So, remind me why independence for the North is so important.

[Angel Eyes]

Why was it so important for Sansa to have independence for the North? Will the North have the same laws as the rest of Westeros? If they don’t, what’s stopping a lord from exercising First Night and creating another Ramsay? Will the North be alone in supplying the Wall? And when Sansa dies, there’s nobody to pass the throne to since there haven’t been separate branches of Starks for three generations. The North could degenerate into civil war if/when Sansa dies.

[Raebo]

Why does everyone assume Sansa will not have children.  She was concerned about Bran being a ruler and not having an heir so that tells me she plans on getting married and having an heir.  I do not believe she would even have to marry for love.  She married TYRION AND Ramsey not for love so I think if she found someone she liked and would be a good father/husband and respected she would gladly get married.

As far as to your questions regarding the North’s independence, I do not have a clue.

[Ghost7272]

If there's a suitable Manderly man of the right age and temperament, that would probably be the best political alliance for Sansa.

[Haskelltier]

11 hours ago, Angel Eyes said:

Why was it so important for Sansa to have independence for the North?

Because it means more power for Sansa and there was always a more or less hidden antipathy of Northern Lords against Southern Rulers since Aerys killed of Rickard and Brandon Stark. They couldn't identify themselves with kings like Renly or Stannis or Jofrey, who weren't concerned about the North and its problems/hardship. So getting independence means that these concerns were settled.

11 hours ago, Angel Eyes said:

Will the North have the same laws as the rest of Westeros?

They will start with the current laws they had under the Targaryens and Robert. But they will change laws they seem fit to change and maybe will create a very different set of laws in future generations. But thats a long process.

11 hours ago, Angel Eyes said:

If they don’t, what’s stopping a lord from exercising First Night and creating another Ramsay?

If there is no law against that, nobody can stop him, not even a king (without causing conflict).

11 hours ago, Angel Eyes said:

Will the North be alone in supplying the Wall?

Well, I think Tyrion mentioned, that the wall is a good place to get rid of criminals and its a way for people to reject king- or lordship without the fear that the next one in the line of succession with the weaker claim kills you to be safe. So the South might continue sending criminals and so on to the wall. But they won't supply the Wall with food and other goods. But to be true, Southern Lords or Kings didn't do that before (regularly at least; yes, there were exceptions like Good Queen Alysanne). Trade between the Wall and the South will be possible like before.

11 hours ago, Angel Eyes said:

And when Sansa dies, there’s nobody to pass the throne to since there haven’t been separate branches of Starks for three generations. The North could degenerate into civil war if/when Sansa dies.

She can marry somebody who takes the Stark name. Then their children will be legitimate Starks. But yes, dying childless is a major problem Sansa has to solve.

[Br16]

11 hours ago, Angel Eyes said:

Why was it so important for Sansa to have independence for the North? Will the North have the same laws as the rest of Westeros? If they don’t, what’s stopping a lord from exercising First Night and creating another Ramsay? Will the North be alone in supplying the Wall? And when Sansa dies, there’s nobody to pass the throne to since there haven’t been separate branches of Starks for three generations. The North could degenerate into civil war if/when Sansa dies.

North officially going their own way is to show that the political savvy of Ned Stark is contagious to the whole region. The North practically already does whatever they want as the Neck is unbreachable by Southern armies. Thus, by simply doing nothing they could have all the benefits of 7K membership (common market, royal fleet support against ironborn, play ing kingmaker, become king, and get subsidies) while passive aggresively ignoring whatever edict they don't like by sealing off Moat Cailin.

All the problems you mention are valid, but more pressing is that the North and its massive fleetless coastline is now Ironborn playground. They can now plunder foreign North and sell to 6K where they have common market access as a member kingdom. Looks like Yara U turning on iron lslands sovereignty was a crafty move.

[Br16]

34 minutes ago, Haskelltier said:

She can marry somebody who takes the Stark name. Then their children will be legitimate Starks. But yes, dying childless is a major problem Sansa has to solve.

My bet is that she'll marry a Manderly because they have money, largest host and naval power and she'll need all three. While they are loyal, my gut feeling is that power in the North will shift to White Harbor with the extinction of Bolton power and the massive losses the Stark direct lands have incurred from Wof5K onwards.

[Haskelltier]

2 hours ago, Br16 said:

My bet is that she'll marry a Manderly because they have money, largest host and naval power and she'll need all three. While they are loyal, my gut feeling is that power in the North will shift to White Harbor with the extinction of Bolton power and the massive losses the Stark direct lands have incurred from Wof5K onwards.

Possible. But who knows what will happen with the now lordless lands of the Boltons. Sansa could keep them under her own direct control or she could give them to a distant Bolton-offspring, she could divide the lands between other lords in the North or raise an able commoner into lordship. Or she could pardon Jon given time and make him Lord of the Dreadford (would be a nice parallel to the way House Karstark was founded). That the Manderlys were and are very important bannermen to the Starks should be obvious (more obvious in the books than the show). And she could definitely take a lesser Manderly as husband who will take her name in return.

[Br16]

1 hour ago, Haskelltier said:

Possible. But who knows what will happen with the now lordless lands of the Boltons. Sansa could keep them under her own direct control or she could give them to a distant Bolton-offspring, she could divide the lands between other lords in the North or raise an able commoner into lordship. Or she could pardon Jon given time and make him Lord of the Dreadford (would be a nice parallel to the way House Karstark was founded). That the Manderlys were and are very important bannermen to the Starks should be obvious (more obvious in the books than the show). And she could definitely take a lesser Manderly as husband who will take her name in return.

Sansa is never going to restore any Bolton imo, she was quite vindictive to Umbers and Karstarks before Jon intervened. Moreover, Jon would probably reject any elevation with his trademark "I dun wannit".

Shes probably going to tear the Dreadfort down and let surviving Bolton vassals become their own small House, and neighbouring gentry to encroach on the rest. A lot of Northerners died during the Wot5K/Ironborn invasion/RW and the NK invasion. So there is now probably more land than people, and Northern land isnt very fertile or valuable to begin with. So I forsee no great land grab, but a lot of abandonment like NW's Gift.

[Rose of Red Lake]

Because independence is something previously independent nations want, usually. The Targaryens created an artificial nation state held together by force. I always got an England vs. Scotland vibe. 

As for Sansa her autonomy and ability to make decisions without being controlled by a stranger's whims is very important to her arc. She never articulates that in a desire to be queen herself, but its always been the natural solution.

 

 

 

 

[Hodor's Dragon]

The thing about this Northern independence thing is that the North went to war because Ned was imprisoned by an evil king, and going independent was a side effect. There's zero talk of northern independence that I recall between the Red Wedding and the last half of season 8--did I miss something? And once the Iron Throne's ability to keep peace through the realm is thrown away in war, it's a bloody holy horror up there, every house for itself, and what was revealed of the Northern lords isn't all that much cause for confidence.

In our world, the tide of history has very obviously been toward larger and stronger states, and now even the nations are banding together through international organizations. History has not been kind to nations that focus inward and don't reach out.

[King Wyman]

Northern independence probably only lasts as long as Sansa’s alive...maybe not even that long. 

They were the poorest realm before the books/show began, they’ve been ravaged by multiple wars in a short amount of time, nearly every major family suffered huge losses, and the south looks like it’s being set up for some sort of renaissance.

Unless Bran really is immortal and keeps funding the north for centuries, there’s no way independence is viable.

The second Bran steps down, the new ruler would either cut them off or try to force them to submit and the north wouldn’t stand a chance. 

I’m not convinced they end up independent in the books. Kinda just feels like fan service.

 

[JakeStarkey]

On 7/7/2019 at 1:11 PM, Angel Eyes said:

Why was it so important for Sansa to have independence for the North? Will the North have the same laws as the rest of Westeros? If they don’t, what’s stopping a lord from exercising First Night and creating another Ramsay? Will the North be alone in supplying the Wall? And when Sansa dies, there’s nobody to pass the throne to since there haven’t been separate branches of Starks for three generations. The North could degenerate into civil war if/when Sansa dies.

(1) The Lords of the North want to be independent of King's Landing.

(2) Sansa may marry.  If not, the Lords of the North may want Jon Stark.

(3) Remember that Bran the Broken is family to both and full sibling to Sansa.

[argonak]

I don't understand why the North would want to be independent.  If their lords would just stop getting them involved in the southerner's game of thrones, they'd be better off as part of the 7 kingdoms.  

In times of Winter, the North needs southern food.  That's pretty plain I would think.  You're more likely to get good trade deals for southern supplies if you're able to petition your fuedal lord, the King of the 7 kingdoms, than you are trying to buy from fat merchants #1-50.  If the Iron Isles are raiding your shores, you can petition your King for redress.  If the wildings overwhelm your defenses, you can call for support from your King.

At worst the King might be requesting taxes or military service from the north.  But we don't hear them complaining about that.  The only complaint they seem to have is that the South killed Ned, and then a lot of them died in the resulting war.   Thats all Ned's fault for sticking his hand in the box of vipers that is King's Landing. 

An independent North has to worry about Wilding invasion and southern raids.  Their lands are far too wide and empty to effectively defend, I don't see their indpenedence lasting or benefiting them in any signficant way.  They don't seem to have a raiding culture of their own, so what gain is there in independence?

[Faera]

On 7/7/2019 at 8:11 PM, Angel Eyes said:

Why was it so important for Sansa to have independence for the North? 

It isn't really all that important because most of the other kingdoms won't notice the North is gone. Moreover the fact that Bran himself is a Stark and northerner makes Sansa's declaration of independance all the more laughable.

Quote

Will the North have the same laws as the rest of Westeros? 

Presumably going forward yes. The difference will be that any new laws Bran might pass in the south won't be put into effect in the north and vice versa.

Quote

If they don’t, what’s stopping a lord from exercising First Night and creating another Ramsay? 

See the above - and I don't see that law, of all laws, being brought back. Besides, Ramsay was born even with the law against First Night. It was banned during the reign of King Jaeherys I and Queen Alysanne after all yet Roose did it and claims other lords do it too on the sly. So.... yeah.

Quote

Will the North be alone in supplying the Wall? 

Tyrion pretty much made it clear that wouldn't be the case. The Wall seems to remain their own thing, likely independant from either Sansa or Bran's kingdoms. Just a glorified penal colony they both supply crooks to.

Quote

And when Sansa dies, there’s nobody to pass the throne to since there haven’t been separate branches of Starks for three generations. The North could degenerate into civil war if/when Sansa dies.

Um, why? Bran's the one whose reproductive organs are up the pictures, not Sansa's. She gets married, has children and they take the Stark name. 

On 7/9/2019 at 7:01 PM, King Wyman said:

Unless Bran really is immortal and keeps funding the north for centuries, there’s no way independence is viable.

It is a bit silly. Frankly, I don't see an independant North lasting much further past Sansa's lifetime simply because she seems to be the only thing holding that clap-trap together. Even if she does have children (and yes, those children would undoubtedly be Starks since I don't see Sansa EVER agreeing to taking a spouse's name when she's clearly the more important person in the match), those children could be useless rulers, weak or cruel. Given how changable and unreliable the Northern lords were shown to be in the show-verse I feel Sansa's got a tough job ahead of her and she better train her successor properly because they are going to be dealing with an uphill battle that will take the next century or so to recover from.

I don't *really* see the South wanting to retake the North though, as you say (and as I indicated above), no one will really miss them and they don't really provide much to the rest of the kingdoms aside from levies... and even then they were always the last ones to turn up to wars most of the time because it took so long for them to raise their banners and march to where the fight is at. Heck, if I were Bran with the resources of the south I'd cut the crap and tell Tyrion to maintain a standing army because feudalism is sooooo last century.

Pragmatically, a loose union between all the kingdoms of Westeros makes more sense then one going off on their own to potentially cause trouble later with questions like "where is the border?"

[Lollygag]

Your questions assume the show was operating from a place of logic. Come on. You know better. Like a lot of wtf events of the past season, northern independence was just a plot device to give characters stuff to do, set up hack conflicts and Mean Girls crap, and to make Dany go off the rails.

As for Sansa declaring independence when Bran was king, they were setting up a new system for establishing the ruler meaning this wasn't just about now, but about a new order for Westeros. It worked out right now that there's a Stark on the IT, but the North would be back in the same boat with Bran's successor who wouldn't be Stark because he can't have kids. And Bran's ruling as a raven, not a wolf. And he says he's not Bran anymore whatever that means thus his loyalties aren't the same. Show didn't explain that well. Yet another example of not taking the time to add a few lines for clarity which would make all the difference. Bran sees all kinds of stuff in the future but he looked blindsided by Sansa wanting independence when she's been harping about it all season. Whatever.

But we can take it more seriously if we think this'll factor into the books.

Why is Northern independence so important? So far it's not. It's really just not wanting to be under the Lannisters. There are rumors that Joff's full inbred Lannister, Stannis and Renly were both at war which underscore the not-Baratheonness of Cersei and her kids, and Cat worked out a weird deal with Renly that while Robb kept his title, he'd go back to being under Baratheon rule. The North is itching at having their culture get too Southernized, but that really doesn't seem to be a big deal in itself, just a perk of independence.

If Northern independence becomes a thing in the books, it looks more like it'll be about not wanting to be under Lannisters, Euron (yikes), or Dany's Dothraki/Unsullied fire & blood army which it looks set up that NO ONE will like (hence Varys' and Illyrio's plan to follow up with Aegon as Viserys/Dany would be permanently damaged by that alliance).

Will the North have the same laws? Some, but they're itching to go back to some of their older ways. The North seems least Southernized with the Mormonts who don't always marry, have women leaders and don't sweat bastards. They named Robb King of Winter. It's a big thing in the books that some of the old ways have been lost being under the IT. No Stark is going to allow the First Night thing to come back and that's not just a Northern thing, that's a Westerosi thing. Aerys tried to pull it.

The North has been supplying most of the Wall for a long time now.

The World of Ice and Fire - The Wall and Beyond: The Night’s Watch

Only the fact that the Northmen themselves greatly honor the Watch has kept it functioning, and a great part of the food that keeps the black brothers of Castle Black, the Shadow Tower, and Eastwatch-by-the-Sea from starving comes not from the Gift but from the yearly gifts these Northern lords deliver to the Wall in token of their support.

As others have said, Sansa can marry and the kids would take her name. The Bael's bastard story tells us it's happened with the Starks before and we've seen it in other families too. There's also the Mormont route which would be for Sansa to go really Northy and just have kids without marrying as the North isn't as bothered about bastards. Ramsey's a bastard who ruled the North then followed by bastard Jon. No one really cared much. There's some set up for this in the books. Sansa thinks she might not want to marry again, she's enjoying freedom as a bastard herself, and she was intrigued by Oberyn and Ellaria who were unmarried. As she's a new monarch under a new system, it wouldn't be a bad idea for her to set an alliance with a family to father her kids, but to not extend any real power to them with a marriage.

 

 

[entitledSpecimen]

Even sillier is the fact that neither Dorne nor the Iron Islands made a claim for independence either, since both of those cultures have even more reason to secede than the north. The whole reason Yara supported Dany in the first place was because Dany promised to allow her to be queen of the Iron Islands, and I can't imagine the Dornish would want anything to do with this new elective monarchy, since the Dornish only joined the realm because of their relationship with the Targaryens. Giving the north independence while a Stark sat the throne and never specifying whether the Iron Islands and Dorne received the same just shows that northern independence was fanservice. It's not supposed to be important, it's just supposed to be "cool" and it ends up being dumb.

[Rose of Red Lake]

I dont understand why people on this thread think the North cant do things on their own and therefore need the Targaryen system of government. Do you think all countries that need food aid also need to be controlled by a culturally different government thousands of miles away? Its like saying its fine if Brasilia is the capital of all of South America (Westeros is about that size in length).

[Rose of Red Lake]

20 hours ago, argonak said:

An independent North has to worry about Wilding invasion and southern raids.  Their lands are far too wide and empty to effectively defend, I don't see their indpenedence lasting or benefiting them in any signficant way.  They don't seem to have a raiding culture of their own, so what gain is there in independence?

This characterizes them as helpless and in constant need of rescue. But they held it together for 8k years. What about all the times the South needed the North. Dany needed a bailout of food. Stannis needed them to prop up his failing campaign. The Targaryens needed them to cooperate so Aegon didnt look like a fool (the North could have easily pulled a Dorne). The Lannisters and Dany needed them for legitimacy. At a certain point the Northern people would ask, what are we even getting out of this relationship, when the Starks had a better track record. Dont forget that House Stark was almost wiped out in Ned's generation because of the Iron Throne. It would have been the end of the line if not for Catelyn and Ned. 

On 7/8/2019 at 8:26 AM, Hodor's Dragon said:

In our world, the tide of history has very obviously been toward larger and stronger states, and now even the nations are banding together through international organizations. History has not been kind to nations that focus inward and don't reach out.

A nation state has to exist independently first before they can come together internationally. I think this view skips the colonial resistance period and the fall of empires - I think this is what the ending of the story is trying to capture. Northern Independence isnt Brexit.

On 7/8/2019 at 8:26 AM, Hodor's Dragon said:

There's zero talk of northern independence that I recall between the Red Wedding and the last half of season 8--did I miss something? 

Season 6. Entire plot was a war for independence. Sure the show could have executed it better but if people cheered when the Stark banner rose over Winterfell, independence is what they were cheering for. The Starks didnt win that war for Daenerys.

[Hodor's Dragon]

2 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

<snip>

Season 6. Entire plot was a war for independence. Sure the show could have executed it better but if people cheered when the Stark banner rose over Winterfell, independence is what they were cheering for. The Starks didnt win that war for Daenerys.

Sheer conjecture. I would presume people were cheering for a much more sensible reason: because the bloodthirsty Boltons were no longer in charge. And because the Boltons were Lannister puppets. 

If the entire plot was about Northern independence, I should think it would've been mentioned. Can you point to a single conversation about Northern independence in season 6? If you can dig one up somewhere, I'll be impressed, but that would still leave the question of how about TWO conversations? Was it the part where the Umbers brought Shaggydog's head to Ramsey?

How come nobody really gave a damn about Jon and Sansa's quest for troops? Why did they have to beg to get 58 soldiers from House Mormont? And when they begged, did Sansa cite "Northern independence" or "your family's oath to House Stark?"

[martianmister]

Because of xenophobia.