especially Jon and Sansa, I was talking simply from storywise point of view, I just wanted to say that the show created a problem which will inevitably lead to a feud

Where is this talk of a feud coming from? It's not something I've ever heard of and certainly (to the best of my knowledge) isn't indicated in the books so far. From the show, it's apparent that Sansa seems quite happy with Jon's elevation; she smiles at him as he stands up to accept the 'coronation'. Her smile only slips when she catches Littlefinger's eye. I read that as her being concerned about Littlefinger's reaction since she knows the extent of his ambition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Clash said:

Where is this talk of a feud coming from? It's not something I've ever heard of and certainly (to the best of my knowledge) isn't indicated in the books so far. From the show, it's apparent that Sansa seems quite happy with Jon's elevation; she smiles at him as he stands up to accept the 'coronation'. Her smile only slips when she catches Littlefinger's eye. I read that as her being concerned about Littlefinger's reaction since she knows the extent of his ambition.

You might be right if the actors including Davos didnt say that there was going to be a feud between them, unless it was all misdirection from them

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, tormond said:

You might be right if the actors including Davos didnt say that there was going to be a feud between them, unless it was all misdirection from them

That wouldn't be the first time. But actors don't have a clue what's happening next either. They're exactly the same as us until they start shooting the next series. Even up to when their characters are going to be killed off.

I watched Sansa carefully during the King in the North scene. She was smiling all the way through to catching Littlefinger's eye. I could read that as her remembering what he said about Jon or remembering his ambitions and how that could impact on Jon.

It's all possible, but my question is answered thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't get the Jon is stealing Sansas birth right thing.


- First I think for Sansa this is totally acceptable: For her Jon is a Stark, not a bastard.


- Additionally Westeros still is a realm dominated by men. Thats why Cersei couldn't become queen after Roberts death, her only way to stay close to power, was to crown her sons. Now it seems that she finally got all the power, but her rule is not likely to last long. The traditional patriarchal political system of Westeros will go through some serious turbulences with Dany arriving, but this hasn't happened yet.

- Even in medieval times and before, rule didn't come only through birth right. There was never a point in crowning someone, that lacked the abbility to consolidate power. Britain chose a distant related German (George I) over a Stuart, because they only accepted a protestant. So it was never that easy, like only the first born son inherits the title, then the sibling below etc. Julius Cäsar even became emperor, where there was no monarchy before. Later in roman times, times of war, the most succesful military leaders wer proclaimed as emperors (barracks emperors), without being heir to anything or anyone. Only at the very beginning of modern times the rule came through birth right unchallenged for a short period of time, when monarchies had almost absolute power. So I would suggest to look at it a bit more flexible if it comes ASoIaF, since GRRM rather draws on the time from the roman empire to the late medieval ages, where reign often came through political influence, victory, pure force or intrigue. If we apply this to the books and the show, the coronation of Jon makes totally sense. He is seen as the victor, the one who let the Stark forces into the victory against Ramsey (even if Sansa asisted in the backround by calling the knights of the Vale for help). These are times of war, winter is coming and therefore it makes pure sense to crown a proven military leader instead of a women that has no military experience. Also Sansa was object (not subject) to the political game waged by Lannisters and Boltons by being forced to marry Tyrion and Ramsey, which is to much of a burden for her to become Queen in the North...

Depending on the Vale, its clear to me that Jon does not become Lord of the Vale, by Vale lords being present at his coronation. This idea appears rather foolish to me. The Vale is an ally, they fought together and now they are having a feast together which surprisingly turned out to become the coronation of the King of the North, but it seems rather natural to me that allies would be present at the coronation of an allied Lord or King, which does not mean that they abandon their own lord.

Anyway I think with Sweet Robin as Lord of the Vale, this topic might become hot soon, since Sweet Robin is Littlefingers puppet already and if he is eliminated, the Starks would have a good claim. I hope Sansa is playing Littlefinger and does not make the mistake to side with him, because it would probably make her enemy to her own kin. I am very curious how Littlefingers character develops in the books, I guess he becomes the new antagonist after Ramsey is dead and Cersei being occupied with defending herself.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/28/2016 at 11:25 AM, Future Null Infinity said:

Thank you for the answer

That's what I'd always thought too (though I am so often wrong eff what I think!), that King in the North is the person who runs the war against Winter.

Which might be another reason we don't see the usual horse-trading, often conducted by trusted surrogate -- support so-and-so for this position and you will get in return such-and-such -- the heart of medieval political and military politics.

This was done by an acclaim out of necessity, rather like Claudius's elevation to Roman emperor by the German army.  The Germans wanted Claudius?  They can have him because who else has an army right now to take them on?

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Angrivarius said:

I don't get the Jon is stealing Sansas birth right thing.


- First I think for Sansa this is totally acceptable: For her Jon is a Stark, not a bastard.


- Additionally Westeros still is a realm dominated by men. Thats why Cersei couldn't become queen after Roberts death, her only way to stay close to power, was to crown her sons. Now it seems that she finally got all the power, but her rule is not likely to last long. The traditional patriarchal political system of Westeros will go through some serious turbulences with Dany arriving, but this hasn't happened yet.

- Even in medieval times and before, rule didn't come only through birth right. There was never a point in crowning someone, that lacked the abbility to consolidate power. Britain chose a distant related German (George I) over a Stuart, because they only accepted a protestant. So it was never that easy, like only the first born son inherits the title, then the sibling below etc. Julius Cäsar even became emperor, where there was no monarchy before. Later in roman times, times of war, the most succesful military leaders wer proclaimed as emperors (barracks emperors), without being heir to anything or anyone. Only at the very beginning of modern times the rule came through birth right unchallenged for a short period of time, when monarchies had almost absolute power. So I would suggest to look at it a bit more flexible if it comes ASoIaF, since GRRM rather draws on the time from the roman empire to the late medieval ages, where reign often came through political influence, victory, pure force or intrigue. If we apply this to the books and the show, the coronation of Jon makes totally sense. He is seen as the victor, the one who let the Stark forces into the victory against Ramsey (even if Sansa asisted in the backround by calling the knights of the Vale for help). These are times of war, winter is coming and therefore it makes pure sense to crown a proven military leader instead of a women that has no military experience. Also Sansa was object (not subject) to the political game waged by Lannisters and Boltons by being forced to marry Tyrion and Ramsey, which is to much of a burden for her to become Queen in the North...

Depending on the Vale, its clear to me that Jon does not become Lord of the Vale, by Vale lords being present at his coronation. This idea appears rather foolish to me. The Vale is an ally, they fought together and now they are having a feast together which surprisingly turned out to become the coronation of the King of the North, but it seems rather natural to me that allies would be present at the coronation of an allied Lord or King, which does not mean that they abandon their own lord.

Anyway I think with Sweet Robin as Lord of the Vale, this topic might become hot soon, since Sweet Robin is Littlefingers puppet already and if he is eliminated, the Starks would have a good claim. I hope Sansa is playing Littlefinger and does not make the mistake to side with him, because it would probably make her enemy to her own kin. I am very curious how Littlefingers character develops in the books, I guess he becomes the new antagonist after Ramsey is dead and Cersei being occupied with defending herself.

 

Do you see LF chasing after Cersei, now she's declared herself In Charge of Everything?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Do you see LF chasing after Cersei, now she's declared herself In Charge of Everything?

 

You mean if he'll propose to Cersei in order to get on the iron throne? I don't see that coming, they would be a really weird couple though!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Angrivarius said:

You mean if he'll propose to Cersei in order to get on the iron throne? I don't see that coming, it would be a really weird couple though!

Not proposing, at least not at first, but in her ear, her councilor, the power behind the throne.  Though she's too unstable for anyone to rest easy with that position, and clearly isn't long for the position she's claimed for herself -- not been acclaimed for -- unlike Jon being named King in the North by acclaim  But if LF's ousted from control of Robyn in some manner, he might go there.  I dunno.

But like everyone else there is so much business the North should have been paying attention to and nobody is, such as actually talking in detail about Winter, WWs -- and yah, great observations that nobody was gobsmacked by a real living fighting giant.

The North's job is Winter and it's about time they get crackin' you know? (Which might be one way LJ loses control of the Vale and Robyn?)

 

Edited to add, that this getting cracking against Winter: this is what I've always taken as the primary significance of "the North remembers."  The North remembers Winter.  The South always forgets and goes decadent.  Yet, each Winter cycle the North stands between the powers of Winter and the easier South. This is what it means that the Starks, who are the lords of Winterfell, are also called Kings in the North.  This is why the Starks are the most loyal, most honorable, most selfless of all the Houses -- the Starks are the North that remembers.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, lancerman said:

Jon literally told Sansa she should take it, and she didn't.

Sorry but I completely disagree with you on this one, if you watch carefully the scene, he didn't offer her anything and she didn't accept or refuse anything

he simply stated a fact : "you are the lady of winterfell now" and she remains silent

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...