Jon Snow, King of the north and Vale

[Arya Targaryen]

5 minutes ago, Jon and Dany Targaryen said:

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

 

They were there, at least one (Royce?) who complained about the wildlings.

[Jon and Dany Targaryen]

On 7/1/2016 at 0:43 AM, 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.

Only Baelish's thirst for power may have originated as a plot to eventually win over his love.. the ultimate ending with the woman he loves. Though, it seems to have taken on a life of its own. Giving up Sansa, the new embodiment of the love he had for Catelyn would defeat the entire purpose.

[Lurid Jester]

On June 28, 2016 at 2:13 PM, Tianzi said:

I am quite sure that, given the NW rules, ex Lord Commander equals deserter, so this should be a factor that makes them suspicious of him, not makes them admire him.

A fault of how the show is being handled. They're taking shortcuts in order to get to the endgame and its resulting in very vague motivations. 

And a strange lack of any interest in the whole "you were raised from the dead?  The white walkers are real?  That was a giant? Lordy, imma go change my small clothes because I've soiled me'self!"

[Lee-Sensei]

On July 2, 2016 at 7:39 AM, Rory Snow said:

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.

No they didn't. They won that battle. Without them, Jon would be dead.

[Lee-Sensei]

On July 2, 2016 at 10:31 AM, nothatso said:

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.

But he's alive and even if he was dead they wouldn't declare someone without a connection to the Arryn's king who failed in his only battle king.

[Lee-Sensei]

On July 2, 2016 at 0:12 PM, Arya Targaryen said:

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. 

1) He didn't save them from anything. Firstly, they didn't have to be there in the first place. They aren't obligated to save Jon snow.

2) Secondly, Ramsay had 20 men. He had as much chance of holding the vale off as theon had of holding off the Northmen.

3) You're overplaying how much end was loved in the valet less may not have been the best person, but she was an Arran. Ned was a stark.

[nothatso]

23 minutes ago, Lee-Sensei said:

But he's alive and even if he was dead they wouldn't declare someone without a connection to the Arryn's king who failed in his only battle king.

I don't know how you can declare this as fact when the only evidence you have suggests otherwise. The Lords of the Vale were in the room cheering for Jon, and the Yohn Royce of the books is a Stark supporter, going so far as to urge Lysa to declare for Robb. The Royces have ties to the Starks both through marriage and through more informal relationships. Jon was also the one who personally captured Winterfell with his men anyway, so calling it a "fail" is a bit excessive. It was Wun Wun, who followed Jon, who enabled them to take the castle in short order. Without Wun Wun siege works would have to be built and a siege takes time. In winter, that's a problem. You seem to be desperately trying to argue away any credit that people might give to Jon because you really just want it all to go to Sansa, but that's not how it's worked in the story that's actually being told on screen. They each had both positive and negative impacts on the battle.

[Quyen Thuy Tran]

4 minutes ago, nothatso said:

I don't know how you can declare this as fact when the only evidence you have suggests otherwise. The Lords of the Vale were in the room cheering for Jon, and the Yohn Royce of the books is a Stark supporter, going so far as to urge Lysa to declare for Robb. The Royces have ties to the Starks both through marriage and through more informal relationships. Jon was also the one who personally captured Winterfell with his men anyway, so calling it a "fail" is a bit excessive. It was Wun Wun, who followed Jon, who enabled them to take the castle in short order. Without Wun Wun siege works would have to be built and a siege takes time. In winter, that's a problem. You seem to be desperately trying to argue away any credit that people might give to Jon because you really just want it all to go to Sansa, but that's not how it's worked in the story that's actually being told on screen. They both had a part in it.

Don't waste your time. Some people will never care to understand military and history. Lol

[Tchzaelous]

On 6/28/2016 at 10:53 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 LIKE IT.

How about them not beheading the Oathbreaking Lord Commander?

They act as if everyone knows one minute about Jon's resurrection, which would lead you to assume they'd know the other half of that story too, about the Night King (as they did tell the Mormonts).

So either Cerwyn is an idiot, a coward... Or the writers are having trouble keeping things straight. 

The last is the most likely in my opinion.

[Rory Snow]

9 hours ago, Lee-Sensei said:

No they didn't. They won that battle. Without them, Jon would be dead.

The Vale was anything but heroic and their leader made it that way on purpose. The Vale didn't dodge a single arrow. The Vale didn't fight a single mounted man. They sat back and waited to allow Jon's forces to take as much damage and casualties as possible then swooped in when the danger was gone to tip the scales. Littlefinger's original plan with Cersei was to let the Boltons and Stannis bludgeon each other then mop up whoever was left standing. He tried to do the same thing with Jon. Notice the Vale didn't even help enter Winterfell, they 'courageously' let the Northmen take all those arrows too. The Vale showed up late on purpose, if they had come even an hour earlier, many hundreds more Northmen would have lived, but that wouldn't have served Pinkie's interests.

[Rory Snow]

5 hours ago, Tchzaelous said:

How about them not beheading the Oathbreaking Lord Commander?

They act as if everyone knows one minute about Jon's resurrection, which would lead you to assume they'd know the other half of that story too, about the Night King (as they did tell the Mormonts).

So either Cerwyn is an idiot, a coward... Or the writers are having trouble keeping things straight. 

The last is the most likely in my opinion.

Jon died and was thus released from the Night Watch's service. The Watch doesn't consider Jon an oathbreaker or a deserter, therefore he isn't one. Besides, it can be easily argued that Jon is doing more for the Nights Watch's impending battle with the White Walkers by returning to Winterfell and uniting the North than he ever could at Castle Black.

As for the meeting of Northmen in Winterfell, that gathering happened a long time after the battle and took weeks to bring together. The Manderleys had to travel all the way from White Harbor, the Cerwyns, Glovers and any smaller unmentioned houses in attendance also traveled from their homes. Since we know they didn't all arrive simultaneously, that means there could've been any number of house leaders staying in and milling about Winterfell for weeks waiting for all to arrive for the meeting we actually saw. That also means it's prob'ly safe to assume many private small meetings and informal talks took place in the interim so no doubt word of the impending WW invasion made the rounds. Now, could the writers have had difficulty keeping it all straight? Yup absolutely. But it also seems pretty clear that Lord Cerwyn is in fact a bit of a coward and an idiot so the possibility also exists that he was trying to sweep the WW talk under the rug, or perhaps he wasn't granted a private chat while waiting for others to arrive and didn't know personally. Unlike Glover and Manderley he showed no remorse or contrition about not helping Sansa and Jon, so it's easy to imagine them thinking "F this pissy little twerp, we're not talking to him."

[Cron]

On 6/27/2016 at 10:03 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.

My understanding is that Littlefinger controls Robin Arryn, utterly, and thus controls the Valemen.

Littlefinger directly told Sansa in a very recent episode (610, I believe) that he is now sworn to House Stark.

[Rory Snow]

51 minutes ago, Cron said:

Littlefinger directly told Sansa in a very recent episode (610, I believe) that he is now sworn to House Stark.

He didn't say he's "sworn" for House Stark but that he "declared" for them. Big difference, declaring would be more of an alliance while swearing for them would involve some form of an oath of fealty. The Vale was clearly supporting the Starks and Jon as King in the North during the big meeting in Winterfell, but supporting someone is much different than being subservient to them.

[tormond]

6 hours ago, Rory Snow said:

Jon died and was thus released from the Night Watch's service. The Watch doesn't consider Jon an oathbreaker or a deserter, therefore he isn't one. Besides, it can be easily argued that Jon is doing more for the Nights Watch's impending battle with the White Walkers by returning to Winterfell and uniting the North than he ever could at Castle Black.

As for the meeting of Northmen in Winterfell, that gathering happened a long time after the battle and took weeks to bring together. The Manderleys had to travel all the way from White Harbor, the Cerwyns, Glovers and any smaller unmentioned houses in attendance also traveled from their homes. Since we know they didn't all arrive simultaneously, that means there could've been any number of house leaders staying in and milling about Winterfell for weeks waiting for all to arrive for the meeting we actually saw. That also means it's prob'ly safe to assume many private small meetings and informal talks took place in the interim so no doubt word of the impending WW invasion made the rounds. Now, could the writers have had difficulty keeping it all straight? Yup absolutely. But it also seems pretty clear that Lord Cerwyn is in fact a bit of a coward and an idiot so the possibility also exists that he was trying to sweep the WW talk under the rug, or perhaps he wasn't granted a private chat while waiting for others to arrive and didn't know personally. Unlike Glover and Manderley he showed no remorse or contrition about not helping Sansa and Jon, so it's easy to imagine them thinking "F this pissy little twerp, we're not talking to him."

 

very nice post, very nice. it would had been nice if they had made an extra episode dedicated to this

[Arya Targaryen]

12 minutes ago, tormond said:

very nice post, very nice. it would had been nice if the had made an extra episode dedicated to this

I would have loved that, too.

Maybe now, that most of the KL crew is dead, Dany is coming to Westeros (together with Tyrion and co), they will have more time for each storyline. Especially if Arya and Mel meet up with the Hound and the Brotherhood, and Bran arriving in Winterfell - that would mean 4 storylines: the North, King's Landing, Brotherhood&Arya and Dany (plus WWs, but they don't need too much time). They can spend more time with them, instead of the 12 x 5 minutes per episodes.

[Rory Snow]

1 hour ago, tormond said:

very nice post, very nice. it would had been nice if they had made an extra episode dedicated to this

I was also hoping to get some insight as to the future of the lands of Houses Umber, Karstark & Bolton. I know these things aren't critical to the overall endgame of the story, but it is interesting and adds some depth

[tormond]

1 hour ago, Rory Snow said:

I was also hoping to get some insight as to the future of the lands of Houses Umber, Karstark & Bolton. I know these things aren't critical to the overall endgame of the story, but it is interesting and adds some depth

you have a good mind for details, sadly the show runners dont seem to care much about said details. Your original post was great and if those scenes had happened it would had washed away some of my earlier concerns and complains about the lords not knowing or knowing about the WW threat. it would had been great one whole episode about those details. Episode 10 for those details and then episode 11 for winds of winter..

About the lands of Umbers, Karsstark and boltons, we will assume that most of the grown men of those houses were killed but how many of those houses were left back home and what to do with them?. Some of the lands if not all but especially the Umbers which is the one more to the north should be given to the freefolk. The freefolk problem with the lords of the north not accepting them could be solve relatively easy in one of these detail scenes that we both would like to see. The northerners seem to hold this BLOOD OF THE FIRST MEN thing in high regard. Jon should have a meeting with the northern lords and the leaders of the freefolk, tell them who the freefolk really are, mostly direct descendants of the FIRST MEN, and if this blood is noble to the north then the freefolk are the most noble among them and should be welcomed and protected.

[Rory Snow]

4 hours ago, tormond said:

you have a good mind for details, sadly the show runners dont seem to care much about said details. Your original post was great and if those scenes had happened it would had washed away some of my earlier concerns and complains about the lords not knowing or knowing about the WW threat. it would had been great one whole episode about those details. Episode 10 for those details and then episode 11 for winds of winter..

Thanks

4 hours ago, tormond said:

About the lands of Umbers, Karsstark and boltons, we will assume that most of the grown men of those houses were killed but how many of those houses were left back home and what to do with them?. Some of the lands if not all but especially the Umbers which is the one more to the north should be given to the freefolk. The freefolk problem with the lords of the north not accepting them could be solve relatively easy in one of these detail scenes that we both would like to see. The northerners seem to hold this BLOOD OF THE FIRST MEN thing in high regard. Jon should have a meeting with the northern lords and the leaders of the freefolk, tell them who the freefolk really are, mostly direct descendants of the FIRST MEN, and if this blood is noble to the north then the freefolk are the most noble among them and should be welcomed and protected.

Agreed completely. The Freefolk are basically the same as Northmen, they just happened to be on the wrong side of the Wall when it went up. Tormund & Davos have been Jon's most loyal supporters and should get their pick. I'd like to see Tormund get the Last Hearth of the Umbers, give Davos Karhold since it's near the water, not sure what to do with the Dreadfort. But what about all the people still in these castles? You're right, the vast majority of the fighting men are dead, but a token force must have been left at each stronghold, along with all the women, children and elderly. So what happens with them, are they sent away, put to the sword or do they bend the knee? And if they do bend the knee, can Jon trust 'em?

This is where, generally speaking, books are so superior to movies or tv shows. There's no time constraints. In a book we just get another chapter or two outlining all this stuff, no problem at all. But in a show, it's all gotta fit in an hour a week. It's like having a budget, you want pizza, beer and chicken wings but you can only afford two of the three, so a tough decision has to be made and something you really want has to go.

[Cron]

9 hours ago, Rory Snow said:

He didn't say he's "sworn" for House Stark but that he "declared" for them. Big difference, declaring would be more of an alliance while swearing for them would involve some form of an oath of fealty. The Vale was clearly supporting the Starks and Jon as King in the North during the big meeting in Winterfell, but supporting someone is much different than being subservient to them.

interesting, and fair enough, if he said "declared"  rather than "sworn."

I hadn't thought much about the difference, but that's interesting food for thought.

[Rory Snow]

2 minutes ago, Cron said:

interesting, and fair enough, if he said "declared"  rather than "sworn."

If memory serves he said "I've declared for House Stark for all to see" or something pretty close to that. Then Sansa said something like "you've declared for other houses too, how did that work out?" Kind of a nice burn by the redhead.