Is Jon to blame? #NotMyKing

[John Suburbs]

11 hours ago, AlaskanSandman said:

Is Jon to blame by us or the Watch for allowing the Wildlings and sworn enemy to pass? When the decision comes from "King" Stannis. Does this conflict with their vows and staying out of southern affairs?

 

The Night's Watch takes no part in the affairs of the South, but what happens when a king or a queen comes to the Wall? What happens when they order the Wildlings through the wall and settled in the gift?

Well, what happens when a queen comes North and orders land handed over to the Watch as the New Gift? Or orders the Night's Watched closed and a new castle built? Or orders the Lords and Nights Watch to end first Night? What would have happened if Alysanne had ordered the Wildlings through the Wall and settled in the gift? 
 

Would the Lord Commander fight said King or Queen? Resist? To what end? What if violence is threatened against the Watch? Does the Lord Commander have the right? His castles don't defend against the southern lords. 

Should Jon defy Stannis and refuse? What then? Would Stannis give Jon to the flames? Would there be war? Is it in Jon's power to obey the King, and or defy the King? How so, when you cannot defend your self against any king inflicting his will?

 

Edit- Im personally greatly interested in how Benjen and Eddard planned to settle the gift

Edit, Edit- This post in no way is questioning the reason's Jon was stabbed, which were for leading a group to Winterfell to rescue his sister. 

Getting back to the OP:

Stannis is king of the realm (in his own mind, at least) but Jon has the wall. So Stannis can allow wildlings into the realm, but only Jon can allow them to pass through the wall. It's the same rationale by which Stannis cannot simply take the abandoned castles and give them to his knights; he can only do so with Jon's permission, and Jon permits him only the Nightfort.

So the answer to your question is two-fold: Stannis is responsible for allowing the wildlings to settle in his kingdom, but Jon is responsible for letting them pass through the wall.

[Tagganaro]

Well, to the OP, first things first I don't think Jon or the NW really had much of a choice in denying Stannis at that time.  This is mainly because the wildlings were defeated and captured, was the NW gonna put them all to death?  Starve them out?  Release them back North of the Wall?  And in the process piss off Stannis, the "king" who just saved them and who has a much larger military force at the Wall and could really screw things up for the Watch.

Second, I'd say that per Jon's own epiphany (and this is further supported by LC Mormont's own independent epiphany) the wildlings are not the Watch's true enemy, and keeping that in mind they should be south of the Wall so the Watch's true enemy can't kill and convert them all to wights.  Jon hadn't come to that conclusion yet by the time Stannis orders the wildlings through, but I think he was certainly inclined to be sympathetic to it due to the fact he travelled with them and loved one of them.  As Qhorin Halfhand said "only fools...hate wildlings."  And Jon looked up to Qhorin.

Third and finally I'd say that there is really no way to stay out of this situation.  Stannis showed up at the Wall while the Iron Throne abdicated its responsibility to it (intentionally per Tywin's own words).  Stannis is thus the King who is there and who can punish them and make orders, while the Iron Throne is a long way away with no immediate way to punish the NW.  Why should the NW stay loyal to the Iron Throne when the IT abandoned them and didn't stay loyal to them?  Jon can try to kick Stannis off the Wall and get him away, which is essentially what Jon tries to do but that's really it...that's the whole discussion with Sam that takes place during the "paper shield" debate.  

[Quoth the raven,]

11 hours ago, AlaskanSandman said:

Is Jon to blame by us or the Watch for allowing the Wildlings and sworn enemy to pass? When the decision comes from "King" Stannis. Does this conflict with their vows and staying out of southern affairs?

 

The Night's Watch takes no part in the affairs of the South, but what happens when a king or a queen comes to the Wall? What happens when they order the Wildlings through the wall and settled in the gift?

Well, what happens when a queen comes North and orders land handed over to the Watch as the New Gift? Or orders the Night's Watched closed and a new castle built? Or orders the Lords and Nights Watch to end first Night? What would have happened if Alysanne had ordered the Wildlings through the Wall and settled in the gift? 
 

Would the Lord Commander fight said King or Queen? Resist? To what end? What if violence is threatened against the Watch? Does the Lord Commander have the right? His castles don't defend against the southern lords. 

Should Jon defy Stannis and refuse? What then? Would Stannis give Jon to the flames? Would there be war? Is it in Jon's power to obey the King, and or defy the King? How so, when you cannot defend your self against any king inflicting his will?

 

Edit- Im personally greatly interested in how Benjen and Eddard planned to settle the gift

Edit, Edit- This post in no way is questioning the reason's Jon was stabbed, which were for leading a group to Winterfell to rescue his sister. 

You pose an interesting question.  This is likely one of the root causes of the negative feelings between the north and the Targaryens.  The Gift is good, fertile land.  The lords of the last hearth would not give it up without resistance.  Wildling raiding parties harassed the farming folk and made off with their women.  The Umbers and the Starks profited from this land.  The Umbers forced their peasants to stay and work the land because it brought in a good yield.  The women complained to Queen Allysanne and she reasoned the only way to put a stop to the women getting raped by the Wildling raiders was to take the land away from the Starks and the Umbers.  

Allysanne got away with it because the monarch decides who gets the lands.  It is feudalism.  Stannis, if he had been the king, would also enjoy this right.  The Targaryens were recognized as the rightful rulers by the entire seven kingdoms.  Stannis is the rightful heir to Robert but his rule was not recognized.  He has not been crowned and his reign has not officially begun.  If we are to accept that the matter of who rules is decided by conquest then we have to accept that Stannis was not the king because the Lannisters won the War of the Five Kings.  They took the throne by force of arms and trickery.  Nobody said the fight had to be fair.  The Lannisters chose Roose Bolton to rule the north on their behalf.  Stannis right now is a rebel.  Jon Snow is a rebel.  

Most of the blame will fall on Stannis.  Jon will be blamed for arranging the marriage of Lady Karstark to the barbarian Thenn.  This is far from a small matter because he practically gave control of the Karstark lands to a Thenn.  Jon gave away the king's land to a wildling.  That will not please any of the nobles.  This and giving Mance Rayder a pardon for his crimes will be held against Jon.  The entry of the mass of wildlings to the kingdom will be blamed on the late Stannis Baratheon.  

[Shouldve Taken The Black]

10 minutes ago, Quoth the raven, said:

This is likely one of the root causes of the negative feelings between the north and the Targaryens.

What negative feelings? Between this happening and the Mad King, there don't to be any examples of tensions between the Starks and the Targaryens.

[Quoth the raven,]

Just now, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

What negative feelings? Between this happening and the Mad King, there don't to be any examples of tensions between the Starks and the Targaryens.

Rickard Stark and his southron ambitions.  

[Bullrout]

Some of you are forgetting that the wildlings are the ones at fault in this relationship with the kingdom.  These people hold themselves beyond the law and do not respect the kingdom.  The problem happens when they cross the wall and attack the citizens of the kingdom.  If these savage bastards had only kept to their side of the wall and accepted the consequences of their decision not to kneel there would have been no problems.  Problems arose because they refused to recognize the laws of the kingdom but continued to cross the boundary and attack the citizens.  That made them the enemies of the kingdom.  The people on the south of the wall are justified in considering the wildlings the enemies of the kingdom. 

Whoever is left alive will be blamed.  Stannis is claimed dead by the pink letter.  Jon should succumb to his injuries and die because the books has logic compared to the show.  A person who just got stabbed in the stomach is not going to outrun an athlete and jump hurdles like an olympian.  Stannis might be alive.  I suppose he will be blamed and should be blamed.  

[Varysblackfyre321]

12 hours ago, Starkz said:

Good leaders make tough decisions, Jon running/pretending to run his platform on xenophobia is rather illiberal and foolish. Stannis wants to bring the Wildlings South and so does Jon. Playing on the fence leaves you bound to fall, which is what happened to him.

I’m confused on what you mean by Jon was playing on the fence Jon had an open-door policy that allowed in scum such as Weeper(for the greater good).  He’s firmly made his stance clear. Most of the black brothers aren’t going to have progressive view on what should be done as Jon; they did not have the luxury of having of having a Wildling lover, or really have much interaction with them where they(the wildlings), weren’t trying to murder them and their comrades. The black brothers  have been given little reason to really trust that when the “savages” come over they will behave and not cause trouble.   Some shows empathy and sympathy on Jon’s part toward their feelings probably would made his reign at least a bit more popular, and perhaps get people more open to for some of radical agenda. Like it would not do anyone harm to express some disgust to having to deal with degenerates like the Weeper while expressing it is in fact(at least in Jon’s mind) a necessity.  He didn’t really try to convert his brothers to his line of thinking-shame because the second he’d die his successor(I don’t think any of the potential candidates have even actually approval of Jon’s radical policies)  may seek to sabotage everything Jon was trying to accomplish.At the very least he could have  mercy kill Mance given the crimes has committed toward his brothers; It’s pretty unlikely  mance ever went out of his way to quickly kill any of the black brothers captured and tortured by his followers, I would imagine most black brother would ask why does the deserve better?

11 hours ago, John Suburbs said:

Getting back to the OP:

Stannis is king of the realm (in his own mind, at least) but Jon has the wall. So Stannis can allow wildlings into the realm, but only Jon can allow them to pass through the wall. It's the same rationale by which Stannis cannot simply take the abandoned castles and give them to his knights; he can only do so with Jon's permission, and Jon permits him only the Nightfort.

So the answer to your question is two-fold: Stannis is responsible for allowing the wildlings to settle in his kingdom, but Jon is responsible for letting them pass through the wall.

Perfect synopsis of the situation. I will say the word responsible seems in  my opinion  more appropriate instead of “blame” at this time. It is very possible Jon’s decision will end up to be the best for everyone. In which case thank Jon may be appropriate. 

[The Lord of the Crossing]

23 hours ago, AlaskanSandman said:

 

Jon was fighting for the Starks all this time.  He found someone in Stannis who could bring down the family who beat up the Starks and he took the opportunity.  He and Stannis both wanted to bring the wildlings through.  Stannis made it possible for Jon to get what he wanted: to let the wildlings in.  Jon found in Stannis an ally against the Boltons and the Lannisters.   He would rather the North go to the wildlings than to Roose Bolton.  Jon was fighting against his king who already gave the north to the Boltons.   

Jon will get the blame.  Posthumously.  Ramsay has Mance Rayder hanging in a cage for all the north to see.  He got a confession out of the spear wives.  Stannis was already an enemy of the crown so it's not going to look good for him anyway.  

[AlaskanSandman]

Some really great responses and i agree with many of you from both sides of the fence. 

 

Something interesting though i find in this. 

Watch needs help, who do they ask? The Southern Lords and the Throne. 

Watch needs men, who do they ask? The Southern Lords and the Throne, and more so in recent years, the dungeons. 

The Watch has no defensive walls guarding them against any southern Lord or King to top it off. Literally leaving them bare to the will of the south.

 

Example of this is the Night's King. He is of the Watch. He is a Brother. He is the L.C. and they do not answer to the south. They do not serve the south or bend the knee to the South. So what right does the south have in telling the Watch they can't have a political reform and restructure it's leadership?

This is something to me that seems to extend beyond Jon's choices and actions and there seems to be a deeper problem going on.

[Lady Barbrey]

18 hours ago, AlaskanSandman said:

Hmmm. Interesting.

Tracing other things here. Just interesting cause the Night's Watch is known to have had more men under Qorgyle and had more patrols along the wall.

Tracing Northern activity. Qorgyle is L.C. in question as father of Mance as only one with authority to really allow Mance as child of a Black Brother to be raised by the Watch. Infraction of the vows and all.

Before Qorgyle is an unknown and unlisted L.C. around when Daenys Mallister became commander of the Shadow Tower where Mance later serves at. 

Before him is Bloodraven who came to the Wall with an army at his back who willingly took the Watch to follow him. Allowing Bloodraven to essentially take over the Watch. 200 men is a lot of votes in your favor. 

Im not sure what it all means yet, just trying to find the missing bits and see what it adds up to.

What's this got to do with Mance?

[AlaskanSandman]

48 minutes ago, Lady Barbrey said:

19 hours ago, AlaskanSandman said:

Hmmm. Interesting.

Tracing other things here. Just interesting cause the Night's Watch is known to have had more men under Qorgyle and had more patrols along the wall.

Tracing Northern activity. Qorgyle is L.C. in question as father of Mance as only one with authority to really allow Mance as child of a Black Brother to be raised by the Watch. Infraction of the vows and all.

Before Qorgyle is an unknown and unlisted L.C. around when Daenys Mallister became commander of the Shadow Tower where Mance later serves at. 

Before him is Bloodraven who came to the Wall with an army at his back who willingly took the Watch to follow him. Allowing Bloodraven to essentially take over the Watch. 200 men is a lot of votes in your favor. 

Im not sure what it all means yet, just trying to find the missing bits and see what it adds up to.

What's this got to do with Mance?

We were discussing Eddard and Benjen's plans to repopulate the gift. Why it got depopulated. I brought up the rest as its other parts of what's going on. Trying to figure out what Mance is up to, and what the Watch was up to. It wasn't quoted here but Jon goes on to talk about how his father wanted to raise new lords and install them under the plan they would pay taxes to the Watch. Benjen thinks the L.C. would be ok with it after some urging. 

We assume the people Eddard wanted to raise were men south of the Wall. Though Sam finds the Watch in full supply of food when allowing the Wildlings through the wall. Which turns out to be a good thing as they need to feed all these new people. Where did all this food come from?? Sounds like some one was prepping this plan. 

Eddard says' its a dream for spring as no body would want to move North with Winter coming. Jon does claim this is to protect against wildling raids, but these people are going to be living in abandoned holdfast. Not exactly defense-able to the Wildlings. You can literally just burn the men out and kill them as they run out of their holdfast. Unless were talking Queen's Crown with a moat, but even then, how long would Queen's crown hold out? 

Im toying with the idea that the plan was to get the wildlings through. Im not sure though so im just still searching any and all information that can answer what was going on. 

I suspect Mance of being the Black brother at Harrenhal. I suspect Qorgyle of being his father.

L.C. Qorgyle should have connections to Oberyn Martell who was born in 257/258 and fostered at Sandstone, the seat of House Qorgyle. L.C. Qorgyle didn't become L.C. till 270. So he is likely the Lord who took in Oberyn or the younger brother of said lord. Either way, Mance is possibly Dornish. Which makes his liking of the Dornishman's wife song interesting. 

Still no idea what it all means though. 

Mance came south to see Robert king to king and at this same time Tormund is knocking up Alysane with her second child around this same time. Claiming she lived near his Ruddy Hall. Which is interesting, implying Tormund is from south of the Wall. 

There just seems to be alot going on that im trying to piece together. These characters are mysterious and i just think maybe clues are in place to tell us something.  

 

Edit- Something happened between Qorgyles time to Mormonts in which the Watch lost alot of men. Whether it was the loss of the Raven's teeth or what idk. Mance served through some of this time though.

Edit Edit- I question also whether the Raven's Teeth said the watch vows or not. Simply being a presence there loyal only to Brynden.

[dmfn]

20 hours ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

The reason the Gift got depopulated is because the Nights Watch shrank to the point that it was unable to defend people against raids. I imagine the key difference is that new lords, meaning new military strength, would defend them.

I agree. I think these lands were to be transferred to new owners. Owners who would be able to raise holdfasts, create titles, create levies, and charge taxes (all in the course of time, naturally). And I imagined this ownership's primary stipulation would be a portion of food / other natural resources devoted to the NW, and for the new lordlings / landed knights / whatever the Northern equivalent of a landed knight is to guarantee protection to the smallfolk working the land. 

I'd guess this was more about a chance to elevate some people's status in the realm first, and once they were in place workers would be far more likely to move there.

I suppose whoever got started there first would have to be willing to do a variety of hard labors (building, farming, mining, quarrying) to begin with, but future generations would be minor noble houses with others doing the labor. 

Speculation galore (but not outside the realm of possibility) 

[dmfn]

17 hours ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

Who says? One of the problems with the idea of not taking sides, is that there's no definitive answer to that issue.

Exactly. War of Five (5) Kings. He was literally in no position to argue with any of them, but when one King aides your entire brotherhood, and another king kills your dad it probably makes it a little more convenient to "not choose sides" with the one who also suits your needs. 

So, getting back to the OP, Jon had a choice, but no real alternative. 

[Shouldve Taken The Black]

14 hours ago, Quoth the raven, said:

Rickard Stark and his southron ambitions.

That's playing the long game isn't it? Saving up resentments until almost 300 years later. I know the North remembers and all that...

Why wouldn't the Starks move against the Targaryens during the Dance, or the Blackfyre rebellion if that were the case?

[Shouldve Taken The Black]

10 hours ago, Bullrout said:

Some of you are forgetting that the wildlings are the ones at fault in this relationship with the kingdom.  These people hold themselves beyond the law and do not respect the kingdom.

They're not subject to the laws of the 7k, they're outside of the realm. That's like saying the Dothraki are at fault for not recognising Westrosi law. When you build a giant magic ice wall between yourselves and others, you can't then claim sovereignty over them (which the 7K don't do by the way).

10 hours ago, Bullrout said:

The problem happens when they cross the wall and attack the citizens of the kingdom.

The Watch also raids the Wildlings.

10 hours ago, Bullrout said:

If these savage bastards had only kept to their side of the wall and accepted the consequences of their decision not to kneel there would have been no problems.  Problems arose because they refused to recognize the laws of the kingdom but continued to cross the boundary and attack the citizens.  That made them the enemies of the kingdom.  The people on the south of the wall are justified in considering the wildlings the enemies of the kingdom. 

I really don't understand why you would decide to have such an unnuanced view of these things.

It's not like every Wildling, at some point in their life sits down and makes a decision about how they are going to live their lives and where. They grew up in a particular culture, which is shaped by where they are and what has happened for generations. Also, the Wildlings aren't one single entity, but a collection of cultures and people. "The Wildlings" don't raid south of the Wall, some Wildlings do.

 

[Varysblackfyre321]

15 minutes ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

 

It's not like every Wildling, at some point in their life sits down and makes a decision about how they are going to live their lives and where. They grew up in a particular culture, which is shaped by where they are and what has happened for generations. Also, the Wildlings aren't one single entity, but a collection of cultures and people. "The Wildlings" don't raid south of the Wall, some Wildlings do.

 

This seems to be sugarcoating the wildlings. Yeah not every single wildling group raids the south(plenty groups would find the trek to even make it past the wall too much a strainous task), but plenty do. Tthough, yes, they brutalize each other in order to gain the scarce resources beyond the wall(women, food, etc) than they actually do the south most of the time. They aren’t monolithic but they do have some troubling aspects in their society(which is totally fine-they’d be boring if they were in all aspects more evolved than the people of the seven Kingdoms and have it that there was never any cause for the south to dislike and fear them, Jon recognized their respective flaws, uniqueness, and virtues of the free-folk perfectly). 

 

20 minutes ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

The Watch also raids the Wildlings.

11 hours ago, Bullrout said:

Where are you getting this? I am not protesting the notion of such a thing happening but I genuinely don’t recall the watch sending out rangers to raid some wildling tribes of their possessions(though with their dwindling supplies). 

[Shouldve Taken The Black]

1 minute ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

This seems to be sugarcoating the wildlings. Yeah not every single wildling group raids the south(plenty groups would find the trek to even make it past the wall too much a strainous task), but plenty do.

It's not about "sugar coating", it's about pointing out that a whole collection of different cultures and people can't all be put in one bracket, and blamed for the "crimes" of one part of them. I'd also point out that in that world there are few examples of different countries/peoples living side by side and not engaging in raids and border conflicts. Look at the Free Cities and the Disputed Lands, or Dorne before it entered the kingdoms, or all the kingdoms pre-Conquest. The reason the Wildlings seem to be given disproportionate amounts of blame in this regard is because they are thought to be "uncivilised", and therefore their acts of violence are barbarity, while others' are considered simple acts of war.

5 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

They aren’t monolithic but they do have some troubling aspects in their society

True, but so do all the other societies we see.

6 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Jon recognized their respective flaws, uniqueness, and virtues of the free-folk perfectly

True.

6 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Where are you getting this? I am not protesting the notion of such a thing happening but I genuinely don’t recall the watch sending out rangers to raid some wildling tribes of their possessions(though with their dwindling supplies). 

Raid may be the wrong word. They don't go out robbing (there's not exactly much to rob), but they do constantly ride out North of the Wall, and attack the Wildlings. I get the impression that any armed band of Wildlings is considered fair game by the Rangers. It's a perpetual conflict.  

[Big P]

17 hours ago, AlaskanSandman said:

Some really great responses and i agree with many of you from both sides of the fence. 

 

Something interesting though i find in this. 

Watch needs help, who do they ask? The Southern Lords and the Throne. 

Watch needs men, who do they ask? The Southern Lords and the Throne, and more so in recent years, the dungeons. 

The Watch has no defensive walls guarding them against any southern Lord or King to top it off. Literally leaving them bare to the will of the south.

 

Example of this is the Night's King. He is of the Watch. He is a Brother. He is the L.C. and they do not answer to the south. They do not serve the south or bend the knee to the South. So what right does the south have in telling the Watch they can't have a political reform and restructure it's leadership?

This is something to me that seems to extend beyond Jon's choices and actions and there seems to be a deeper problem going on.

The Watch has independence on matters confined to its internal affairs.  But the Watch does not have the authority to make decisions that have realm wide impact.  Lord Commander Mormont would need to get Robert's permission before he can decide to let in thousands of wildlings and set them loose in the realm.  The Watch also does not have the right to set Mance Rayder loose in the north to steal the wife of a nobleman.  

[867-5309]

Blame versus celebrated depends on a Stannis victory.  He is only a jealous and bitter rebel at the moment.  If he loses, his name and Jon Snow's will be condemned.  It will be posthumously as said by another.  

[bemused]

On 10/11/2018 at 9:52 PM, AlaskanSandman said:

Im toying with the idea that the plan was to get the wildlings through. Im not sure though so im just still searching any and all information that can answer what was going on. 

I suspect Mance of being the Black brother at Harrenhal. I suspect Qorgyle of being his father.

Jon doesn't think Ned and Benjen would have been thinking of settling widlings on the gift. However, I don't think they would have been thinking of settling southron lords or knights as Stannis planned or southron younger sons etc. (as I think someone suggested upthread). This move would hardly have been more welcome to the northerners, and would be a tough transition for people used to a warmer climate. So I'm not so sure that Jon is right about the wildlings. Before Ned agrees to become Robert's hand, after hearing of Mance's rise north of the wall, he thinks that the time may come when he'd have to go north of the wall and "deal with this Mance Rayder". ... That can be read two ways.

Maybe N and BJ might have planned to canvasse some wildlings and some southroners to see if they could make a reasonable fit..?? 

I, too suspect Qorgyle of being Mance's father, but I have doubts that he could have been the black brother at Harrenhall. I'd think they'd send someone who had some developed southron connections already ... maybe familial, or he may have been someone like Yoren who made regular recruiting trips.

On 10/11/2018 at 9:52 PM, AlaskanSandman said:

L.C. Qorgyle should have connections to Oberyn Martell who was born in 257/258 and fostered at Sandstone, the seat of House Qorgyle. L.C. Qorgyle didn't become L.C. till 270. So he is likely the Lord who took in Oberyn or the younger brother of said lord. Either way, Mance is possibly Dornish. Which makes his liking of the Dornishman's wife song interesting. 

Still no idea what it all means though. 

Mance came south to see Robert king to king and at this same time Tormund is knocking up Alysane with her second child around this same time. Claiming she lived near his Ruddy Hall. Which is interesting, implying Tormund is from south of the Wall. 

Sure, LC Qorgyle may have known Oberyn. At any rate, there were Qorgyles in Oberyn's entourage at KL. What I found interesting is that when Nymeria came to Dorne , the Qorgyles were allied with House Yronwood who styled themselves High Kings of Dorne (The head of the house still called "the Bloodroyal") I strongly suspect that there have been marriages between the two houses over the years (sons and daughters) so Qorgyle blood now carries Yronwood blood on the female side. (and in all that time, there may have been intermarriages with Martells as well)

So when Mance says "My birth is as low as a man's can get," in ASOS, Jon X .. he's very probably wrong. ... and when Jon tells Sam in AFFC, Sam I ... 

"Mance's blood is no more royal than mine own." ... he's probably right in what he says ... but very probably wrong in what he thinks , in that he doesn't know of his own royal blood, (or Mance's.)

I think those two statements combine to make the kind of red herring GRRM delights in. and "The Dornishman's Wife", mentioned so often .. is a hint to the reader that once again, a character's female bloodline may hold a few surprises.

I think you're a little off with Tormund and Alysanne. IMO, Maege is his bear woman and Alysanne is his daughter. Maege and Tormund are more or less the same generation.Tormund says his bear woman gave him such strong sons , We know one son, Torwynd, was not strong, died, and became a wight (not Maege's), Dormund (killed by Richard Horpe), Toregg and Dryn (all three possibly Maege's) I think Alysanne is simply following her mother's lead. (Won't marry to prevent Bear Island passing from Mormont hands?)...

Tormund implies he's never been south of the wall. When Jon lets him through he says ... "Time I had a look at what's on t'other side of all that ice." But Bear Islanders are sailors and fishermen, so I think Maege traveled north around the wall. It's my suspicion that Tormund raised any sons and Maege raised any daughters. It's curious that in the tale Tormund tells Jon, the result of his last meeting with the bear woman (who he wishes he could find again) was as follows ... "... and there on me floor was a she-bear's pelt. And soon enough the free folk were telling tales o' this bald bear seen in the woods, with the queerest pair o' cubs behind her" ...ASOS, Jon II ... and Tormund's Dryn and Lyanna Mormont appear to be about the same age.

"Maege is a hoary old snark, stubborn, short-tempered, and willful. Truth be told, I can hardly stand to be around the wretched woman, but that does not mean my love for her is any less than the love you bear your half sisters". - Jeor Mormont to Jon  

" ... a fine strong woman with the biggest pair of teats you ever saw. She had a temper on her, that one, but oh, she could be warm too," ... 

... "The woman had a terrible temper, and she put up quite the fight when I laid hands on her. ... ... Would that I could find her again.." -Tormund to Jon

On 10/11/2018 at 1:00 PM, Bullrout said:

Whoever is left alive will be blamed.  Stannis is claimed dead by the pink letter.  Jon should succumb to his injuries and die because the books has logic compared to the show.  A person who just got stabbed in the stomach is not going to outrun an athlete and jump hurdles like an olympian.  Stannis might be alive.  I suppose he will be blamed and should be blamed

Should Jon be blamed by whom? The OP asks by us or the watch...  If the a combination of the efforts of Stannis, Jon, the GNC, etc. manage to wrest Winterfell away from the Boltons and expose their false claim, the North will not blame any them. Nor will this reader.  The North already blames the Boltons for what they've done so far. If Jon can get the castles along the wall manned, and food coming in by ship neither the watch nor the rest of the north will blame him (nor will Stannis if he survives). I rather think that no-one in the north is going to be too worried about retaliation by KL through the winter.. they'll  have other concerns to keep them occupied.

I'm pretty amazed at the level of blame some readers are already not just willing, but eager to hand out. We don't yet know the outcome of a number of cliffhangers we were left with.

Jon? Anyone who thinks it's for sure that Bowen's knife penetrated enough to do serious damage, is ignoring clues the author wrote in to suggest otherwise. I'm betting that we'll see the attack from someone else's POV in TWOW. That will clarify a lot. ...

Stannis?Anyone who's read the Theon TWoW chapter and doesn't think there's a good chance Stannis' plans will work out (or not quite work out the way he plans, but still for the best) is betting too soon, I'd say.

Mance? We should realise that the author has provided clues that would allow for Mance and the spearwives to pretty well all avoid immediate capture (and the possibility of suicide or a mercy killing exists for any of them, as well)...We should realise that there could be an uprising against Roose within WF as soon as Ramsay lights out after Jeyne and Theon. And he will. That's the one thing we probably can be sure of.... The Boltons have to have Jeyne, or "Roose's ruse" (pardon me) was for nothing... And Ramsay will be slavering to be on the hunt. He won't be hanging around waiting for a reply to a letter.

I could go on but, I'm not saying all of these situations will work out in the positive but some will and some may go in some completely different direction than any of us expect.

Way too soon to be heaping blame on Jon. Even among the watch, there are signs the dissidents are in the minority.