Jon Snow, King of the north and Vale

[Lee-Sensei]

Just now, tmug said:

Yeah would you want to be the only ones not cheering for Jon in that scene? They could easily be seen as traitors if they didn't join in, or at least rub some Northerners the wrong way by their non-reaction.

But hey, after Lyanna Mormont speech I think the entire 7 kingdoms would have rallied behind whatever that girl said.

They couldn't be seen as traitors for not cheering for Jon, because they'd saved him and Jon isnt their leader.

[Lee-Sensei]

Just now, Rory Snow said:

Agreed. Even if he were Ned's legit son, he'd still be half Stark, half Tully.. why should being half Targ instead be an issue?

You make it sound like Jon was losing a battle he was supposed to win. The Boltons had them outnumbered 3 to 1 yet his men still followed Jon into battle. Granted he let his emotions get the best of him, an immature move, but his men love him and will follow him. Before criticizing Jon as a military leader, I'd like to see him run a battle with even odds. If Sansa had told Jon about the Vale Knights, his strategy at that point would have been far more telling as to what type of commander he can be.

Also, I don't the feeling the Vale declared for Jon. They recognize him as King in the North and have formed an alliance with the North, but that's altogether different than taking Jon as their King.

Whether he was supposed to win the battle or not isn't relevant. I don't think it was a battle h could have won. Robert won battles at gratuitously long odds before he was declared King. Jon was losing until the Va'e saved him.

[Chib]

24 minutes ago, Lee-Sensei said:

They couldn't be seen as traitors for not cheering for Jon, because they'd saved him and Jon isnt their leader.

 

Their temporary leader aka LF has declared allegiance with House Stark. They're there at Winterfell as guests. They simply cheer along because everyone is cheering. It is what we call POLITENESS. It means nothing at all whether they call him their leader or not. Why are you taking it seriously?

[Lee-Sensei]

Just now, Chib said:

Their temporary leader aka LF has declared allegiance with House Stark. They're there at Winterfell as guests. They simply cheer along because everyone is cheering. It is what we call POLITENESS. It means nothing at all whether they call him their leader or not. Why are you taking it seriously?

1) Because it's stupid. And it helps make the case for Jon being a bit of a Mary Sue.

2) LF isn't their leader either. Robert is, and he's not their to sanction them giving his Kingdom to Jon.

3) Actually, they're there at Winterfell as conquerors. Without them, Jon would be a corpse in the snow or fed to Ramsays hounds.

[Chib]

15 minutes ago, Lee-Sensei said:

1) Because it's stupid. And it helps make the case for Jon being a bit of a Mary Sue.

2) LF isn't their leader either. Robert is, and he's not their to sanction them giving his Kingdom to Jon.

3) Actually, they're there at Winterfell as conquerors. Without them, Jon would be a corpse in the snow or fed to Ramsays hounds.

 

 

1) Cheering along with people around means nothing at all. People who don't agree with Obama's policy can still cheer for him in a meeting when everyone is cheering for him. It's called domino effect. 

2) LF is not the Vale's leader but he is the representative of Vale. He did not say he give the North to Starks as he has no rights about it. He declared allegiance with the Stark which both Robin and the Vale Knights have no issue with that. 

3) They're at Winterfell to HELP Sansa and the Starks in general. They're NOT there to TAKE Winterfell. Whether their role in the battle is big or small it does not matter. They're in the host's house. They act as other guests aka cheering the host. That is politeness and that's all.

[Adam141414]

Jon is not King of the Vale. It was the Vale who saved House Stark from defeat. An alliance is possible given the friendly history of the houses. However Littlefinger is a massive obstacle to this, given he has control over Robyn. LF clearly wants to marry Sansa to unite the Vale and the North and his leadership, then march South on KL and take the throne for himself. 

I think LF knows of Jon's parentage, given the look he gave Sansa when Sansa told the common story of Rheagar raping Lyanna. That would make Jon a bastard Targaryen (or true born if Rheagar and Lyanna were married), rather than Stark bastard. If LF reveals the truth, it could certainly pour cold water over Jon's status as someone who could rule the North. Although it looks like the North are rallying behind Jon for who he is, and what he has done, and not just because of the belief he is Ned Stark son. 

With Littlefinger already have declared for the North, he really is running out of room to move. And with the story settling most of the politics - ie, Dorne, Tyrell, Greyjoy (Theon, Yara), have all declared their position, and with he political turmoil in KL and the North now resolved with Cersei the undisputed ruler in KL, and Jon having a firm grip on the North. There isnt much political turmoil for LF to thrive in. 

I think Sansa will reveal LF as Lysa's killer, dooming LF, which removes him as an obstacle to uniting the Vale and North. Sansa marries Robyn, & she will deal with Lord Royce who replaces LF as Robyn's adviser. That is how Sansa and Jon can consolidate the North and Vale under their terms, and not LF's. 

[yakisikli123]

Jon never said he is the king of Vale, he also didnt say he is the king.

The others there acknowledged him as  " King in da Nurf "

[Lee-Sensei]

Just now, Chib said:

1) Cheering along with people around means nothing at all. People who don't agree with Obama's policy can still cheer for him in a meeting when everyone is cheering for him. It's called domino effect. 

2) LF is not the Vale's leader but he is the representative of Vale. He did not say he give the North to Starks as he has no rights about it. He declared allegiance with the Stark which both Robin and the Vale Knights have no issue with that. 

3) They're at Winterfell to HELP Sansa and the Starks in general. They're NOT there to TAKE Winterfell. Whether their role in the battle is big or small it does not matter. They're in the host's house. They act as other guests aka cheering the host. That is politeness and that's all.

1) Youn Royce raised his sword and cried King in the North with the rest of them. They clearly swore fealty to Jon and it makes no sense.

2) Again, alegiance means subordination. When did Robert Arryn say he has no problem with the Starks ruling his Kingdom? Does he even know of Jons existence?

3) That's irrelevant. They did conquer it, they're there in force and have the largest army in the North.

[permaximum]

Swearing fealty is no simple thing and the Vale can't swear fealty for the North or the other way around. Does anyone catch how ridiculous that sound? This Jon cheering has no limits.

It was just a polite gesture and the approval of the alliance LF talked about to Sansa. While the Regent and acting Lord of the Vale sits quietly there in the corner, none can do anything about the politics of the Vale but him. This is just one of those topics that will be forgotten as soon as the next episode comes and some people is gonna pretend that they never supported this ridiculous idea.

You can't make a one big kingdom a vassal of an another kingdom because some minor Lord said the other kingdom's leader is the King of that "other" kingdom.

This is just Jon fanboys' wish. If it wasn't for Baelish or his desire for Sansa, everything would be totally over. Actually the wise move on Baelish's part would be defeating the Boltons, killing everyone after that and delivering Sansa's head to Cersei. Suddenly Baelish would own the three kingdoms of the Vale, the North and the Riverlands and that would make him the most powerful man in Westeros.

Jon should pray to Rh'llor that Sansa looks like Catelyn.

[Chib]

29 minutes ago, Lee-Sensei said:

1) Youn Royce raised his sword and cried King in the North with the rest of them. They clearly swore fealty to Jon and it makes no sense.

2) Again, alegiance means subordination. When did Robert Arryn say he has no problem with the Starks ruling his Kingdom? Does he even know of Jons existence?

3) That's irrelevant. They did conquer it, they're there in force and have the largest army in the North.

 

 

 

 

1) They call him King in the North, not King of Vale. They simply chanted along with others in the room. It's like clapping along with other people after a performance whether you like it or not. It is basic politeness. 

2) LF persuaded Robin to send his knights to help Sansa aka the Starks. That means they want the Stark to rule Winterfell than Boltons. LF declared his allegiance towards the Starks which means he already has permission and agreement from the Vale. Who says anything about the North ruling the Vale? They want allegiance and that's it. LF expected people would elect Sansa and so did the Vale. But it does not mean they will withdraw their words of allegiance with Starks immediately after the North chose Jon. 

3) The Vale came NOT to conquer Winterfell. They were sent to help the Starks destroyed Ramsay's army. But it was the Starks who broke the Winterfell gate first. Again, battle for dummies, who broke the gate first they won the claim. This has been the case for thousand years of human history. If the Vale came to conquer, they would have killed Jon and the Wildings then take Winterfell for themselves. Their aim was to help the Starks. If you don't get that, you are either stupid or ignorant or both. 

[Lord_Ravenstone]

7 minutes ago, Chib said:

1) They call him King in the North, not King of Vale. They simply chanted along with others in the room. It's like clapping along with other people after a performance whether you like it or not. It is basic politeness. 

2) LF persuaded Robin to send his knights to help Sansa aka the Starks. That means they want the Stark to rule Winterfell than Boltons. LF declared his allegiance towards the Starks which means he already has permission and agreement from the Vale. Who says anything about the North ruling the Vale? They want allegiance and that's it. LF expected people would elect Sansa and so did the Vale. But it does not mean they will withdraw their words of allegiance with Starks immediately after the North chose Jon. 

3) The Vale came NOT to conquer Winterfell. They were sent to help the Starks destroyed Ramsay's army. But it was the Starks who broke the Winterfell gate first. Again, battle for dummies, who broke the gate first they won the claim. This has been the case for thousand years of human history. If the Vale came to conquer, they would have killed Jon and the Wildings then take Winterfell for themselves. Their aim was to help the Starks. If you don't get that, you are either stupid or ignorant or both. 

The Riverlords in the show called him the King in the North too but Robb was in control of the North and the Riverlands.

[Chib]

2 minutes ago, Lord_Ravenstone said:

The Riverlords in the show called him the King in the North too but Robb was in control of the North and the Riverlands.

Because Robb was Cat's son? Jon has no relation to Vale at all. Sansa will not back him even if she had strong connection to Vale. The simply chanted along with other Northern lords because of politeness and because they have the allegiance. 

[permaximum]

1 hour ago, Lord_Ravenstone said:

The Riverlords in the show called him the King in the North too but Robb was in control of the North and the Riverlands.

Not quite accurate. They were in the War against the Crown, Robb's mother was Catelyn "Tully" and Robb was the commander and leader of the rebellion. Once everything settled Riverlands would be independent.

Jon is the king of 4000 men while LF commands 45k knights. Just stomach this truth. Jon is not getting that big of an army like Dany any time soon.

[Chib]

1 minute ago, permaximum said:

Not quite accurate. They were in the War against the Crown, Robb's mother was Catelyn "Tully" and Robb was the commander and leader of the rebellion. Once everything settled Riverlands would be independent.

Jon is the king of 4000 men while LF commands 45k knights. Just stomach this truth. Jon is not getting that big of an army like Dany any time soon.

 

 

Yeap, North and Vale are just having a good relationship at this point.

[Lord Friendzone]

24 minutes ago, permaximum said:

Swearing fealty is no simple thing and the Vale can't swear fealty for the North or the other way around. Does anyone catch how ridiculous that sound? This Jon cheering has no limits.

It was just a polite gesture and the approval of the alliance LF talked about to Sansa. While the Regent and acting Lord of the Vale sits quietly there in the corner, none can do anything about the politics of the Vale but him. This is just one of those topics that will be forgotten as soon as the next episode comes and some people is gonna pretend that they never supported this ridiculous idea.

You can't make a one big kingdom a vassal of an another kingdom because some minor Lord said the other kingdom's leader is the King of that "other" kingdom.

This is just Jon fanboys' wish. If it wasn't for Baelish or his desire for Sansa, everything would be totally over. Actually the wise move on Baelish's part would be defeating the Boltons, killing everyone after that and delivering Sansa's head to Cersei. Suddenly Baelish would own the three kingdoms of the Vale, the North and the Riverlands and that would make him the most powerful man in Westeros.

Jon should pray to Rh'llor that Sansa looks like Catelyn.

Yeah, not everybody can have armies on a silver plate. They just went along with cheering for King in the North. Jon right now command North but numbers. Don't know where did you get 45K, 10k maybe. They lower down size of the armies. Karstarks where half of the Robb forces and now barely few thousand men.

[Winter's Cold]

Jon Snow can't be considered King of the Vale unless Sweetrobin swears fealty to him.

[Lee-Sensei]

Just now, Chib said:

1) They call him King in the North, not King of Vale. They simply chanted along with others in the room. It's like clapping along with other people after a performance whether you like it or not. It is basic politeness. 

2) LF persuaded Robin to send his knights to help Sansa aka the Starks. That means they want the Stark to rule Winterfell than Boltons. LF declared his allegiance towards the Starks which means he already has permission and agreement from the Vale. Who says anything about the North ruling the Vale? They want allegiance and that's it. LF expected people would elect Sansa and so did the Vale. But it does not mean they will withdraw their words of allegiance with Starks immediately after the North chose Jon. 

3) The Vale came NOT to conquer Winterfell. They were sent to help the Starks destroyed Ramsay's army. But it was the Starks who broke the Winterfell gate first. Again, battle for dummies, who broke the gate first they won the claim. This has been the case for thousand years of human history. If the Vale came to conquer, they would have killed Jon and the Wildings then take Winterfell for themselves. Their aim was to help the Starks. If you don't get that, you are either stupid or ignorant or both. 

1) No it's not. This is exactly what happened when Robb went to Riverrun and became King of the Riverlands.

2) Do you know what the word allegiance means? You keep repeating it. You're assuming that LF has the right to make Jon King of the Vale. He doesn't.

3) Sigh. No. Jon didn't retake Winterfell. The Vale did that. Without the Vale, Jon would have been fed to Ramsays dogs. The Vale won the battle. The Vale conquered Winterfell. They gave it back to the Starks, but it was their efforts and their victory, you twit.

[Chib]

29 minutes ago, Lee-Sensei said:

1) No it's not. This is exactly what happened when Robb went to Riverrun and became King of the Riverlands.

2) Do you know what the word allegiance means? You keep repeating it. You're assuming that LF has the right to make Jon King of the Vale. He doesn't.

3) Sigh. No. Jon didn't retake Winterfell. The Vale did that. Without the Vale, Jon would have been fed to Ramsays dogs. The Vale won the battle. The Vale conquered Winterfell. They gave it back to the Starks, but it was their efforts and their victory, you twit.

 

 

 

1) Rob was Cat's son and his uncle was Riverrun's lord. Jon has no relationship to Vale at all. Vale army did not call him king of the Vale. They clapped along and that's all.

2) I never said LF has the right to make Jon King of Vale. I say that LF agrees to support the Starks which both Vale army and Robin have no issue with. Look at the part house allies in the official website: http://viewers-guide.hbo.com/game-of-thrones/season-6/episode-10/houses/4/house-stark

3) Ancient rule and it is still relevant today, who break the gate first, it's theirs. Vale army did not break the gate first. It is not theirs. Go back to military 101. If Vale wanted to conquer Winterfell at all cost, they must have killed or captured Jon and the Wildlings and declare Winterfell as theirs. They did not. The Winterfell belongs to the one who broke the gate first by force. 

[Arya Targaryen]

24 minutes ago, Lee-Sensei said:

1) No it's not. This is exactly what happened when Robb went to Riverrun and became King of the Riverlands.

2) Do you know what the word allegiance means? You keep repeating it. You're assuming that LF has the right to make Jon King of the Vale. He doesn't.

3) Sigh. No. Jon didn't retake Winterfell. The Vale did that. Without the Vale, Jon would have been fed to Ramsays dogs. The Vale won the battle. The Vale conquered Winterfell. They gave it back to the Starks, but it was their efforts and their victory, you twit.

3) LOL no. The Vale won the battle, but they couldn't have conquered Winterfell, they didn't have the men to properly siege the castle. It was Wun Wun who broke the gate, it was wildlings who entered first and killed the Bolton soldiers and it was Jon who has beaten Ramsay. So while I agree that without the Vale they would be dead, it is also true that it was Jon's army who took Winterfell. As Jon said it, they (Northmen, Wildlings and the Vale) fought together and won. Without the Wildlings (especally Wun Wun) they Vale couldn't have taken the gates of Winterfell, so the credit must go to Jon as well.

[Chib]

3 minutes ago, Arya Targaryen said:

3) LOL no. The Vale won the battle, but they couldn't have conquered Winterfell, they didn't have the men to properly siege the castle. It was Wun Wun who broke the gate, it was wildlings who entered first and killed the Bolton soldiers and it was Jon who has beaten Ramsay. So while I agree that without the Vale they would be dead, it is also true that it was Jon's army who took Winterfell. As Jon said it, they (Northmen, Wildlings and the Vale) fought together and won. Without the Wildlings (especally Wun Wun) they Vale couldn't have taken the gates of Winterfell, so the credit must go to Jon as well.

 

This is exactly the point. Military 101. I laugh so hard at people who keep denying this because they hate Jon so much. It's the rule for the most part of human history. Who break the gate of the castle first, they take it. Ever since I was a kid and read Romance of the three kingdoms, I have known this.