Do the Starks technically own ALL land in the North?

[John Doe]

Technically, the Iron Throne owns all the land in the North.

[Lord Varys]

11 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

I find this a weird argument we're having here. It is pretty clear that every kingdom is depicted as having strong Kings and weak Kings. Edrick Snowbeard was an ancient example of a weak King in the North. But similarly there are Kings of the Rock who were depicted as extremely weak too. And Kings of the Reach who lost territories to the Storm Kings, Dornish and Casterly Rock.

I'm not sure Edrick Snowbeard was a weak king all his life. He lived to a very long age and eventually became senile. But this doesn't mean he was weak in his youth or his prime, or even his later years before the effects of old age became apparent.

The difference I'm pointing out is that the kind of weak lord Tytos was wouldn't have stood a chance in the North if the way that Robb was tested by his father's bannermen is any indication what generally happens when there is an untested new Lord of Winterfell taking over. No proud Northman would ever follow weakling like Tytos nor a cripple like Bran (which essentially is the main reason why Bran will never be the Lord of Winterfell).

This means that the institutional power in the West is much stronger than in the North. In the North personal loyalty is much stronger still, just as it is with the wildlings. In the North people still follow strength up to a point. It is not enough to be a Stark, you also have to be able to show that you can lead and rule.

Quote

As for the North. Based on no evidence, you seem to feel that the Starks have less control over their lands than the Arryns or Tyrells do. You suggest that lords are withholding taxes from Winterfell more than they do from Highgarden or the Eyrie. Now, you can speculate about that, of course, but there is no evidence supporting this.

Are you reading my stuff? I did not say people are not paying their taxes or did show up for military campaigns. I asked the question how the Starks would deal with such minor issues if their bannermen pulled off something like this, especially those living hundreds of leagues away. Would they go to war over this? Could they afford to do this in the middle of a crisis, etc.

Keep in mind that Ser Rodrik is actually very dubious about Robb's ability to take away the lands of House Hornwood from House Bolton after Ramsay's marriage to and murder of Lady Hornwood. He says, that Roose is not likely to give in to this whole thing. Not with land being at stake. Yet Robb is a king at this point. That clearly shows how limited the power of Winterfell actually is.

Quote

On what do you base the idea that if they were witholding taxes there would not be similar consequences? Roose Bolton himself says that the way he managed his lands was to not draw Eddard Stark's ire. "A peaceful land, a quiet people." Stay under the radar, in modern terminology. Does that sound like someone who would withhold taxes from Winterfell if it would draw negative attention to his domain?

Wasn't it Lord Rickard Roose was fearing? That was a man quite different from Ned. In any case, Roose is a calculating man. He likes to be able to do what he wants (raping women) without people making a fuzz about it.

And again, I never said Roose would withhold taxes from anyone. Especially not after the Conquest.

Quote

The North is harsh. And it is vast. It does not suffer weaklings. And yet, the Starks have survived for 8000 years, despite having strong Kings, mediocre Kings and weak Kings over the ages.

Did they have many weak kings? I'm not sure about that. Edrick Snowbeard grew weak and it is difficult to oust a king you have looked up to for decades but I very much doubt the North had many kings who were not living up to the challenge. Those would have been killed, either by their enemies, their bannermen, or their own family members (for the greater good of the house, of course).

[devilish]

On 03/12/2016 at 3:48 PM, Stormking902 said:

I was wondering how land holding exactly works so I used Starks as an example it is stated numerous times that the Starks bannerman hold there land in the Starks name so is this land technically the Starks which who basically rent out said land for a kick back in taxes and tariffs? Or do these Bannerman OWN there own land but bend the knee to the Starks for protection and such? 

They don't own the land. The kings owns it. The warden just own its administration whom in turn, they delegate the task to other bannermen.

There again the small folk neither know nor care. Those living near the dreadfort had been under Bolton rule for generations. A 50 year old peasant rely heavily on Roose's good intentions to put food on the table as much as his father and grandfather relied on Roose's father good intentions and his children and great children will rely on Ramsey's good intentions to do the same. The Warden lives far away and the King lives further away. Neither of them would risk a civil war just to defend their rights (unless its something really serious like implementing slavery). So for the small folk living close to the Dreadfort their king is Roose Bolton.

[YOVMO]

On ‎12‎/‎3‎/‎2016 at 7:22 PM, Lord Varys said:

Sure, as Kings in the North all the land in the North would have belonged to the Starks.

And Robb actually greatly expanded his domains by also being declared Kings at the Trident which people often forget. In fact, he might have owed more land at the Trident than in the North because there might have been more Riverlords than Northmen doing fealty to him - the Lords Bolton, Manderly, Dustin, Ryswells, etc. never actually did homage to their new king nor did they proclaim him. Was Roose really betraying his king when he killed him? That is actually a difficult question.

You know what Lord Varys....I didn't think I had it in me to be mind blown without more material from George...I mean, years of combing over this stuff, but good god man you have done it. No, the Lords Abstainate that you mention are very important. This is really the first I am realizing that Lord Bolton had never pledged fealty to Robb as KITN. As for betraying him at the RW I suppose you would say that it was a betrayal of Liege Lord (while he never did fealty to Robb as King the Dreadfort had done fealty to Winterfell as liege lords for many centuries already) but you certainly can't say that Roose killed his king.

Manderly's abstaining from pledging fealty is pretty straight forward as is  Dustin....but I am struggling to recall why the Ryswells abstained. Also, as a foil to the Lords Declarant in the Vale I really like the Lords Abstainate  in the North

[Free Northman Reborn]

6 minutes ago, YOVMO said:

You know what Lord Varys....I didn't think I had it in me to be mind blown without more material from George...I mean, years of combing over this stuff, but good god man you have done it. No, the Lords Abstainate that you mention are very important. This is really the first I am realizing that Lord Bolton had never pledged fealty to Robb as KITN. As for betraying him at the RW I suppose you would say that it was a betrayal of Liege Lord (while he never did fealty to Robb as King the Dreadfort had done fealty to Winterfell as liege lords for many centuries already) but you certainly can't say that Roose killed his king.

Manderly's abstaining from pledging fealty is pretty straight forward as is  Dustin....but I am struggling to recall why the Ryswells abstained. Also, as a foil to the Lords Declarant in the Vale I really like the Lords Abstainate  in the North

Seriously. This is the most ridiculous thing I have read in some time on this forum. There is no such thing as the "Lords Abstinate". Robb was their liege lord. Just like Hoster Tully was House Frey's liege lord. Sure, a flimsy escape clause can be fabricated that they wanted to stay true to the Iron Throne, but that was never anyone's motivation for not being present at Robb's swearing in.

They followed him to war against the Iron Throne. All the way to Winterfell, and then down the Neck and into battle. There was no re-swearing required there. Now trying to find reasons why their oaths to Robb were not valid is searching for technicalities in the extreme.

But not surprising these days.

[YOVMO]

1 minute ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Seriously. This is the most ridiculous thing I have read in some time on this forum. There is no such thing as the "Lords Abstinate". Robb was their liege lord. Just like Hoster Tully was House Frey's liege lord. Sure, a flimsy escape clause can be fabricated that they wanted to stay true to the Iron Throne, but that was never anyone's motivation for not being present at Robb's swearing in.

They followed him to war against the Iron Throne. All the way to Winterfell, and then down the Neck and into battle. There as no re-swearing required there. Now trying to find reasons why their oaths to Robb were not valid is searching for technicalities in the extreme.

But not surprising these days.

You do not find it at all interesting that these four houses never declared Robb KITN? I wouldn't say that the oaths are non valid. Robb is the stark in winterfell and as such they owe their fealty to him as they all had for many thousands of years. But the hair split is an interesting one. Here is the reason. If a house doesn't raise Robb as KITN then they are still loyal to the IT. If they are still loyal to the IT and Robb is in open rebellion then he is no longer the Lord Paramount of the North and those houses do not owe Robb fealty.

Basically Robb is either the King in the North or an Attainted traitor. There is no middle ground. The Bolton's followed him to the neck and then Roose Bolton put a dagger in him. I won't go an make a huge deal out of this, but it is at least interesting.

[YOVMO]

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The difference I'm pointing out is that the kind of weak lord Tytos was wouldn't have stood a chance in the North if the way that Robb was tested by his father's bannermen is any indication what generally happens when there is an untested new Lord of Winterfell taking over.

This would seem right, but I am not sure there would be a testing the way that Robb was tested in the north under normal circumstances. I think in a normal situation where Eddard lives out his days as LoW and WotN and Robb grows, marries, sits in his fathers councils and more and more power is gradually transitioned such that when Eddard passes away at a nice old age in the comforts of his own bed then Robb would already have been ruling the north in practice, even if not in name, for several years already....this is kind of how I picture the Riverlands going with Hoster aging and Edmure really being in charge. When someone refers to him as Lord Tully Cat mentally notes her displeasure at this as her father is still dead.

That Ned would die in bed after a long life and Robb would then assume the mantle of Lord of Winterfell doesn't seem to be something that, say, the Greatjohn would have questioned and tested the way he did under the circumstances of a teenage Robb being thrown into the position of LoW very quickly and unexpectedly right on the cusp of a war.

[Lord Varys]

19 minutes ago, YOVMO said:

You know what Lord Varys....I didn't think I had it in me to be mind blown without more material from George...I mean, years of combing over this stuff, but good god man you have done it. No, the Lords Abstainate that you mention are very important. This is really the first I am realizing that Lord Bolton had never pledged fealty to Robb as KITN. As for betraying him at the RW I suppose you would say that it was a betrayal of Liege Lord (while he never did fealty to Robb as King the Dreadfort had done fealty to Winterfell as liege lords for many centuries already) but you certainly can't say that Roose killed his king.

Manderly's abstaining from pledging fealty is pretty straight forward as is  Dustin....but I am struggling to recall why the Ryswells abstained. Also, as a foil to the Lords Declarant in the Vale I really like the Lords Abstainate  in the North

Oh, there is a reason why Lady Barbrey, Lord Wyman, the Ryswells, and others weren't with Robb when he was proclaimed king - they didn't accompany the army down south and Robb never directly interacted with them because he never got back home alive. That doesn't mean they have to be disloyal, it is just an interesting fact to point out.

But I actually more liked the fact that there that more Riverlords seem to have been present at Riverrun for Robb's proclamation, making him actually a king with a greater power base in his new Trident kingdom than in his Northern kingdom. Robb may also have been the King in the North but he was not only the King Who Lost the North but also the King who never set a foot into the North.

Roose and all the men in his army also never did homage to Robb. That doesn't mean they did not recognize him as their king. Many of them did so or might have done so. No Northman back home in the North or in Roose's army openly objected to the proclamation of a new King in the North. But that doesn't mean all the Northmen not present at Riverrun for the proclamation considered the whole thing a great idea or wanted to submit to Robb Stark as their new king.

Roose definitely went along with the rest until Stannis lost at the Blackwater. But thereafter he changed his mind (as Rickard Karstark did earlier). And I think a case can be made that he was not really betraying his king when he gutted Robb. He killed a rebel and a traitor to the king he had chosen, Joffrey Baratheon.

Whether Roose ever saw Robb as his rightful liege lord can also be questioned. When they marched down south Eddard Stark was still alive in the dungeons of the Red Keep and Robb split up the armies before Ned was killed. Thus Robb was merely Eddard Stark's heir but not yet Roose's liege lord by the time they parted ways.

We see that it is proper procedure that a new king receives oaths of fealty from his lords. It might be the case for new great lords as well. If so, Roose never swore such an oath to Robb (and even if he did he would not have been bound by that after Robb openly rebelled against the Iron Throne) and he most definitely never swore and oath to follow a king Robb Stark.

18 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Seriously. This is the most ridiculous thing I have read in some time on this forum. There is no such thing as the "Lords Abstinate". Robb was their liege lord. Just like Hoster Tully was House Frey's liege lord. Sure, a flimsy escape clause can be fabricated that they wanted to stay true to the Iron Throne, but that was never anyone's motivation for not being present at Robb's swearing in.

They followed him to war against the Iron Throne. All the way to Winterfell, and then down the Neck and into battle. There was no re-swearing required there. Now trying to find reasons why their oaths to Robb were not valid is searching for technicalities in the extreme.

But not surprising these days.

You are oversimplifying things. As I've laid out above Robb wasn't Lord of Winterfell when split up his army. And as things went Roose's army only rejoined with Robb at the Twins in ASoS. All the men who didn't make it back to the Twins never did homage to either Lord or King Robb in person, that's simply a fact.

This doesn't mean that they intended to betray Robb, of course. But it means that they had no voice in this proclamation thing and may not have liked this development at all. If push came to shove - as it did, in Roose's case - they were not honor-bound to follow Robb. Especially not considering that we are talking about a boy in his minority.

18 minutes ago, YOVMO said:

You do not find it at all interesting that these four houses never declared Robb KITN? I wouldn't say that the oaths are non valid. Robb is the stark in winterfell and as such they owe their fealty to him as they all had for many thousands of years. But the hair split is an interesting one. Here is the reason. If a house doesn't raise Robb as KITN then they are still loyal to the IT. If they are still loyal to the IT and Robb is in open rebellion then he is no longer the Lord Paramount of the North and those houses do not owe Robb fealty.

Basically Robb is either the King in the North or an Attainted traitor. There is no middle ground. The Bolton's followed him to the neck and then Roose Bolton put a dagger in him. I won't go an make a huge deal out of this, but it is at least interesting.

Yeah, that is basically what I'm trying to say. If you never commit yourself to a cause of action (like the foolhardy proclamation of a king who is not going to be able to keep his kingdom) then nobody can expect of you that you stick to that king until the very end. This doesn't mean you should gut him, of course. But it puts betrayal of that sort into perspective. I mean, what right had Robb to demand of Roose that he do him homage as a king?

12 minutes ago, YOVMO said:

This would seem right, but I am not sure there would be a testing the way that Robb was tested in the north under normal circumstances. I think in a normal situation where Eddard lives out his days as LoW and WotN and Robb grows, marries, sits in his fathers councils and more and more power is gradually transitioned such that when Eddard passes away at a nice old age in the comforts of his own bed then Robb would already have been ruling the north in practice, even if not in name, for several years already....this is kind of how I picture the Riverlands going with Hoster aging and Edmure really being in charge. When someone refers to him as Lord Tully Cat mentally notes her displeasure at this as her father is still dead.

That Ned would die in bed after a long life and Robb would then assume the mantle of Lord of Winterfell doesn't seem to be something that, say, the Greatjohn would have questioned and tested the way he did under the circumstances of a teenage Robb being thrown into the position of LoW very quickly and unexpectedly right on the cusp of a war.

Sure, under normal circumstances the heir would be prepared for his role and grow into it over time. And it was quite clear that Ned was grooming Robb to be his hier. However, Robb also had the necessary strength to live up the job (as did Ned, apparently, despite never being groomed for the job - there are hints that Ned was a weaker lord than Rickard or Tywin).

But what if your only son and heir is a man like Tytos or Samwell? How could such a man ever hope to rule as King in the North in the old days? That's the question I'm asking. Aenys I had his dragons and his brother Maegor, and Aerys I had Bloodraven, but the Kings in the North apparently have to be strong themselves or perish. How many Starks were actually up to this task? Unfortunately we don't know.

[YOVMO]

35 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

But what if your only son and heir is a man like Tytos or Samwell? How could such a man ever hope to rule as King in the North in the old days? That's the question I'm asking. Aenys I had his dragons and his brother Maegor, and Aerys I had Bloodraven, but the Kings in the North apparently have to be strong themselves or perish. How many Starks were actually up to this task? Unfortunately we don't know.

There really is no proof for this, but I have always had the impression that Edwyn Stark, the spring king, was a little bit of a wuss based on the fact that they called him the spring king. When you think of the old Kings of Winter, a moniker like "Spring King" seems to me akin to calling him "mr fancy pants" or a dandy or something.

 

That said, I think we can also say that the temperament of Stark Kings would necessarily be different than that of kings of the rock or, especially, lords of casterly rock. Take a guy like Tytos and raise him 5000 years before the conquest in the heart of the north with a father like, say, Theon the Hungry Wolf and his personality would probably be much different. But given the fact that there is a line of 8000 years of kings between Bran the Builder and The King who Knelt, you have to imagine there have been more or less effectual Kings who sat the throne of winterfell. THe truth of the matter is that with such a long bloodline, so long as it was peace time and there was prosperity enough to maintain a status quo, I think a weak man could rule the north as King of Winter. Custom and Prosperity are just as powerful as dragons in terms of holding a throne. If you took Tytos Lannister or Samwell Tarly, as is, make no changes, and make them KITN at a time when there is no war, no famine, etc I feel that the simple fact that he is the rightful heir and that no one has too much cause for complaint is enough to see them through their stewardship.

[Lord Varys]

2 hours ago, YOVMO said:

There really is no proof for this, but I have always had the impression that Edwyn Stark, the spring king, was a little bit of a wuss based on the fact that they called him the spring king. When you think of the old Kings of Winter, a moniker like "Spring King" seems to me akin to calling him "mr fancy pants" or a dandy or something.

Sure, there might have been some weaker Stark kings in times of relative quiet or with him being surrounded by a lot of supportive family members. But the North is a very bleak and unpleasant place. There shouldn't have been a lot of peace and plenty times in the North, not even in summer, and certainly not in winter. The North would mostly be interested in surviving the next winter.

That's not a climate where people would be allowed to suck at their jobs. Just look how Ned demands that Rickon grew up at the age of three.

2 hours ago, YOVMO said:

That said, I think we can also say that the temperament of Stark Kings would necessarily be different than that of kings of the rock or, especially, lords of casterly rock. Take a guy like Tytos and raise him 5000 years before the conquest in the heart of the north with a father like, say, Theon the Hungry Wolf and his personality would probably be much different.

Gerold the Golden certainly wasn't a bad lord or father. He tried to groom Tytos to be his heir but the man simply didn't have the right personality and character to become a lord. Unless we assume everything can be changed by nurture there is little chance that such men could be raised to inspire loyalty or lead men into battle.

2 hours ago, YOVMO said:

But given the fact that there is a line of 8000 years of kings between Bran the Builder and The King who Knelt, you have to imagine there have been more or less effectual Kings who sat the throne of winterfell. THe truth of the matter is that with such a long bloodline, so long as it was peace time and there was prosperity enough to maintain a status quo, I think a weak man could rule the north as King of Winter. Custom and Prosperity are just as powerful as dragons in terms of holding a throne. If you took Tytos Lannister or Samwell Tarly, as is, make no changes, and make them KITN at a time when there is no war, no famine, etc I feel that the simple fact that he is the rightful heir and that no one has too much cause for complaint is enough to see them through their stewardship.

We got to that topic after we discussed how strong the hold of Winterfell was over the entire North. Now, Tytos' misrule led to chaos, civil war, and banditry in the West in a time when the Lannisters were no longer the kings. If there was a king like Tytos the rule of an entire kingdom would break down. In the West people did not turn directly against the Lannisters but just didn't pay back their loans and did not care about the authority of Casterly Rock, etc.

The way the Lords of the North are depicted suggests that they would exploit any such weakness to actually attack the king/lord in charge. They would not formally obey or do homage to such a king but turn against him and kill him at the earliest opportunity. And this does not only refer to the bannermen but also to Starks from cadet branches. A full brother might support his elder brother even if he sucks at his job but an uncle or cousin might not.

[YOVMO]

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

That's not a climate where people would be allowed to suck at their jobs. Just look how Ned demands that Rickon grew up at the age of three.

THis is true and Ned putting demands on a 3 year old Rickon, if indicative of the way most Starks or, indeed, northerners raise their kids might have insulated them from having weak offspring. So long as you side on nurture over nature then you can assume that the line of Starks would have all had the seriousness to rule the north as it would have been engrained in them. Of course some would be better suited than others, but I don't see any King SoandSo The Laughing Wolf being named.

As for lack of plenty, I don't know. I mean, sure, they aren't the reach. But there are long springs and summers with good harvests. The North seems to be a lot closer to Wisconsin than it does Antarctica. They don't have the bounty of high garden, but there is def a system in place to make sure that the bountiful springs and summers yield creates a surplus that will see through long winters.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Gerold the Golden certainly wasn't a bad lord or father. He tried to groom Tytos to be his heir but the man simply didn't have the right personality and character to become a lord

I don't think that Gerold was a bad father or lord, but remember that Tytos was a third son. I am not sure how much grooming to be a lord he would have undergone. Tywald would have been Gerold's naturally assumed heir. He even grew into adulthood, showed enough promise as a squire to be knighted by then Prince Aegon himself. His character seemed more the naturally gifted leader and his grooming would have been obvious. After his death, the second brother, Tion Lannister would have been made heir. Tion might have received some guidance and grooming from Gerald. But you can already see that Robb is paid far more attention to than Brandon in terms of grooming to lead. Brandon and Rickon and even Jon are groomed to be adults who have values and don't shame their houses, but it is clear that Ned is grooming Robb.

 

Tion too is already a man grown when Tywald dies leaving him heir to Casterly Rock. He had even married a Reyne girl. It is only his death in the blackfire rebellion which left Tytos as heir. So for Tytos' entire life he never expected to be Lord of Casterly Rock. With two older brothers, both knights and notable warriors, both groomed by their father to one extent or another to take his place as lord, Tytos would have had a very third brother mentality. He had the name, the wealth and none of the responsibility which is why he was able to become a bad lord. Further, even Gerald the Golden only became lord of casterly rock because his elder brother Tybolt died without issue. So Tytos, as the third adult son of a lord who was a second son, probably was never thought of as the successor to the lordship.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

If there was a king like Tytos the rule of an entire kingdom would break down

Again, this depends I think. To a great extent it depends on the people around you. I think the most obvious case to look at here is Aerys II Targaryen. He had no dragons which were the source of power. He had 7 kingdoms to rule and at his best it could be said he was "benign" and at worst, well, he was the mad king. He did manage, however, to rule the kingdoms thanks to Tywin being a strong Hand. We can also look at Aerys I however. He was pretty much totally checked out as king. He didn't do anything. But Bloodraven saw to the governance for him. Also, Robert, by even his own admission, was an awful king. However, with Jon Arryn as hand the kingdoms saw a healing from the revolution, reincorporation of Dorne, peace and prosperity. So if you put a guy like tytos in the seat of winterfell and make him KITN yeah, he could very well cause some big problems. That said, if he was smart enough to bring in and empower advisors that would do the necessary things to rule, then I am sure it could be weathered.

 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

The way the Lords of the North are depicted suggests that they would exploit any such weakness to actually attack the king/lord in charge. They would not formally obey or do homage to such a king but turn against him and kill him at the earliest opportunity

I wonder which KITN was ruling when House Bolton rose against winterfell. It would be interesting to see if that had any bearing on this discussion.

EDIT: Harlon Stark is the King who defeated the Bolton uprising. Whether or not he was the king at the start of it I do not know.

[Lord Varys]

1 hour ago, YOVMO said:

THis is true and Ned putting demands on a 3 year old Rickon, if indicative of the way most Starks or, indeed, northerners raise their kids might have insulated them from having weak offspring. So long as you side on nurture over nature then you can assume that the line of Starks would have all had the seriousness to rule the north as it would have been engrained in them. Of course some would be better suited than others, but I don't see any King SoandSo The Laughing Wolf being named.

I think we can safely say that some Starks are wilder and more ruthless than others. There is this whole wolf blood thing which Arya, Lyanna, and Brandon had, and which presumably could be responsible for a lot of the more foolhardy and cruel notions of the ancient Starks.

In addition, more often than not the elder sons would die before they could inherit the crown or lordship and then people who weren't exactly groomed to rule but to follow would inherit. That must have happened quite often in the long history of House Stark.

1 hour ago, YOVMO said:

As for lack of plenty, I don't know. I mean, sure, they aren't the reach. But there are long springs and summers with good harvests. The North seems to be a lot closer to Wisconsin than it does Antarctica. They don't have the bounty of high garden, but there is def a system in place to make sure that the bountiful springs and summers yield creates a surplus that will see through long winters.

The Starks have to deal with summer snows. It is not a very fertile land. Perhaps it is somewhat better farther down south, closer to the Neck, but not around Winterfell or farther up north. Still, men can live off those lands but there is either a very slow or non-existing population growth and long winters really cull the population.

1 hour ago, YOVMO said:

I don't think that Gerold was a bad father or lord, but remember that Tytos was a third son. I am not sure how much grooming to be a lord he would have undergone. Tywald would have been Gerold's naturally assumed heir. He even grew into adulthood, showed enough promise as a squire to be knighted by then Prince Aegon himself. His character seemed more the naturally gifted leader and his grooming would have been obvious. After his death, the second brother, Tion Lannister would have been made heir. Tion might have received some guidance and grooming from Gerald. But you can already see that Robb is paid far more attention to than Brandon in terms of grooming to lead. Brandon and Rickon and even Jon are groomed to be adults who have values and don't shame their houses, but it is clear that Ned is grooming Robb.

The thing is that Yandel actually mentions that Gerold tried to groom Tytos to rule after him. It just didn't work. That's while Gerold yet lived and after he has sent Ellyn and the Reynes away.

1 hour ago, YOVMO said:

Again, this depends I think. To a great extent it depends on the people around you. I think the most obvious case to look at here is Aerys II Targaryen. He had no dragons which were the source of power. He had 7 kingdoms to rule and at his best it could be said he was "benign" and at worst, well, he was the mad king. He did manage, however, to rule the kingdoms thanks to Tywin being a strong Hand. We can also look at Aerys I however. He was pretty much totally checked out as king. He didn't do anything. But Bloodraven saw to the governance for him. Also, Robert, by even his own admission, was an awful king. However, with Jon Arryn as hand the kingdoms saw a healing from the revolution, reincorporation of Dorne, peace and prosperity. So if you put a guy like tytos in the seat of winterfell and make him KITN yeah, he could very well cause some big problems. That said, if he was smart enough to bring in and empower advisors that would do the necessary things to rule, then I am sure it could be weathered.

There is a clear difference between the Targaryen administration and the Stark administration. The Targaryens have an established council and a bunch of offices with the Hand essentially acting as a lieutenant king who shoulder a lot of the burdens of the government. King Robb has neither a council nor a Hand after his proclamation, and I don't think he would have ever named a Hand. The Kings in the North didn't seem to have any of those.

My impression is that the rule of the Starks was much more direct, more comparable to the early Targaryen reign where there was already a Hand and some advisers but it still fell to the king to decide everything. There is a reason why Aerys I was a pretty successful absentee king while Aenys I failed. Neither were particularly good at taking charge yet Aerys I could delegate the government of the Realm to Bloodraven while Aenys I couldn't.

If the Kings in the North also ruled in those more direct and personal manner I see not much room for non-charismatic and weak kings.

[YOVMO]

17 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

There is this whole wolf blood thing which Arya, Lyanna, and Brandon had, and which presumably could be responsible for a lot of the more foolhardy and cruel notions of the ancient Starks.

The wolfblood question could be an entire thread on its own (and probably is). It really does work in conjunction with other personality traits as an amplifier I believe. This is why we don't see any really moderate starks. Even Ned who may seem moderate is so severe in his sense of honor that it is almost pathological. I think that what wolf blood tends to do is turn things up to 11. So Brandon is a kind of cocksure and swaggering guy which is why the wolfblood in him leads him to do stuff like rush to Kings Landing and demand the execution of the Crown Prince. But look how it expresses itself in Lyanna....it is more empathy....the way she defends Howland Reed is one example. I also think that as we find out more about her relationship with Rhaegar we will see her as a caring and empathetic person turned up to 11 due to Wolf Blood. Anyway, that is just my guess at it.

 

21 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

The Starks have to deal with summer snows. It is not a very fertile land. Perhaps it is somewhat better farther down south, closer to the Neck, but not around Winterfell or farther up north. Still, men can live off those lands but there is either a very slow or non-existing population growth and long winters really cull the population.

I always got the sense that the North (and we are talking about a big bit of land here so it is hard to compare, say, Karhold, to Manderly lands but on average) would be more fertile than both Dorne and the Iron Islands and possibly even more so than the Westerlands which is wealthy in ore but not necessarily turnips ya know. I guess I always pictured the north, especially during the spring, summer and fall as being a very good area for crops and livestock (much the way a lot of Russia is).

 

24 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

The thing is that Yandel actually mentions that Gerold tried to groom Tytos to rule after him. It just didn't work. That's while Gerold yet lived and after he has sent Ellyn and the Reynes away.

I get this, but put yourself in Tytos' place. You are walking around your entire life with a fair certainty that you will never have any real responsibility. Even if he was being taught I can't see him taking it too seriously. Of course his natural inclinations played a role here, but I do believe that that is a role that would have been mitigated at least (even if not eradicated) if Tytos had been a first son and known from childhood that he was to take his father's seat one day. It took the Peake uprising and the fourth blackfyre rebellion and over 20 years before Tytos realized he was to rule. The formative years being long over, he kind of had to learn on the fly after spending a whole life really not taking it very seriously. The character flaws that damaged house Lannister so much might have been more seriously addressed before they were allowed to take root if he had been a first son.

 

30 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

There is a clear difference between the Targaryen administration and the Stark administration. The Targaryens have an established council and a bunch of offices with the Hand essentially acting as a lieutenant king who shoulder a lot of the burdens of the government. King Robb has neither a council nor a Hand after his proclamation, and I don't think he would have ever named a Hand. The Kings in the North didn't seem to have any of those.

It is hard to say. Lady Dustin seems to think that often Maester's have acted almost as King's Hands to the Stark....at least in the case of Rickard and Luwin does wield quite a bit of influence over Ned. We have 8 millennia of stark rule and a very sketchy portrait of how that administration was carried out. I am sure every king had people around him and to what degree he was a solitary ruler or a man who looked to advisors for help probably had a lot to do with the personality of the King himself. At the time when the Kings of Winter were opposed by the Red Kings it does seem like it would be a smaller and more personal administration but as the power of winterfell grew to where it ruled everything from the neck to the wall I feel that even though we haven't been given a clear description of it, there must have been some form of administrative system in place where some power was delegated.

[Free Northman Reborn]

Quote

 

I think it is simplistic (ironically, and uncharacteristically for Lord Varys) to suggest that the Starks did not have weak kings over the course of 8000 years. Their kings would have varied greatly in strength, quality and capability over the millennia. I am perfectly fine with the idea that weak Stark kings did not tend to last as long as weak Gardener kings in flowery Highgarden, but a lot would depend on specific circumstances.

Edrick Snowbeard may not have started off weak, but he appears to have been incapable of securing his kingdom for a long time towards the end of his life. And he is just one we know about.

The rate of attrition might well have been higher among the Starks, especially among weak ones, but the fact is the House has lasted for 8000 years, so their rule could not have been so fragile that every weak King threatened their continued existence. There must be something inherent to the social or geo-political structure they had created which repeatedly righted the proverbial ship whenever it hit rough waters - which appears to have happened fairly often in the harsh North.

As for the land in the North - well. The Starks gave Bear Island to the Mormonts. They gave the Wolfsden to the Manderlys. They killed the original rulers of the Rills and let the Ryswells take control of it. They gave Karhold to the Karstarks. They drove out the Blackwoods and gave large parts of their territory to the Glovers, it seems. They were able to give the original Gift to the Watch, millennia ago, despite it being very far from Winterfell.

Even the lands of the Red Kings were partially carved off and given to Stark loyalists over the centuries. It would seem that the Starks had freedom to dispose of large parts of the North as they chose, in millennia past.

[Lord Varys]

2 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

I think it is simplistic (ironically, and uncharacteristically for Lord Varys) to suggest that the Starks did not have weak kings over the course of 8000 years. Their kings would have varied greatly in strength, quality and capability over the millennia. I am perfectly fine with the idea that weak Stark kings did not tend to last as long as weak Gardener kings in flowery Highgarden, but a lot would depend on specific circumstances.

Sure, I did not say that there might have been no weak kings, just that they would have lasted all that long. Or perhaps even that primogeniture was pretty much irrelevant if there was a lackwit, crippled, or sissified elder son and a more martial and capable younger son or uncle).

2 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Edrick Snowbeard may not have started off weak, but he appears to have been incapable of securing his kingdom for a long time towards the end of his life. And he is just one we know about.

Sure, but you usually don't topple old kings, at least not when those men have an army of sons, grandsons, and great-grandsons (which Edrick Snowbeard apparently had). The Starks as a royal family were never in danger there but a senile king made it difficult for his too many heirs to dispense justice in his name.

And who knows, perhaps Brandon Ice-Eyes personally put the old man down in the end to stop this freak show? We have no idea. However, the point there is that sons and grandsons seldom murder their own fathers and grandsons to seize power. They wait until they die. Especially if the old man lived for a very long time and has been the patriarch of house for as long as they can think. They have been raised to look up to their elders, after all.

2 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

The rate of attrition might well have been higher among the Starks, especially among weak ones, but the fact is the House has lasted for 8000 years, so their rule could not have been so fragile that every weak King threatened their continued existence.

Actually, we don't know whether House Stark (or any house in Westeros) has actually lasted for 8,000 years because we don't really know when exactly the Long Night took place.

And again, I never said a weak king threatened the dynasty. There are many other older houses than the Starks which still exist and would also have had the occasional weakling lord/king. Just look at the present Lord Mooton. The man seems to be a disgrace yet he is hardly representative for this line of usual valiant and brave men.

 The point is that a king dealing with as aggressive (and mad) dogs as the Northmen seem to be would not likely to be able to exert more than nominal control over more his more powerful bannermen unless he was the true steel and willing and capable to punish every slight very harshly.

The Boltons could easily enough have been virtually independent during a succession of (relatively) weak kings or while the Starks were otherwise occupied (perhaps with the Ironborn or a string of would-be Andal invaders?). And the same could go for those other houses who were formally under the thumb of the Starks (like the Umbers, etc.).

I mean, we are in agreement that the Targaryens exerted not all that much direct power over the North, right? By analogy it should be pretty obvious that the dragonless Starks couldn't enforce their will in Bolton or Umber lands if the Boltons and Umbers were unwilling to comply. They could still pay lip service to the king in Winterfell, etc. but this doesn't mean that the Starks had much power in their lands.

I mean, during those long harsh winters entire regions of the North should be either completely isolated or very difficult to reach. This will naturally go against central government and in favor of the people taking care of themselves, most at the time.

2 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

As for the land in the North - well. The Starks gave Bear Island to the Mormonts. They gave the Wolfsden to the Manderlys. They killed the original rulers of the Rills and let the Ryswells take control of it. They gave Karhold to the Karstarks. They drove out the Blackwoods and gave large parts of their territory to the Glovers, it seems. They were able to give the original Gift to the Watch, millennia ago, despite it being very far from Winterfell.

Ah, well, that's not different from Aegon the Conqueror taking and giving the lands he had conquered (either back to their original 'owners' or to new men of his own choice). Does this truly mean he ever owned the land? The whole feudal thing is usually practiced because you as the king cannot take care and defend all your lands so you give them to some other people and hope/demand that they help you when you need help in return. A place like the Wolf's Den or Bear Island could easily be called a poisoned gift because the people who were rewarded in this way had to fight off the Ironborn and other raiders, often at the risk of their very lives. 

2 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Even the lands of the Red Kings were partially carved off and given to Stark loyalists over the centuries. It would seem that the Starks had freedom to dispose of large parts of the North as they chose, in millennia past.

Certainly, I never doubted that the Starks once (or more than once) conquered the lands that eventually made up their kingdom. As such conquerors they could give them to other people. However, does this means they always had the same amount of control over those lands? I doubt that. The best example for this is actually Rodrik's pessimism that even King Robb (not the Lord of Winterfell but the King in the North) could take away the Hornwood lands from Roose and Ramsay after the latter had married Lady Hornwood in front of witnesses. That puts a severe limit to the power of a King in the North. He is clearly not the master in his own house if you assume such masterly includes ruling supreme in the lands he is nominally the king of.

[Free Northman Reborn]

12 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Sure, I did not say that there might have been no weak kings, just that they would have lasted all that long. Or perhaps even that primogeniture was pretty much irrelevant if there was a lackwit, crippled, or sissified elder son and a more martial and capable younger son or uncle).

Sure, but you usually don't topple old kings, at least not when those men have an army of sons, grandsons, and great-grandsons (which Edrick Snowbeard apparently had). The Starks as a royal family were never in danger there but a senile king made it difficult for his too many heirs to dispense justice in his name.

And who knows, perhaps Brandon Ice-Eyes personally put the old man down in the end to stop this freak show? We have no idea. However, the point there is that sons and grandsons seldom murder their own fathers and grandsons to seize power. They wait until they die. Especially if the old man lived for a very long time and has been the patriarch of house for as long as they can think. They have been raised to look up to their elders, after all.

Actually, we don't know whether House Stark (or any house in Westeros) has actually lasted for 8,000 years because we don't really know when exactly the Long Night took place.

And again, I never said a weak king threatened the dynasty. There are many other older houses than the Starks which still exist and would also have had the occasional weakling lord/king. Just look at the present Lord Mooton. The man seems to be a disgrace yet he is hardly representative for this line of usual valiant and brave men.

 The point is that a king dealing with as aggressive (and mad) dogs as the Northmen seem to be would not likely to be able to exert more than nominal control over more his more powerful bannermen unless he was the true steel and willing and capable to punish every slight very harshly.

The Boltons could easily enough have been virtually independent during a succession of (relatively) weak kings or while the Starks were otherwise occupied (perhaps with the Ironborn or a string of would-be Andal invaders?). And the same could go for those other houses who were formally under the thumb of the Starks (like the Umbers, etc.).

I mean, we are in agreement that the Targaryens exerted not all that much direct power over the North, right? By analogy it should be pretty obvious that the dragonless Starks couldn't enforce their will in Bolton or Umber lands if the Boltons and Umbers were unwilling to comply. They could still pay lip service to the king in Winterfell, etc. but this doesn't mean that the Starks had much power in their lands.

I mean, during those long harsh winters entire regions of the North should be either completely isolated or very difficult to reach. This will naturally go against central government and in favor of the people taking care of themselves, most at the time.

Ah, well, that's not different from Aegon the Conqueror taking and giving the lands he had conquered (either back to their original 'owners' or to new men of his own choice). Does this truly mean he ever owned the land? The whole feudal thing is usually practiced because you as the king cannot take care and defend all your lands so you give them to some other people and hope/demand that they help you when you need help in return. A place like the Wolf's Den or Bear Island could easily be called a poisoned gift because the people who were rewarded in this way had to fight off the Ironborn and other raiders, often at the risk of their very lives. 

Certainly, I never doubted that the Starks once (or more than once) conquered the lands that eventually made up their kingdom. As such conquerors they could give them to other people. However, does this means they always had the same amount of control over those lands? I doubt that. The best example for this is actually Rodrik's pessimism that even King Robb (not the Lord of Winterfell but the King in the North) could take away the Hornwood lands from Roose and Ramsay after the latter had married Lady Hornwood in front of witnesses. That puts a severe limit to the power of a King in the North. He is clearly not the master in his own house if you assume such masterly includes ruling supreme in the lands he is nominally the king of.

I think we are largely in agreement then. It is entirely logical that control would vary over far flung regions depending on the strength or focus of attention of a particular Stark king. I have no dispute with that. Similarly, a strong Stark king would command absolute allegiance on threat of extinguishing a faithless vassal. That is the way of the North.

Just on Rodrik and the Hornwoods. I think Rodrik's concern - if such a strong word is even warranted - was  whether certain actions could lead to potential conflict - which he preferred to avoid. But he couldn't seriously doubt that Robb could enforce his will if he so chose, even if through force.

In any case, if the nature of the North (its size, isolation and climate) makes individual regions more insular and difficult to administer directly from Winterfell, well, that is again, entirely logical. And conversely, if proximity to Casterly Rock or the Eyrie makes vassals of the Lannisters and Arryns less inclined to disagree with their overlords, well, again, that is entirely a consequence of logistics and practicality, rather than some kind of greater status enjoyed by the Ruling Houses in the South compared to that in the North.

From what we have seen the Starks are as close to a revered political institution as you are likely to find in Westeros. Certainly the Martells, Tullys, Baratheons and Tyrells seem far less respected as Dynastic rulers of their kingdoms than the Starks.

And I would argue that even the Lannisters before Tywin were more of a first among equals than respected overlords to their vassals.

[Lord Varys]

22 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

I think we are largely in agreement then. It is entirely logical that control would vary over far flung regions depending on the strength or focus of attention of a particular Stark king. I have no dispute with that. Similarly, a strong Stark king would command absolute allegiance on threat of extinguishing a faithless vassal. That is the way of the North.

Well, I don't think no king in Westeros, not even a Targaryen king with as many dragons as Jaehaerys I or Viserys I, ever commanded 'absolute allegiance'. If things were that easy then the Boltons would have been long extinguished. Their very presence and the mistrust (Ned) and fear (Robb) have of Roose suggests that their rule over at least those men was never absolute.

And we have to ask ourselves how often the Starks ever called all their banners. Most likely only when invaded foreign territories (like Andalos or the Vale) and not when they had repel some invasion at Moat Cailin or when they had to deal with regional troubles like some Ironborn incursions or the Wolf's Den issue.

Troubles at the eastern coast would have to be dealt with mainly with the help of the people living there, and the same would go for all the other regions. One assumes that it would have been dangerous/foolish call the Ryswells, Glovers, and Dustins to deal with raiders at the eastern coasts while the Ironborn were still a constant threat, etc.

22 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Just on Rodrik and the Hornwoods. I think Rodrik's concern - if such a strong word is even warranted - was  whether certain actions could lead to potential conflict - which he preferred to avoid. But he couldn't seriously doubt that Robb could enforce his will if he so chose, even if through force.

I suggest you go back to ACoK and actually read the whole thing. Here it is:

Quote

“The monster has tied us a thorny knot,” the old knight told Maester Luwin. “Like it or no, Lady Hornwood was his wife. He made her say the vows before both septon and heart tree, and bedded her that very night before witnesses. She signed a will naming him as heir and fixed her seal to it.”

“Vows made at sword point are not valid,” the maester argued.
“Roose Bolton may not agree. Not with land at issue.” Ser Rodrik looked unhappy. “Would that I could take this serving man’s head off as well, he’s as bad as his master. But I fear I must keep him alive until Robb returns from his wars. He is the only witness to the worst of the Bastard’s crimes. Perhaps when Lord Bolton hears his tale, he will abandon his claim, but meantime we have Manderly knights and Dreadfort men killing one another in Hornwood forests, and I lack the strength to stop them.”

I don't think the text supports your view on the matter. It clearly shows that Roose Bolton has now a claim to the Hornwood lands through his bastard Ramsay (whom Rodrik believes to be dead at that point) who was married to the late Lady Hornwood and her official heir.

Robb would have to take those facts into consideration and while Ramsay clearly committed crimes his actions profited House Bolton which means that Roose would not let this matter go.

22 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

In any case, if the nature of the North (its size, isolation and climate) makes individual regions more insular and difficult to administer directly from Winterfell, well, that is again, entirely logical. And conversely, if proximity to Casterly Rock or the Eyrie makes vassals of the Lannisters and Arryns less inclined to disagree with their overlords, well, again, that is entirely a consequence of logistics and practicality, rather than some kind of greater status enjoyed by the Ruling Houses in the South compared to that in the North.

That was exactly part of my point. However, it is not all of it. A Southron lord or king is never routinely challenged by his bannermen the way Robb was by the Greatjon and others, and that shows that these men are less likely to stick to their vows, promises and duties if they feel the wolf they are supposed to follow has no teeth.

It is pretty clear that no Lord of the North would ever acknowledge a cripple like Bran as his king or lord. The overwhelming majority look at him with contempt and disgust.

It could be that the vastness of the North fueled this kind of semi-independence in many of its lords, but that inevitable resulted in the Starks having less direct control over their domains. Distance matters, and thus the kings of smaller kingdoms can exert more direct control over their territories than kings of larger kingdoms.

22 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

From what we have seen the Starks are as close to a revered political institution as you are likely to find in Westeros. Certainly the Martells, Tullys, Baratheons and Tyrells seem far less respected as Dynastic rulers of their kingdoms than the Starks.

You think so? On what grounds? The Martells are still the Princes of Dorne. They acknowledge the rule of the Iron Throne but they retained most of their old rights and privileges unlike the other former kings. A man like Doran seems weak and timid yet he is the Prince of Dorne and men seek his favor. You don't see his iron fist but he knows and controls the things that happen in his realm.

Not to mention, you know, that historical figures like the Yellow Toad should be veritable national heroes considering how they resisted the dragons back in the day. This kind of thing would have ingrained the rule of House Martell very deep in the cultural memory of the Dornishmen.

The Tullys and Tyrells never were kings so it would be stupid to compare to the former royal lines. The Baratheons never were kings, either, but they are Durrandons through the female lines and the legitimate heirs of the old royal dynasty. There is a continuity there that seems to have been passed on without any losses of status and loyalty.

22 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

And I would argue that even the Lannisters before Tywin were more of a first among equals than respected overlords to their vassals.

That is also a very weird statement. On what do you base that? The Lannisters are a very ancient royal line, having ruled as kings since the days of Lann the Clever. They control the third largest city in the Realm (and the second largest city of the old Seven Kingdoms), and they also happen to control an impregnable castle full of gold which is a veritable city in itself, considering its size.

If there is a family which seems to be vastly overpowered and outshining every rival in their own lands - as well as many other royal houses - it is the Lannisters. In fact, I'd go as far as assumes that the Lions of the Rock always were the most powerful royal house in their own lands and the second most prestigious royal line in the Seven Kingdoms (after the Gardeners).

[Lord Varys]

14 hours ago, YOVMO said:

The wolfblood question could be an entire thread on its own (and probably is). It really does work in conjunction with other personality traits as an amplifier I believe.

I would not speculate on that. Ned tells us it makes those who have it wild, and I believe that.

14 hours ago, YOVMO said:

I always got the sense that the North (and we are talking about a big bit of land here so it is hard to compare, say, Karhold, to Manderly lands but on average) would be more fertile than both Dorne and the Iron Islands and possibly even more so than the Westerlands which is wealthy in ore but not necessarily turnips ya know. I guess I always pictured the north, especially during the spring, summer and fall as being a very good area for crops and livestock (much the way a lot of Russia is).

The North certainly would have more fertile land in total than Dorne but I think the fertile lands of Dorne (those outside of the Sands, in the north-eastern reaches and along the Greenblood and the other rivers) should be more fertile than the average farmland in the North.

If you reread the descriptions of the various kingdoms in TWoIaF then especially the West, the Reach, the Riverlands, and the Vale are described as including very fertile land (the Crownlands should fall into that category, too). The North and the Iron Islands are not very fertile, and the Stormlands are not described as being particularly fertile.

The West is not only very rich in metals but also in fertile lands which is made evident by its large population. They are not buying their food, they are growing it right there.

14 hours ago, YOVMO said:

I get this, but put yourself in Tytos' place. You are walking around your entire life with a fair certainty that you will never have any real responsibility. Even if he was being taught I can't see him taking it too seriously. Of course his natural inclinations played a role here, but I do believe that that is a role that would have been mitigated at least (even if not eradicated) if Tytos had been a first son and known from childhood that he was to take his father's seat one day. It took the Peake uprising and the fourth blackfyre rebellion and over 20 years before Tytos realized he was to rule. The formative years being long over, he kind of had to learn on the fly after spending a whole life really not taking it very seriously. The character flaws that damaged house Lannister so much might have been more seriously addressed before they were allowed to take root if he had been a first son.

It is possible, yet Samwell was a first son and always knew he would one day be the Lord of Horn Hill yet that didn't make him brave, decisive, or charismatic.

Or look at differences between Aenys I and Maegor the Cruel. Aenys I was sickly as a child and while he grew into a reasonably good swordsman as an adult he remained indecisive despite the fact that the Conqueror had groomed him to rule his entire life.

14 hours ago, YOVMO said:

It is hard to say. Lady Dustin seems to think that often Maester's have acted almost as King's Hands to the Stark....at least in the case of Rickard and Luwin does wield quite a bit of influence over Ned. We have 8 millennia of stark rule and a very sketchy portrait of how that administration was carried out. I am sure every king had people around him and to what degree he was a solitary ruler or a man who looked to advisors for help probably had a lot to do with the personality of the King himself. At the time when the Kings of Winter were opposed by the Red Kings it does seem like it would be a smaller and more personal administration but as the power of winterfell grew to where it ruled everything from the neck to the wall I feel that even though we haven't been given a clear description of it, there must have been some form of administrative system in place where some power was delegated.

Oh, I think you are going way to far with your maester idea there. Maesters actually never rule, they advise. They don't sit in judgment over others nor are they supposed to rule. The idea that a maester would have been actually running the show in the North just because Lady Dustin believes Lord Rickard's was unduly influenced by his maester regarding the marriage of his eldest son and heir is a little bit far-fetched.

The difference is that the Iron Throne monarchs established a system where the government could, at times, function without much direct guidance and leadership from the king if there were capable Hands around. There is no reason to believe that the same was true in the North where a lot seems to be done and overseen by the king personally. Robb doesn't even name a regent for the North in his absence. Rodrik acts in his stead simply because no other person is there.

There certainly must have been also advisers and some bureaucracy, don't take me wrong, but I doubt that it was very developed or all that intricate.

[Free Northman Reborn]

56 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, I don't think no king in Westeros, not even a Targaryen king with as many dragons as Jaehaerys I or Viserys I, ever commanded 'absolute allegiance'. If things were that easy then the Boltons would have been long extinguished. Their very presence and the mistrust (Ned) and fear (Robb) have of Roose suggests that their rule over at least those men was never absolute.

And we have to ask ourselves how often the Starks ever called all their banners. Most likely only when invaded foreign territories (like Andalos or the Vale) and not when they had repel some invasion at Moat Cailin or when they had to deal with regional troubles like some Ironborn incursions or the Wolf's Den issue.

Troubles at the eastern coast would have to be dealt with mainly with the help of the people living there, and the same would go for all the other regions. One assumes that it would have been dangerous/foolish call the Ryswells, Glovers, and Dustins to deal with raiders at the eastern coasts while the Ironborn were still a constant threat, etc.

I suggest you go back to ACoK and actually read the whole thing. Here it is:

I don't think the text supports your view on the matter. It clearly shows that Roose Bolton has now a claim to the Hornwood lands through his bastard Ramsay (whom Rodrik believes to be dead at that point) who was married to the late Lady Hornwood and her official heir.

Robb would have to take those facts into consideration and while Ramsay clearly committed crimes his actions profited House Bolton which means that Roose would not let this matter go.

That was exactly part of my point. However, it is not all of it. A Southron lord or king is never routinely challenged by his bannermen the way Robb was by the Greatjon and others, and that shows that these men are less likely to stick to their vows, promises and duties if they feel the wolf they are supposed to follow has no teeth.

It is pretty clear that no Lord of the North would ever acknowledge a cripple like Bran as his king or lord. The overwhelming majority look at him with contempt and disgust.

It could be that the vastness of the North fueled this kind of semi-independence in many of its lords, but that inevitable resulted in the Starks having less direct control over their domains. Distance matters, and thus the kings of smaller kingdoms can exert more direct control over their territories than kings of larger kingdoms.

You think so? On what grounds? The Martells are still the Princes of Dorne. They acknowledge the rule of the Iron Throne but they retained most of their old rights and privileges unlike the other former kings. A man like Doran seems weak and timid yet he is the Prince of Dorne and men seek his favor. You don't see his iron fist but he knows and controls the things that happen in his realm.

Not to mention, you know, that historical figures like the Yellow Toad should be veritable national heroes considering how they resisted the dragons back in the day. This kind of thing would have ingrained the rule of House Martell very deep in the cultural memory of the Dornishmen.

The Tullys and Tyrells never were kings so it would be stupid to compare to the former royal lines. The Baratheons never were kings, either, but they are Durrandons through the female lines and the legitimate heirs of the old royal dynasty. There is a continuity there that seems to have been passed on without any losses of status and loyalty.

That is also a very weird statement. On what do you base that? The Lannisters are a very ancient royal line, having ruled as kings since the days of Lann the Clever. They control the third largest city in the Realm (and the second largest city of the old Seven Kingdoms), and they also happen to control an impregnable castle full of gold which is a veritable city in itself, considering its size.

If there is a family which seems to be vastly overpowered and outshining every rival in their own lands - as well as many other royal houses - it is the Lannisters. In fact, I'd go as far as assumes that the Lions of the Rock always were the most powerful royal house in their own lands and the second most prestigious royal line in the Seven Kingdoms (after the Gardeners).

I see Rodrik's comments quite clearly as referring to Robb needing to be back before he could deal with the Boltons, and until then he had to maintain the peace amongst the quarrelling vassals.

As for the Lannisters, I'm talking about the Lannisters under Tywin's father. They were a laughing stock.

As for Dorne, Doran had to send his his son Quentyn to foster at House Yronwood to maintain the peace after Oberyn killed Edgar Yronwood in a duel. The history is quite clear that House Yronwood has long been a fierce rival to the Martells.

I get the idea you are trying to give life, which is that the Starks are somehow less in command of their realm than the other kings were. I just don't think this is an idea with any merit. The culture in the North is just different. With a greater respect for strength, a more prickly, violence-prone disposition, greater self reliance amongst distant lords, and insular attitudes. The Starks are the only thing that binds them all together. And have for thousands of years.

As to what I base it on:

The Manderlys and the fierce loyalty they proclaim to their ancient oath. The Reeds and the solemnness with which they reaffirm their ancient oaths, the Mountain Clansmen who proclaim that when the Starks were still in charge everything was as it should be, a "maiden could ride naked from Moat Cailin to the Wall, unmolested."

The broader group of Mountain Clansmen, going to war for Ned's daughter.

The Mormonts declaring they serve only one king in the North, named Stark.

I think what we need to clarify, is that none of the above means that lords don't have free agency. If a lord has a particular interest, and the ruling Stark opposes that interest, the lord will follow his own will to try and achieve his interests. In that case, force, or peer pressure or loss of material or status would dissuade him from acting against Winterfell. If he feels those risks are slim, then he will act. Like the Ryders did when Theon Stark was off fighting wars in the East.

Or like the Boltons did when Robb was fighting a war in the South. That does not signify that the Starks are somehow less in control of their realm than the Southron kings were. The North is just less bound by chivalric rules, and more bound by pack leader mentality. They are rawer, more violent and harsher than their southron counterparts, and need to be managed accordingly.

[Lord Varys]

24 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

I see Rodrik's comments quite clearly as referring to Robb needing to be back before he could deal with the Boltons, and until then he had to maintain the peace amongst the quarrelling vassals.

That's not what he says. Rodrik even admits he cannot keep the peace. There is fighting between the Boltons and the Manderlys and he is powerless to stop it.

And Rodrik doesn't even have to authority to rule on this whole thing. He isn't the regent of the North, he is just the castellan of Winterfell.

24 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

As for the Lannisters, I'm talking about the Lannisters under Tywin's father. They were a laughing stock.

But that's just an episode, that much is clearly. Gerold was no failure, and neither was Tywin. Nor any of the other Lannister lords we know by name.

24 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

As for Dorne, Doran had to send his his son Quentyn to foster at House Yronwood to maintain the peace after Oberyn killed Edgar Yronwood in a duel. The history is quite clear that House Yronwood has long been a fierce rival to the Martells.

That was a nasty affair but it didn't really threaten Martell rule of Dorne. We have no reason to believe that Yronwoods ever had a great chance to topple the Martells as the Princes of Dorne. They were involved in some Blackfyre rebellions but what they goals were is completely unclear.

24 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

I get the idea you are trying to give life, which is that the Starks are somehow less in command of their realm than the other kings were. I just don't think this is an idea with any merit. The culture in the North is just different. With a greater respect for strength, a more prickly, violence-prone disposition, greater self reliance amongst distant lords, and insular attitudes. The Starks are the only thing that binds them all together. And have for thousands of years.

How tight are they bound together? A Manderly and an Umber don't seem to have all that much in common, don't they? We are not talking about a nation here, we are talking about feudal kingdom under the (nominal) rule of some king.

Those lords seem to be the ones who are very fervently in the Stark camp. I'd add the Tallharts, considering they are very much trusted by Ned in AGoT.

But there is a reason that we don't hear the Dustins, Boltons, Ryswells, Umbers show such loyalty. In fact, I think we can be reasonably certain that the Starks were never popular or even well-liked in Bolton lands.

I'd say the Starks control very strong heartlands around Winterfell, in the Glover, Cerwyn, Tallhart, Manderly lands. They usually can count on those houses. But there are others they cannot count upon in the same manner.

And we should ignore the Reeds as factor considering that they are essentially never leaving their swamps. They are a political non-factor unless the North is invaded through the Neck. They are likely to play a role in a civil war in the North as become clear in ADwD.

24 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

I think what we need to clarify, is that none of the above means that lords don't have free agency. If a lord has a particular interest, and the ruling Stark opposes that interest, the lord will follow his own will to try and achieve his interests. In that case, force, or peer pressure or loss of material or status would dissuade him from acting against Winterfell. If he feels those risks are slim, then he will act. Like the Ryders did when Theon Stark was off fighting wars in the East.

Sure, that is not disputed.

24 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

That does not signify that the Starks are somehow less in control of their realm than the Southron kings were. The North is just less bound by chivalric rules, and more bound by pack leader mentality. They are rawer, more violent and harsher than their southron counterparts, and need to be managed accordingly.

Well, I think I have given evidence that makes it more likely that the Starks might have had a harder time keeping in control of their kingdom than the others.

(1) The way Robb was challenged by the likes of Greatjon Umber and the other bannermen of his father. That essentially borders on outright treason. And there is talk that this kind of behavior is not uncommon. Robb and Bran reflect on that in AGoT. And we have no reason to believe that other great lords are treated in the same way by their vassals.

(2) The vast distances in the North make it essentially very difficult to exert the same amount of direct control everywhere. That sets the North apart from the other kingdoms. The Starks might still be worshiped by, say, the clansmen in some village, but this doesn't mean that the laws of Winterfell actually rule or affect the life there. I mean, we know that the Starks don't even visit those lands all that often.

We are talking about direct political power which can influence the life of people. Let's say a Stark king introduced a new horrible way to execute people (or that a certain crime is no longer subject to the death penalty). How great are the chances that he could implement such a thing in all corners of his kingdom if a sizable number of lords simply considers this whole thing a very bad idea?

In a smaller kingdom that would work much better, and it should also be possible to imply such new things in the lands around Winterfell or with the lords that are very close to the Starks. Because the king would exert a lot of immediate and direct influence over those lords.