Jon Snow, King of the north and Vale

[Lee-Sensei]

Just now, Lord_Ravenstone said:

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

Second strongest Lord is irrelevant. He's still subordinate to the Lord of the Vale.

[permaximum]

2 hours ago, Lord_Ravenstone said:

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

None said the King of the Trident and none said the King of the Vale.

Royce can only speak for his minor house and that's treason if he was not simply acknowledging Jon as the King in the North and had other intentions. But anyways he didn't say the King of the Vale. 

[Ruhail]

Seeing Davos after he just said an episode ago hes done with kings screaming like jon's dog for kitn pissed me off so much. Its not enough that they had to shit on Davos' character this entire season for a loser like show jon whos been bitching his ass off about being alive and wanting to die. They made him go to him about Melly as if he wouldnt confront and end her himself and then the goody two shoes cliche boy lets her go! Fucking hell what a hypocrite. He gets to kill the mutineers but oh noes how dare a man whos been sucking his dick all season and who played a part in having him bought back get one thing from him. No its not because Jonny snowflake needs Melly since he ignored and didnt want anything to do with her. Urghhh the fact that Davos was ok with that and stays behind for such a bastard is as infuriating as the Vale lords thinkking Jon is their king.

[Lord Lannister]

All I can say is this scenario would make the Sweetrobin/Sansa marriage make all the more sense in order to facilitate a connection between the North and the Vale. This would have the added bonus of curtailing Littlefinger's influence on Robert possibly. Though how willing Sansa would be to enter a third arranged marriage would be an issue.

[Rory Snow]

On ‎7‎/‎1‎/‎2016 at 4:40 AM, Lee-Sensei said:

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.

The Vale were kinda a bunch of stat hounds in the whole thing. They sweep in at the end after all the heavy lifting is done as if they were led by the 'Late' Walder Frey. Not to say the knights are wimps, but they simply rode thru a bunch of men on foot after all the fighting was done. Where's the risk in that? No risk means not heroic. If they tried to claim Winterfell, Jon would have simply challenged Pinkie to a fight like he did with Ramsay, Pinkie would have pussed out like Ramsay did, but unlike the Bolton army the Knights of the Vale would have abandoned Pinkie and any claim to the castle.

[Chib]

22 minutes ago, The Bear said:

Wait, isn't it just supposition that Robb named Jon as his heir? Or is it canon and I'm just mistaken?

It was in the book, in the show, Robb's will was thrown out of the window because D&D want some tension and drama between Sansa and Jon in season 7 about the inheritance issue. 

[nothatso]

8 hours ago, Lee-Sensei said:

Second strongest Lord is irrelevant. He's still subordinate to the Lord of the Vale.

It's not irrelevant if Robin bites the dust and there's a power vacuum for somebody to step into. There's no Harry in the show and for all we know book Harry isn't long to live either if Littlefinger is just using him.

[Arya Targaryen]

18 hours ago, Lee-Sensei said:

 

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.

Well, GoT is full of losers. Stannis is a loser - he lost the last battle. He didn't even have an excuse, half of his army left because of his choice to burn his own daughter. Renly is a loser - he got killed because he tried to usurp his elder brother's birthright. Tywin is a loser because he failed to realize the potential Tyrion had. And you can make a case for pretty much every dead character from GoT, apart from Hoster Tully and Maester Aemon, the only two characters who died of old age and weren't killed.

By the same logic, Jon saved all of those Vale knights from a long siege in winter. Without Jon and his army (I mean the Wildlings) they couldn't have taken Winterfell. Ramsay would have just closed the gates and waited for winter to do the rest (as he clearly planned to do). I doubt those knights (and horses and stuff) would have lasted long in cold weather. And they might not even had the chance to give up and go home because of the snow. So true, the Vale saved Jon's ass. And Jon saved their collective asses by breaking the gates and capturing Ramsay.

On the Arryn connection.

Ned was fostered in the Vale, by Jon Arryn - he was kind of a foster son, and a very good friend of Royce. As Ned's son (and a son who was named after Jon Arryn himself) he definitely has some connection to the Vale, though not by blood. The trueborn Stark children have Tully blood, and even if Sweetrobin's mother is a Tully, the Vale lords were not really fond of Lysa. But true, the Stark children are first cousins to Sweetrobin. But not from the Arryn side.

And it may have no consequence later, but the King Viserys I had an Arryn for wife- and Jon is their descendant, so he does have blood ties to the Vale. Nobody knows it though, and maybe never will. Him being the Ned's son might do the trick in the eyes of the Vale lords. But I agree, that he was not elected to be King of the Vale - only recognized as KitN by the Vale. And even as a "Jon fangirl" I don't wish him to be. He shouldn't go further south than the Neck. 

[xjlxking]

18 hours ago, Lee-Sensei said:

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

And Aegon was just a highborn of a empire that fell

 

[mormont]

[mod] Let's remain civil, please. We're discussing a TV show: there's no call for bad manners or bad blood. [/mod]

[Tywin Tytosson]

12 hours ago, permaximum said:

None said the King of the Trident and none said the King of the Vale.

Royce can only speak for his minor house and that's treason if he was not simply acknowledging Jon as the King in the North and had other intentions. But anyways he didn't say the King of the Vale. 

Treason against whom?  Lord Royce's sworn liege is House Arryn,  IE, Robyn.  That is whom he is oath-bound to obey.  Nodody else, really.  Unless Robyn Arryn proclaims Jon his King, Royce has no ties to Jon nor House Stark.  Any 'treason' against a King/Queen by Lord Royce would be against Tommen or whomever rules in KL.

 

EDIT: Permaximum, i think that i misread your post.  i think that we actually agree on the 'treason' thing.  Apologies, there.

[Tywin Tytosson]

On 7/1/2016 at 4:15 PM, 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.

mmmm.... Disagree, Lord Ravenstone.  From what I gathered, LF had Robyn and the Vale declare support for and alliance with House Stark.  This was done before the King in the North acclamation.  In effect, what was probably promised was that the Vale forces would fight against any Northern Lord who contested or resisted House Stark resumption of their seat in Winterfell and reaquiring of their ancestral lands.  They may have been an implied promise of influence in KL for the Powers that Be there to accept the situation as it stood and restore the Starks to their previous status in the 7 Kingdoms 'hierarchy' (eg: Wardens of the North).  And allow them to stamp out the Boltons.

I didn't see or hear any Vale Lords proclaim Jon 'King of teh Vale'.  The only King of the Vale that they would likely support would probably be a member of the Arryn family,who had been Kings of the Vale before the Targaryens arrived.

[Eddard the Builder]

15 hours 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.

"Don't call him nephew he's your king!"-Blackfish Tully

 

Yeah Robb was the King of Edmure Tully who in turn was Lord Paramount of the Trident.  So yes he was King of the Trident and liege lord of the riverlands.

 

Quote

Treason against whom?  Lord Royce's sworn liege is House Arryn,  IE, Robyn.  That is whom he is oath-bound to obey.  Nodody else, really.  Unless Robyn Arryn proclaims Jon his King, Royce has no ties to Jon nor House Stark.  Any 'treason' against a King/Queen by Lord Royce would be against Tommen or whomever rules in KL.

 

EDIT: Permaximum, i think that i misread your post.  i think that we actually agree on the 'treason' thing.  Apologies, there.

Nah not true.  The riverlords all pledged fealty to Robb without the permission of their liege lord (Hoster) or even his heir (Edmure) neither was present when the Mallisters or any of the other riverlords bent the knee.

[xjlxking]

Robb was the king of the trident. By supporting his claim over the north, they also pledge their fealty. 

 

[Tywin Tytosson]

hmm...has anyone commented on the semantic difference of : 'King IN the North' vs. 'King OF the North'.

what was the acclamation for Jon?  King IN the North or King OF the North?

King IN the North allows subservience to the Over-King (Emperor, if you will) in Kings Landing and inclusinn of the quasi or de-facto independent Kingdom of the North loosely into the Seven Kingdoms.

King OF the North sounds more like the North is an independent, sovereign Kingdom with no implied ties to Kings Landing, the Seven (Six ?) kingdoms, or anywhere else.

or have I enjoyed one too many weissbiers today and am completely off base?    

 

Discuss!

[The Bear]

9 hours ago, Chib said:

It was in the book, in the show, Robb's will was thrown out of the window because D&D want some tension and drama between Sansa and Jon in season 7 about the inheritance issue. 

I just don't remember it ever being definitively stated that Robb named Jon as his heir. I remember Cat and Robb discussing wills and I remember the Northern Lords being summoned to sign an important document prior to the RW but I don't remember the text actually confirming it was a legitimisation for Jon.

[Arya Targaryen]

7 hours ago, The Bear said:

I just don't remember it ever being definitively stated that Robb named Jon as his heir. I remember Cat and Robb discussing wills and I remember the Northern Lords being summoned to sign an important document prior to the RW but I don't remember the text actually confirming it was a legitimisation for Jon.

it is likely, though. The only hint that it is indeed Jon, is that Cat feels "defeated" in that scene.

 

9 hours ago, Thror Baratheon said:

hmm...has anyone commented on the semantic difference of : 'King IN the North' vs. 'King OF the North'.

what was the acclamation for Jon?  King IN the North or King OF the North?

King IN the North allows subservience to the Over-King (Emperor, if you will) in Kings Landing and inclusinn of the quasi or de-facto independent Kingdom of the North loosely into the Seven Kingdoms.

King OF the North sounds more like the North is an independent, sovereign Kingdom with no implied ties to Kings Landing, the Seven (Six ?) kingdoms, or anywhere else.

or have I enjoyed one too many weissbiers today and am completely off base?    

 

Discuss!

Is there a King Of the North? I think it's always been King In the North.

[AvengerofWinterfell]

On 6/28/2016 at 9:53 AM, tormond said:

I have a question. Lord Cerwin, the one who saw his father flayed alive by ramsey and did nothing, said that the bolton have been defeated, the war was over, the biggest storm is coming in 1000s of years and they should ride home and wait the coming storm in their houses. To what Jon said that the war wasnt over and the true enemy does not wait the storms, he brings them. Do the lords know what Jon is talking about?, Do they know that the White Walkers of Legends are coming down on them with an army of the dead?, because it seemed to me, going by what lord Cerwin said that they know nothing. WHAT IS THE DEAL?, THIS THING IS BEING LEFT VAGUE AND I DON'T LIK

Maester Aemon sent a raven to the houses about the threat of the Walkers when Jon, Sam, & co returned fromg the great ranging if memory serves me right.  None of the Lords responded obviously because they dont believe such things but seeing the Giant Wun Wun (giants being something else they thought were mere fables) should help with belief.  I recall Mormont sending correspondence to KL about it too. During the scene Tyrion says something like "Mormont doesnt lie"

 

[The Bear]

That's why I asked if it was supposition or canon, I didn't think it had ever been explicitly stated in the text.

I suppose Robb had the power to legitimise him since he was the KotN and only kings can legitimise people so it's quite possible. It would make more sense to me than Jon deciding he's a Targ after finding out about his parentage. He's always wanted so badly to be a Stark.

I certainly hope seeing Wun Wun helps convince the Northern lords that the army of the undead are a thing. I could see them making the Northern lords obtuse and skeptical in the show just for the sake of the big reveal though.

[Jon and Dany Targaryen]

On 6/27/2016 at 7:03 PM, Lee-Sensei said:

To me, the idea that many Vale lords would want to help the Starks made sense. I didn't think they'd swear fealty to Robb or Sansa, but they had a connection. They were sent North by Robin Arryn to help his cousin, Sansa. So why are they swearing fealty to a foreign bastard they've never met before? Unlike Robb who saved the Riverlands, Jon lost his battle. The Vale saved him.

I didn't think anyone from the Vale was in that room other than Peter. 

Sansa did save the day and Jon acknowledged this fact.

Jon was Lord Commander, is a leader and mighty warrior. He is someone that these people have found faith to follow moreso than a young woman who has no experience leading. That doesn't diminish Sansa's key to their success and I'm sure she will be critical in the future as well.