Jon Snow, King of the north and Vale

[Lord_Ravenstone]

12 hours 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.

Um, no. Robb was called the King in the North and the King of the Trident. Like the riverlords even swore fealty to Robb at the end of AGOT.

The Greatjon roared out, "King in the North!" and thrust a mailed fist into the air. The river lords answered with a shout of "King of the Trident!" The hall grew thunderous with pounding fists and stamping feet.

Robb was king of both kingdoms just like Jon is King in the North and the King of the Vale. As LF said, they've declared for the Starks so unless SR is looking to make himself a king, it's safe to say that he's taken Jon as his liege lord.

[TheRevanchist]

15 hours ago, Lee-Sensei said:

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.

Robert would have been long dead if Ned Stark didn't save him and win a battle for him.

So it isn't that different.

[mbuehner]

4 hours ago, Lee-Sensei said:

Yes, well that's the TV Show. The same TV show that had Theon swear fealty to the Starks even though it would be anathama for him to do so in the books. Ultimately, who they swear fealty to or not depends on the decisions of Robert Arryn and he hasn't yet acknowledged the existence of this dimwitted losing bastard.

So you dont buy into the show... why are you arguing about it?  If nothing that happens you disagree is proper because you disagree with it... whats the point? And then claim it wouldnt happen in the book because.. well it wouldnt.

The reality is by your logic a ton of stuff that happened IN THE BOOKS wouldnt have happened. Heck, if we had this conversation the day before Aerys burned the Stark boys and I told you half the kingdom would be in open rebellion in a matter of months, your reply would have been 'impossible!'. Much less that some dopey ward with a hammer would be sitting the Iron Throne behind a united realm. Things happen. Loyalty is a nasty thing to take for granted in this series.

The number of things that have happened in the series against custom and law and tradition and oath is simply staggering. It essentially what the books are about. Order is falling apart.  If you think the Valemen would never work against that weakling Sweetrobin, well i suggest you're wrong, and you might be in for a surprise when Winds comes out.

 

[Lee-Sensei]

Just now, TheRevanchist said:

Robert would have been long dead if Ned Stark didn't save him and win a battle for him.

So it isn't that different.

What does that have to do with anything? Without Ned, Hoster Tully could have come to his aid and the story as e hear it, is that the battle turned around when Robert charged behind enemy lines. Besides that, Robert had already one a string of rapid victories before the Battle of the Bells.

[KingInTheBay]

Good point, I pretty sure Ned won more than one battle for Robert.

[Lee-Sensei]

Just now, Lord_Ravenstone said:

Um, no. Robb was called the King in the North and the King of the Trident. Like the riverlords even swore fealty to Robb at the end of AGOT.

The Greatjon roared out, "King in the North!" and thrust a mailed fist into the air. The river lords answered with a shout of "King of the Trident!" The hall grew thunderous with pounding fists and stamping feet.

Robb was king of both kingdoms just like Jon is King in the North and the King of the Vale. As LF said, they've declared for the Starks so unless SR is looking to make himself a king, it's safe to say that he's taken Jon as his liege lord.

SR never took Jon as his King. I doubt he even knows Jon exists.

[Lord_Ravenstone]

2 minutes ago, Lee-Sensei said:

SR never took Jon as his King. I doubt he even knows Jon exists.

I'm not sure how he doesn't know Jon exists considering he's now the King in the North and all the Vale Lords are shouting the King in the North.

We'll see next episode.

[Lee-Sensei]

Just now, mbuehner said:

So you dont buy into the show... why are you arguing about it?  If nothing that happens you disagree is proper because you disagree with it... whats the point? And then claim it wouldnt happen in the book because.. well it wouldnt.

The reality is by your logic a ton of stuff that happened IN THE BOOKS wouldnt have happened. Heck, if we had this conversation the day before Aerys burned the Stark boys and I told you half the kingdom would be in open rebellion in a matter of months, your reply would have been 'impossible!'. Much less that some dopey ward with a hammer would be sitting the Iron Throne behind a united realm. Things happen. Loyalty is a nasty thing to take for granted in this series.

The number of things that have happened in the series against custom and law and tradition and oath is simply staggering. It essentially what the books are about. Order is falling apart.  If you think the Valemen would never work against that weakling Sweetrobin, well i suggest you're wrong, and you might be in for a surprise when Winds comes out.

1) We know the Rebellion happened and the Kingdoms fell behind Robert because that's what happened in the books. The Shows made a number of changes so it's safe to assume that the Vale Lords without the permission of their liege would give the Kingdom over to some dumbass loser who's ass they had to save.

2) Robert may have been stupid as an administrator, but as a leader in war he was superb. Not like Jon Snow, who failed as a Lord Commander and as a general.

3) No. I'm not. The simple fact is, Jon Snow is a loser. He's a loser with no connection to the Vale, who's only alive right now because Sasa's related to Robin Arryn. If Sansa wasn't, he'd be dog food. Think about it. How pathetic does a guy have to be to get saved by Sweetrobin?

[Billabong]

Wouldn't the Vale working with the North mean LF dead or he thinks he can gain the realm by other means? The Vale getting into the North would mean the Frey's and Bastard is dead?

My only concern with the show is another king of the north's northern most northiest north, again. Meanwhile down south godiva is finally castamering her armor.

[Eddard the Builder]

4 hours ago, Lee-Sensei said:

No she didn't. And Littlefinger isn't Lord of the Vale. They're ruled by House Arryn and have been for over 6000 years. Not to mention the Tullys are related to Robb and had just been saved by him. Jon isn't related to the Arryns and needed to be saved by them.

Yes she did.  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPpTgkBuzCg

"Of course we don't support the damned Lannisters."

"And who would you have us back Lord Baelish, Robb Stark is dead."

That implies if he were alive he'd be the obvious choice for them to back. 

Littlefinger is indeed Lord Protector of the Vale and is actually blatantly stated to be Acting Lord of the Vale. until Sweetrobin comes of age. And considering the fact that the last time Lord Royce was in the presence of the Lord Protector and the Lord of the Vale they threatened to have him thrown from the moon door.  I'd imagine Lord Royce would be completely down to having some new management in the Vale.  

[of man and wolf]

10 minutes ago, Lee-Sensei said:

1) We know the Rebellion happened and the Kingdoms fell behind Robert because that's what happened in the books. The Shows made a number of changes so it's safe to assume that the Vale Lords without the permission of their liege would give the Kingdom over to some dumbass loser who's ass they had to save.

2) Robert may have been stupid as an administrator, but as a leader in war he was superb. Not like Jon Snow, who failed as a Lord Commander and as a general.

3) No. I'm not. The simple fact is, Jon Snow is a loser. He's a loser with no connection to the Vale, who's only alive right now because Sasa's related to Robin Arryn. If Sansa wasn't, he'd be dog food. Think about it. How pathetic does a guy have to be to get saved by Sweetrobin?

He's a loser who has defeated some white walkers...ok.

 

Dude is vastly out numbered and his loving sister doesnt tell him he has a large army on the way...but he's the loser? Atleast he was gonna go down fighting. He nearly lost that battle thanks to Sansa. Littlefinger manipulated that situation. Sansa is the dumbass who believes almost everything..such a naive little girl. She's been used and abused by how many men now? At first she's telling Jon you have to save your brother...then shes like no, he's going to die, dont bother, and she barely seems to care that Rickon dies. But Jon is the loser?

 

Almost anyone would have failed in that situation.

[TheLastLibrarian]

I'm against the extreme favouritism to Jon Snow 

I throw the leeches into the flames and as they burn, recites the names of three people I want dead: "The usurper Jon Snow, the usurper Lyanna Mormont, the usurper Wyman Manderly"

[tmug]

9 minutes ago, Lee-Sensei said:

1) We know the Rebellion happened and the Kingdoms fell behind Robert because that's what happened in the books. The Shows made a number of changes so it's safe to assume that the Vale Lords without the permission of their liege would give the Kingdom over to some dumbass loser who's ass they had to save.

2) Robert may have been stupid as an administrator, but as a leader in war he was superb. Not like Jon Snow, who failed as a Lord Commander and as a general.

3) No. I'm not. The simple fact is, Jon Snow is a loser. He's a loser with no connection to the Vale, who's only alive right now because Sasa's related to Robin Arryn. If Sansa wasn't, he'd be dog food. Think about it. How pathetic does a guy have to be to get saved by Sweetrobin?

1) But the Vale did have permission from their liege lord to help Sansa, who was also getting help from Jon.

2) Jon really didn't fail at being Lord Commander, he actually did the right thing letting the Wildlings pass and saving thousands of lives that would've ended up being part of the army of the Undead. What was his failure in your eyes? Because half of the scum that call themselves the Nights Watch betrayed and conspired to murder him?

3) Actually Jon isn't a "loser" and I guess we don't know what your definition of "loser" really means. Is Jon lucky? Yeah probably. Robin Arryn gave permission to help Sansa who is the half-sister of Jon Snow, so he does have a connection to the Vale. Would they have helped Jon if Sansa wasn't there, probably not but this is not the case. The Vale supports Sansa, Sansa supports Jon, therefore the Vale supports Jon albeit indirectly.

[TheLastLibrarian]

51 minutes ago, Lee-Sensei said:

3) No. I'm not. The simple fact is, Jon Snow is a loser. He's a loser with no connection to the Vale, who's only alive right now because Sasa's related to Robin Arryn. If Sansa wasn't, he'd be dog food. Think about it. How pathetic does a guy have to be to get saved by Sweetrobin?

When the true King Stannis asked Jon Snow for an alliance, Jon refused, he's a half man, a coward, saying that Winterfell is not his to give, but when his 14 years old sister saved his ass and took Winterfell, Jon and the lords of the north usurped her her homeland and her rights 

Starks don't usurp, and Jon is not even a stark, he's a targaryen

he wish doing that to the true King if Stannis won against the boltons, he wish, Melisandre will burn him on the stake for only thinking about it 

[Lee-Sensei]

Just now, Lord_Ravenstone said:

I'm not sure how he doesn't know Jon exists considering he's now the King in the North and all the Vale Lords are shouting the King in the North.

We'll see next episode.

Because they were sent to help his cousin? Sansa? Jon is no relation. He's just a bastard his aunt despised.

[Lee-Sensei]

Just now, tmug said:

1) But the Vale did have permission from their liege lord to help Sansa, who was also getting help from Jon.

2) Jon really didn't fail at being Lord Commander, he actually did the right thing letting the Wildlings pass and saving thousands of lives that would've ended up being part of the army of the Undead. What was his failure in your eyes? Because half of the scum that call themselves the Nights Watch betrayed and conspired to murder him?

3) Actually Jon isn't a "loser" and I guess we don't know what your definition of "loser" really means. Is Jon lucky? Yeah probably. Robin Arryn gave permission to help Sansa who is the half-sister of Jon Snow, so he does have a connection to the Vale. Would they have helped Jon if Sansa wasn't there, probably not but this is not the case. The Vale supports Sansa, Sansa supports Jon, therefore the Vale supports Jon albeit indirectly.

1) And?

2) Jon Snow was an oathbreaker who alienated his brothers.

3) My definition of loser is some who loses. He lost the battle. Yohn Royce had to save him. Jon has no connection to the Vale. Saying he does is like saying Jon Snow has a connection to Mace Tyrell, because he's the best friend of Randyll Tarlys son, Sam. Jon is Ned's bastard. Ned's Robert Arryns uncle in law. The Stark connection is matrilineal and Jon isn't even Catelyns step son.

[KingInTheBay]

If you still think Jon is Ned's bastard you haven't been paying much attention.

[rivers snow]

4 hours ago, Lee-Sensei said:

1) And?

2) Jon Snow was an oathbreaker who alienated his brothers.

3) My definition of loser is some who loses. He lost the battle. Yohn Royce had to save him. Jon has no connection to the Vale. Saying he does is like saying Jon Snow has a connection to Mace Tyrell, because he's the best friend of Randyll Tarlys son, Sam. Jon is Ned's bastard. Ned's Robert Arryns uncle in law. The Stark connection is matrilineal and Jon isn't even Catelyns step son.

Or he is the remarkable leader who brought peace between wildlings and the north (being the only leader on the show with the vision to understand the true purpose of the wall and nights watch), was elected Lord Commander by his brothers and then King in the North by acclamation because he inspires confidence in men, has come back from the dead chosen by the lord of light, and stood tall without flinching as thousands of horsed men rode at him in the battle of the bastards. 

He is the White Wolf and he has earned his crown.

[permaximum]

11 hours ago, Lord_Ravenstone said:

Um, no. Robb was called the King in the North and the King of the Trident. Like the riverlords even swore fealty to Robb at the end of AGOT.

The Greatjon roared out, "King in the North!" and thrust a mailed fist into the air. The river lords answered with a shout of "King of the Trident!" The hall grew thunderous with pounding fists and stamping feet.

Robb was king of both kingdoms just like Jon is King in the North and the King of the Vale. As LF said, they've declared for the Starks so unless SR is looking to make himself a king, it's safe to say that he's taken Jon as his liege lord.

We're talking about the Show. Robb was not the king of the trident and  Jon certainly is not the King of the Vale.

Jon fanboys are really ignorant on this issue and they want him to own the Vale too. I understand it but be just a bit more reasonable. You can't be the King of the Vale because some minor lord from the Vale said "King in the North" along with the other northeners in the heat of moment while the acting Lord of the Vale was watching in silence and the rightful Lord of the Vale was absent.

LF talked about the alliance. Not becoming a vassal or something like that.

This topic is beyond absurd. Even the lord of the vale can't make the Vale a vassal of the North. I'm noting the names of members WHO supported this ridiculous idea. I'll try not to enter a discussion with them in the future.

[Lord_Ravenstone]

40 minutes ago, permaximum said:

We're talking about the Show. Robb was not the king of the trident and  Jon certainly is not the King of the Vale.

Jon fanboys are really ignorant on this issue and they want him to own the Vale too. I understand it but be just a bit more reasonable. You can't be the King of the Vale because some minor lord from the Vale said "King in the North" along with the other northeners in the heat of moment while the acting Lord of the Vale was watching in silence and the rightful Lord of the Vale was absent.

LF talked about the alliance. Not becoming a vassal or something like that.

This topic is beyond absurd. Even the lord of the vale can't make the Vale a vassal of the North. I'm noting the names of members WHO supported this ridiculous idea. I'll try not to enter a discussion with them in the future.

Wrong. Robb was king of both the north and the trident in the show. Nothing says it was different and no one called Edmure King. Also Edmure even calls Robb his king. A big fuss is made over Robb being Edmure's King. 

Minor lord? Bronze Yohn Royce is the second strongest lord in the Vale