Who has the authority to declare that oaths are null?

[divica]

4 minutes ago, Jaenara Belarys said:

He still died, though. 

Quote

I pledge my life and honor to the Night's Watch, for this night and all the nights to come.

Unless the members of the NW say "And now his watch has ended" I don't think there is an argument. His temporary death shouldn t release him from his vows.

However, as LC why can't he decide that he is free from the vows? If the king can expell members of the KG that should do smillar vows why can't the leader of the NW expell members of the NW?

[Lord Varys]

16 minutes ago, divica said:

The problem here is if the king can kick people out of the kingsguard why can t the LC kick people out of the NW? The LC is the leader of the NW like the king is the leader of the kingdom.

The king is the king ... and the Lord Commander is just the Lord Commander. He isn't a king. The NW is a military order. You pledge yourself to the order and duties that come with that pledge. You do not pledge yourself to the service of the Lord Commander in the same way a Kingsguard pledges himself to his king.

That said - of course a Lord Commander can remove brothers from his service. But the exit isn't dismissal from service but death if a black brother breaks his vows. An LC cannot send a black brother back home, but he certainly can sentence him to death.

Perhaps in ancient times when there were many recruits eager to take the black men unsuited for the order were sent back home before they took their vows - like Jon and Sam could have left before they said their words. But during the series there are so few men left that the Watch can't be picky. They effectively take everybody in.

And that's also the reason why they dismiss nobody.

16 minutes ago, divica said:

And in regards to jon he was ready to accept stannis offer to become lord of winterfell. He only ender up refusing because he didn t want the simbols of the old gods in winterfell destroyed by mel. If he is declared robb's heir I have very little doubts that he will want to leave the NW. And he can do much more for the fight against the others as kitn than LC...

Jon should soon learn that Bran and Rickon are still alive. That will make that whole thing moot. The clansmen know that as well, and Howland Reed, who controls Robb's will, presumably knows that Jon Snow isn't actually a Stark bastard.

While Stannis is still around there is no need for another King in the North nor an adult Lord of Winterfell. In fact, Winterfell itself is a joke right now. The way to keep the Others at bay is to strengthen the Wall, not to do stuff further down south.

The way to get things going would be to call more and more Northmen to the Wall to man the castles there, to help prepare for the attack of the Others. The Wall is the line of defense they have to hold - and they will try to hold that, knowing if it falls they are truly fucked and their chances of winning will be astronomically low.

16 minutes ago, divica said:

Look at what you are saying. Basically, if you want to get out of the KG then you just have to be really bad at your job that the king will eventually kick you out?

And if he marries or becomes king obviously jon would quit the NW. The question is if as the LC he has the authority to abandon the NW without becoming a deserter. After all, even robb thought that people could get out of the NW. So we aren't talking about something unthinkable.

This is all not a given. Jon could remain in the NW and become a king or lord of sorts. After all, Baelor the Blessed was king and septon at the same time. Granted, he was first king and took the vows of a septon afterwards. But Jon could still say - 'Well, I'm a man of the Night's Watch and I remain a man of the Night's Watch even if I'm also your king.' That is not impossible.

That would work even more considering Jon is never going to insist that he has to become king or any such nonsense. People would urge him to go with Robb's will say, to become the King in the North or at least the Lord of Winterfell.

24 minutes ago, divica said:

Why? The KG surely made a vow to the gods that he would be there for the king. Why can the king dismiss a vow made to the gods? By that logic if the LC of the night watch doesn t want a sworn member of the NW he can expel him. The power of the LC and the king is very simillar within their domains...

The logic has to do that it is nonsense that a king has to be protected by some guy because he swore a vow. The king could abolish the entire Kingsguard with a word. Just as he could abolish the Night's Watch with a word, too, like he abolished the Faith Militant. They all swore vows to the gods, too, but Maegor and Jaehaerys didn't really care, no?

The vows of the Kingsguard bind them at the king's pleasure not their own.

And, no, a Lord Commander isn't a king. He is the elected head of a military order, not a sovereign monarch. He isn't even a proper lord although his powers are akin to that of a lord. But the Lord Commander of the NW is still a subject of the Iron Throne.

24 minutes ago, divica said:

The faith would have to listen no? And does if sansa wasn't a virgin would she need to stay married to tyrion until there is proof he is dead?

It would depend how this goes. If the Faith guys believe Sansa then she gets her annulment ... but if the Faith guys Tyrion later talks to (or appoints) believe whatever story he tells them then the marriage might be valid again. And if Sansa were to lose her maidenhead in between then it would be difficult for the hypothetical later guys to prove that the marriage of Tyrion and Sansa was truly not consummated.

But chances nobody is ever going to really care what Tyrion says. Especially if Sansa were to marry another great lord or even a king.

[divica]

14 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

The king is the king ... and the Lord Commander is just the Lord Commander. He isn't a king. The NW is a military order. You pledge yourself to the order and duties that come with that pledge. You do not pledge yourself to the service of the Lord Commander in the same way a Kingsguard pledges himself to his king.

That said - of course a Lord Commander can remove brothers from his service. But the exit isn't dismissal from service but death if a black brother breaks his vows. An LC cannot send a black brother back home, but he certainly can sentence him to death.

Perhaps in ancient times when there were many recruits eager to take the black men unsuited for the order were sent back home before they took their vows - like Jon and Sam could have left before they said their words. But during the series there are so few men left that the Watch can't be picky. They effectively take everybody in.

And that's also the reason why they dismiss nobody.

I am  not sure if the KG swear to a specific king. When a king dies we don't see the KG swearing new vows to his heir or even leaving the order because the king they were sworn to died. The KG does look like an order very simillar to the NW in several regards and one of them is that they belong to the KG for life.

And within the lands between the wall and new gift the LC is the supreme ruler. He has simillar powers to a king. Who has the authority to say that the LC can't release a sworn brother from his vows? Robb thought it was possible.

20 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Jon should soon learn that Bran and Rickon are still alive. That will make that whole thing moot. The clansmen know that as well, and Howland Reed, who controls Robb's will, presumably knows that Jon Snow isn't actually a Stark bastard.

While Stannis is still around there is no need for another King in the North nor an adult Lord of Winterfell. In fact, Winterfell itself is a joke right now. The way to keep the Others at bay is to strengthen the Wall, not to do stuff further down south.

The way to get things going would be to call more and more Northmen to the Wall to man the castles there, to help prepare for the attack of the Others. The Wall is the line of defense they have to hold - and they will try to hold that, knowing if it falls they are truly fucked and their chances of winning will be astronomically low.

Knowing they were alive at a certain point in time is pretty useless. Who knows what happened since then? Decisions need to be made. Someone has to be in charge. And howland reed wont spill the secrets about jon's parents without something forcing him to do it. What would be the point now? 

And obviously the north need a leader. We have no idea if stannis is even alive. And the idea that the northerns would follow a southern that knows nothing about the north and now has almost no soldiers doesn t make much sense.

26 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

This is all not a given. Jon could remain in the NW and become a king or lord of sorts. After all, Baelor the Blessed was king and septon at the same time. Granted, he was first king and took the vows of a septon afterwards. But Jon could still say - 'Well, I'm a man of the Night's Watch and I remain a man of the Night's Watch even if I'm also your king.' That is not impossible.

That would work even more considering Jon is never going to insist that he has to become king or any such nonsense. People would urge him to go with Robb's will say, to become the King in the North or at least the Lord of Winterfell.

That makes no sense. It goes completly against what the NW stands for. Seriously, that makes no sense. If jon wants to protect the realms of men he can do it without being part of the NW. However if he wants to be king and marry he needs to quit the NW.

28 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

The logic has to do that it is nonsense that a king has to be protected by some guy because he swore a vow. The king could abolish the entire Kingsguard with a word. Just as he could abolish the Night's Watch with a word, too, like he abolished the Faith Militant. They all swore vows to the gods, too, but Maegor and Jaehaerys didn't really care, no?

The vows of the Kingsguard bind them at the king's pleasure not their own.

And, no, a Lord Commander isn't a king. He is the elected head of a military order, not a sovereign monarch. He isn't even a proper lord although his powers are akin to that of a lord. But the Lord Commander of the NW is still a subject of the Iron Throne.

No. It is said multiple times that the NW isn't a subject of the IT. That they are an impartial force. And besides the castles they have the gift and new gift that belong to the NW. So yes, the LC is an elected king within the domains of the NW. So the king can't abolish the NW using his words...

And the faith was against the kings abolishing the faith militant. They were only able to do it because they had dragons. It wasn t a decision based on the lawfull power of the kings.

And what happens if the LC doesn t want a sworn member to belong to the NW but doesn t want to kill him? Just wants him out of the NW. Who is there to forbid him to expel the member? The LC is the supreme leader of the NW...

And while the king could abolish the KG because he has the manpower to support his decision what I am asking is if the law allows him to do it. Because from what we know it shouldn t be allowed.

35 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

It would depend how this goes. If the Faith guys believe Sansa then she gets her annulment ... but if the Faith guys Tyrion later talks to (or appoints) believe whatever story he tells them then the marriage might be valid again. And if Sansa were to lose her maidenhead in between then it would be difficult for the hypothetical later guys to prove that the marriage of Tyrion and Sansa was truly not consummated.

But chances nobody is ever going to really care what Tyrion says. Especially if Sansa were to marry another great lord or even a king.

That depends on tyrion and danny. I mean, if he tells her he is married to sansa and therefore has a claim to CR and winterfell he becomes a very interesting suporter for danny. It could end up being important to know if they are married...

[Darth Sidious]

11 hours ago, divica said:

For example, joffrey expels barristan from the KG but did his position as king give him the moral authority to do it?

Who can declare tyrion dead so that sansa can marry someone in the vale? Who will take responsability if comes back to life? Can he argue about the validity of his marriage?

And about jon. As LC can he release himself from the NW? At least lawfully he wouldn t be a deserter...

The king chooses the KG. An argument could be made that the monarch has this authority. The monarch can also break a marriage that has not been consumated.

Jon Snow does not have the authority to release a man of the watch from his vows. He would be a deserter if he abandons the watch.

[Springwatch]

11 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

That is a weird question. In relation to the KG it is pretty obvious that the king decides who he wants as bodyguard and who not. Or do you think the king could be forced to keep a man as bodyguard he loathed or the loathed bodyguard appeal to some 'higher authority' if the king were to take his armor and weapons from him and threw him out on the street?

Kings like tradition, because kingship is a tradition.

9 hours ago, Jaenara Belarys said:

Everybody else is probably not going to resurrected, unless they're wights.

He's going to have a hard time convincing people that he's not a wight. Or if he doesn't look like a wight, he's going to have a hard time convincing people that he ever died.

9 hours ago, Jaenara Belarys said:

He was going to make a "suitable gift to the Faith"  in order for it to be set aside.

He thinks he can do it, but that doesn't mean he can. Same with Robb - he thinks he can get Jon's vows set aside, but he doesn't know it.

It's not easy to overturn traditions going back hundreds or thousands of years, but the characters of these times are weirdly revolutionary, and it's not really shown why.

5 hours ago, divica said:

No. It is said multiple times that the NW isn't a subject of the IT. That they are an impartial force. And besides the castles they have the gift and new gift that belong to the NW. So yes, the LC is an elected king within the domains of the NW.

Totally disagree. It's actually surprising that Jon kneels to Stannis so quickly and so often.

That doesn't mean the king can treat the LC like any other lord - the Night's Watch takes no part - meaning the Watch can't be summoned to war, can't be commanded to do anything but their core task, defending the Wall.

But the example of the Night's King shows that if a LC looks like straying from duty, higher authorities can take him down.

[Leonardo]

10 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Sure, but it still sets a precedent. Barristan was thrown out of the KG because he failed to save Robert, and then KG could be dismissed for other reasons as well as that one.

People could think: 'Well, yeah, the Lord Commander died and all, but he wasn't *really* dead because then he would have never come back, so why cannot we wear crowns and win glory and father children, too?

I mean, I could see this as an eventual rationalization for Jon to leave the NW if things there went to hell or he had severe problems with what was going on there and couldn't do anything about it or had the need to go to some other place for some reason ... but it isn't something he is likely to cite immediately after his resurrection.

Because so far the one coherent trait in his arc is that he has understood the danger the Others pose and wants to stop them. He couldn't do that if he left the Wall.

Lord Varys strikin it true all in this thread; and I disagree with half of what he says, lol. "The Gods". Those are the only ones who can make and break vows.

[Leonardo]

41 minutes ago, Springwatch said:

Kings like tradition, because kingship is a tradition.

He's going to have a hard time convincing people that he's not a wight. Or if he doesn't look like a wight, he's going to have a hard time convincing people that he ever died.

He thinks he can do it, but that doesn't mean he can. Same with Robb - he thinks he can get Jon's vows set aside, but he doesn't know it.

It's not easy to overturn traditions going back hundreds or thousands of years, but the characters of these times are weirdly revolutionary, and it's not really shown why.

Totally disagree. It's actually surprising that Jon kneels to Stannis so quickly and so often.

That doesn't mean the king can treat the LC like any other lord - the Night's Watch takes no part - meaning the Watch can't be summoned to war, can't be commanded to do anything but their core task, defending the Wall.

But the example of the Night's King shows that if a LC looks like straying from duty, higher authorities can take him down.

 

Oooh and I like this one even more. Good points, all.

[BalerionTheCat]

In the case of the KG, the oaths are to the king. So I suppose the king can dismiss them.

For marriage, I don't know. It seems a case of "accepted practice" ... so long as some god doesn't manifest opposition. Which is unlikely. If the High Septon is what is needed, so be it.

For Jon, he may find it would better serve to not follow the vows to the letter. But again, it's a question of acceptance by others. Whatever happen, Jon will still stick to the "protect the realms of men”. Wearing a crown or owning lands is not necessary for that. In fact it is just causing hurts.

[BalerionTheCat]

1 hour ago, Leonardo said:

"The Gods". Those are the only ones who can make and break vows.

In theory. But as the gods seldom manifest displeasure, the men with authority and power can do pretty much what they want.

[Lord Varys]

10 hours ago, divica said:

I am  not sure if the KG swear to a specific king. When a king dies we don't see the KG swearing new vows to his heir or even leaving the order because the king they were sworn to died. The KG does look like an order very simillar to the NW in several regards and one of them is that they belong to the KG for life.

The vows the KG swear include that they serve for life. But as Cersei argues when she dismisses Barristan it isn't clear whether it means their own lives or the life of their king. Sure, up to that point it meant the lives of the KG, but that is actually an accident of history ... or rather: the earlier kings unhappy with the KG of their predecessors used the Watch to get rid of them - like Jaehaerys I did with those of Maegor's KG he didn't sentence to death. And we can expect that this happened later, too. I'd not be surpriesd if Daeron II may also have decided to remove some corrupt KG from the Kingsguard he inherited from the Unworthy - either by execution or by forcing them to take the black.

Aegon III would have likely been the first king to dismiss KGs because there is no chance that he would have wanted that some Green loyalist protect himself and his queen and his family. This wasn't necessary because those KG already died during his minority.

Technically every king has to agree to keep the KG he inherited because personal vows those guy swore do not bind him. And if he were not to want a KG - like Stannis apparently does and Renly definitely didn't want - then he could just as well fire them all. As we see during the Dance the Kingsguard also have to make a choice to accept the new monarch. Some went with Aegon II, others with Rhaenyra.

Barristan and Jaime also make the choice to accept Robert as their king - they didn't have to do that, just as Robert wasn't forced to keep them.

10 hours ago, divica said:

And within the lands between the wall and new gift the LC is the supreme ruler. He has simillar powers to a king. Who has the authority to say that the LC can't release a sworn brother from his vows? Robb thought it was possible.

Robb was a king who thought he could force/bribe the NW into doing what he wanted. But the NW isn't really the problem there. The problem is the societal taboo of breaking the NW vows, especially in the North. The NW would most likely like it if they lost one brother and got a hundred good men in return. But whether Robb's bannermen and subjects would like it that their childless king put his own selfish desires (again!) before solemn vows which are generally viewed as unbreakable is the real question.

10 hours ago, divica said:

Knowing they were alive at a certain point in time is pretty useless. Who knows what happened since then? Decisions need to be made. Someone has to be in charge. And howland reed wont spill the secrets about jon's parents without something forcing him to do it. What would be the point now? 

Well, he might not want that a false son of Eddard Stark's takes possession of Winterfell. Decisions already have been made. The Manderlys want to restore Rickon Stark to Winterfell, not Jon Snow. They know that Bran and Rickon are alive, too. And at this point Rickon might be found and brought back before Robb's will even leaves the Neck. Assuming it actually contains what we think it contains ... which George himself told us we don't actually know.

Jon could only be made king/lord if people wanted him to be king/lord ... and chances are not that high that folks will want to do that while a considerable portion of powerful Northmen know that Eddard's trueborn sons are still out there and about to be brought back. Not to mention that Sansa might make a move before that happens ... or it might at least be revealed that she is alive and well in the Vale, a power in her own right.

The only way it may make sense for Jon to claim real power in the North is if there is a real and lasting power vacuum there. Stannis and Shireen and the Boltons are dead ... as well as Rickon Stark and even Sansa Stark. And I really don't see that danger at this point. If Stannis were to do the news would spread, the same if Rickon were to be revealed to be alive and died then shortly after. In both cases Sansa would likely make a move.

And if Jon Snow were to make a move to usurp power against any of Ned's trueborn children - not matter what Robb's will said - somebody should cut his fucking head. That is a no-go. Winterfell doesn't belong to him, it belongs to Ned's children.

And to be perfectly clear - if Sansa were to make a move to take possession of the North while knowing Bran and Rickon are still around she would also deserve to be put down. For Rickon, I make an exception, because he would be a pawn in the hands of others.

The true and rightful heir of Winterfell and the North is Brandon Stark until such a time as he himself decides he doesn't want it. Which I don't think he'll ever do if he were to leave the cave again.

But I really also don't see Jon Snow wanting to be a King in the North even if he could be. He knows the Others are the problem, so if he were to continue Robb's silly separatism it would be very difficult to get support from the folks in the south. He could easily enough be some kind of informal leader but he would, most likely, not style himself king or allow himself to be crowned or proclaimed king. He could go with Lord Protector of the North, say, ruling in the name of absent Bran/Rickon/Sansa/Arya.

10 hours ago, divica said:

And obviously the north need a leader. We have no idea if stannis is even alive. And the idea that the northerns would follow a southern that knows nothing about the north and now has almost no soldiers doesn t make much sense.

They have already pledged themselves to him. Stannis is the one fighting the Boltons and avenging the Starks, not the Northmen. They are, for the most part, just scheming cowards like Manderly and the Umbers.

10 hours ago, divica said:

That makes no sense. It goes completly against what the NW stands for. Seriously, that makes no sense. If jon wants to protect the realms of men he can do it without being part of the NW. However if he wants to be king and marry he needs to quit the NW.

Does he now? Says who? He could set a new precedent being the first man of the NW/Lord Commander who is also proclaimed king. And who said anything about Jon wanting to marry? He could be a king and not marry.

If we had a scenario where he took power in the North and later it came out that his siblings were still all alive then, well, one way to restore power to the trueborn Starks would be if Jon's line died with him, so Winterfell could revert to Bran or Rickon or Rickon's children.

10 hours ago, divica said:

No. It is said multiple times that the NW isn't a subject of the IT. That they are an impartial force. And besides the castles they have the gift and new gift that belong to the NW. So yes, the LC is an elected king within the domains of the NW. So the king can't abolish the NW using his words...

Nah, that's just nonsense. The Watch are subjects of the Iron Throne. That's why they beg the Crown for help, that's why they 'Your Grace' the kings and queens who visit them, that's why there's a King's Tower there, that's why Tyrion is buttered up during his visit, that's why Stannis tells that he will do as he please no matter what the Watch says, etc.

The only privilege they have is that they can settle their own internal affairs independently and elect their own lord commander. That's privilege they have, but that's not that different from a lord appointing the members of his own household or dealing on his own terms with his peasants. The Crown also doesn't oversee or interfere with that as long the lord doesn't break any laws.

Of course the king could decree that the NW is dissolved. He would then also have to deal with the black brothers as such, like Maegor and Jaehaerys I did with the Faith Militant. But that wouldn't be that hard, or would it?

10 hours ago, divica said:

And the faith was against the kings abolishing the faith militant. They were only able to do it because they had dragons. It wasn t a decision based on the lawfull power of the kings.

The orders were abolished by royal decree.

10 hours ago, divica said:

And what happens if the LC doesn t want a sworn member to belong to the NW but doesn t want to kill him? Just wants him out of the NW. Who is there to forbid him to expel the member? The LC is the supreme leader of the NW...

Ask George. So far we have no precedent for this. But what he cannot do, it seems, is send such folks back home because they would not take him in. Else we would have heard about black brothers who returned back home.

The idea that a Lord Commander has the authority to pick and choose who is a proper black brother and who isn't isn't very likely in light of the fact that Mormont has files about men in his service who are serial killers and mass murderers.

And the entire point of the Watch as a penal colony wouldn't work if the Lord Commander could reject volunteers or allow them to leave the order.

10 hours ago, divica said:

And while the king could abolish the KG because he has the manpower to support his decision what I am asking is if the law allows him to do it. Because from what we know it shouldn t be allowed.

Of course that's possible. The Kingsguard is just the king's bodyguard. He can fire them all.

4 hours ago, Springwatch said:

Kings like tradition, because kingship is a tradition.

Yes, especially since the Kingsguard is a specific Targaryen tradition, so they were all pretty fond of that. But Jaehaerys I shows how you can keep the order and replace its members easily enough. And as I said, he might not have been the only king to take that route. If Dunk had joined the KG during the reign of Aerys I or Maekar and Aerion had become king we can be pretty sure that King Aerion I wouldn't have suffered Dunk in his KG. He would have sent him to the Wall or taken his head.

And other such cases are imaginable if a prince who eventually became king had severe issues with certain members of the KG of his predecessor.

[Ivan Tsarevich]

I think that depends. Oath, as I see it, is essentially a sort of contract. A solemn promise made to/before someone, with or without religious elements. And contracts can be undone.

KG oaths are made to the king/throne/Crown, one expects, presumably in the light of the Seven. So the king or regent or perhaps even the Hand (who speaks with the king's voice) can discharge a KG, as done to Barristan. But that's the legal, secular authority... there's also the religious one. Just because the king does not require your service anymore does not necessarily mean that the gods or their faithful have forgotten what you swore. So if a discharged KG wants to say marry and leave whatever possessions he might acquire as inheritance to his legitimate children, better get the vows annulled by the Faith as well. The High Septon can do it: one of them offered that to Maester Aemon, and Tywin suggests same to Jaime. ACoK Jon I.

Jon was not entirely innocent of the history of the realm; his own maester had seen to that. "That was the year of the Great Council," he said. "The lords passed over Prince Aerion's infant son and Prince Daeron's daughter and gave the crown to Aegon."

"Yes and no. First they offered it, quietly, to Aemon. And quietly he refused. The gods meant for him to serve, not to rule, he told them. He had sworn a vow and would not break it, though the High Septon himself offered to absolve him. Well, no sane man wanted any blood of Aerion's on the throne, and Daeron's girl was a lackwit besides being female, so they had no choice but to turn to Aemon's younger brother—Aegon, the Fifth of His Name. Aegon the Unlikely, they called him, born the fourth son of a fourth son. Aemon knew, and rightly, that if he remained at court those who disliked his brother's rule would seek to use him, so he came to the Wall. And here he has remained, while his brother and his brother's son and his son each reigned and died in turn, until Jaime Lannister put an end to the line of the dragonkings."

ASoS Jaime VII.

"It was poison that killed Joffrey, not sorcery." Lord Tywin glanced at Jaime's stump again. "You cannot serve in the Kingsguard without a sword hand—"

"I can," he interrupted. "And I will. There's precedent. I'll look in the White Book and find it, if you like. Crippled or whole, a knight of the Kingsguard serves for life."

"Cersei ended that when she replaced Ser Barristan on grounds of age. A suitable gift to the Faith will persuade the High Septon to release you from your vows. Your sister was foolish to dismiss Selmy, admittedly, but now that she has opened the gates—"

As for Jon, he technically might be able to do that (discharge himself) in the secular sphere, I think. It's not like there's any higher authority in the Watch. Whether such a breach of tradition/new precedent would fly with either his sworn brothers or anyone else south of the Wall is another thing entirely, and the answer, one imagines, is a resounding no. People might be more amenable to such idea if there was some powerful faction trying get Jon out of the NW, like the KitN Robb... Qhorin Halfhand (who is dead by this point) might tell Jon that their honor means no more than their lives, so long as the realm is safe, and as the realm is better served by a friendly KitN supporting the Wall and the men he offers in Jon's place, he better give up his mission in the NW and agree to be discharged. ACoK Jon VIII.

The flames were burning low by then, the warmth fading. "The fire will soon go out," Qhorin said, "but if the Wall should ever fall, all the fires will go out."

There was nothing Jon could say to that. He nodded.

"We may escape them yet," the ranger said. "Or not."

"I'm not afraid to die." It was only half a lie.

"It may not be so easy as that, Jon."

He did not understand. "What do you mean?"

"If we are taken, you must yield."

"Yield?" He blinked in disbelief. The wildlings did not make captives of the men they called the crows. They killed them, except for . . . "They only spare oathbreakers. Those who join them, like Mance Rayder."

"And you."

"No." He shook his head. "Never. I won't."

"You will. I command it of you."

"Command it? But . . ."

"Our honor means no more than our lives, so long as the realm is safe. Are you a man of the Night's Watch?"

"Yes, but—"

"There is no but, Jon Snow. You are, or you are not."

Jon sat up straight. "I am."

"Then hear me. If we are taken, you will go over to them, as the wildling girl you captured once urged you. They may demand that you cut your cloak to ribbons, that you swear them an oath on your father's grave, that you curse your brothers and your Lord Commander. You must not balk, whatever is asked of you. Do as they bid you . . . but in your heart, remember who and what you are. Ride with them, eat with them, fight with them, for as long as it takes. And watch."

"For what?" Jon asked.

"Would that I knew," said Qhorin. "Your wolf saw their diggings in the valley of the Milkwater. What did they seek, in such a bleak and distant place? Did they find it? That is what you must learn, before you return to Lord Mormont and your brothers. That is the duty I lay on you, Jon Snow."

"I'll do as you say," Jon said reluctantly, "but . . . you will tell them, won't you? The Old Bear, at least? You'll tell him that I never broke my oath."

Qhorin Halfhand gazed at him across the fire, his eyes lost in pools of shadow. "When I see him next. I swear it." He gestured at the fire. "More wood. I want it bright and hot."

Jon went to cut more branches, snapping each one in two before tossing it into the flames. The tree had been dead a long time, but it seemed to live again in the fire, as fiery dancers woke within each stick of wood to whirl and spin in their glowing gowns of yellow, red, and orange.

Though of course Jon was not the LC when Robb and Stannis introduced their ideas... there would have been no conflict of interest.

But again, we also have the religion to consider. Jon made his oath in a weirwood grove, before the old gods of the forest, stream, and stone, whose names are secret, if they have them. They have no priesthood or texts. Who can speak for them, as the High Septon speaks for the Seven? The greenseers?

One might imagine that these old gods are nothing but the spirits or echoes of those who have gone before. ADwD, Bran III.

And they did sing. They sang in True Tongue, so Bran could not understand the words, but their voices were as pure as winter air. "Where are the rest of you?" Bran asked Leaf, once.

"Gone down into the earth," she answered. "Into the stones, into the trees. Before the First Men came all this land that you call Westeros was home to us, yet even in those days we were few. The gods gave us long lives but not great numbers, lest we overrun the world as deer will overrun a wood where there are no wolves to hunt them. That was in the dawn of days, when our sun was rising. Now it sinks, and this is our long dwindling. The giants are almost gone as well, they who were our bane and our brothers. The great lions of the western hills have been slain, the unicorns are all but gone, the mammoths down to a few hundred. The direwolves will outlast us all, but their time will come as well. In the world that men have made, there is no room for them, or us."

But as we can see, even Leaf refers to the gods... the gods with a power to shape, not mere ancestral spirits. And even if all worship was reserved to such spirits, could the greenseers contact them? And if they were, how many? Not even a greenseer is necessarily an any sort of proper religious authority, whether or not s/he is tapped to the weirnet. Therefore, if one keeps the old gods as Jon does, there may be no way to undo the oath without dying... if even that is enough. The NW oath speaks of all the nights to come.

So if nobody can speak for the old gods, one might imagine that practising the religion is very dependent of personal interpretation... and of course, personal integrity, as nobody but perhaps yourself and the nameless gods can tell whether you have stayed true, whether you have done the best you can. And of course, both Jon and Ned know what the guilt is. They have a conscience, and prefer to keep their vows and promises. As a general rule, anyway. ADwD Jon VIII.

"You have my word, Lord Snow. I will return, with Tormund or without him." Val glanced at the sky. The moon was but half-full. "Look for me on the first day of the full moon."

"I will." Do not fail me, he thought, or Stannis will have my head. "Do I have your word that you will keep our princess closely?" the king had said, and Jon had promised that he would. Val is no princess, though. I told him that half a hundred times. It was a feeble sort of evasion, a sad rag wrapped around his wounded word. His father would never have approved. I am the sword that guards the realm of men, Jon reminded himself, and in the end, that must be worth more than one man's honor.

Whether the outside perception of their actions matches to their deepest intent is a different matter, and totally irrelevant in regard to whether they have, in fact, kept their word. (Note that I do not refer to Jon's word about Val to Stannis here.) Can the ends justify the means?

Of course, Melisandre offered conversion to Jon. If he is resurrected as a fire wight, well, that might cause a severe crisis of faith.

That, obviously, is just my view on the nature of the oaths and the two situations... others, including the characters in the universe, might see things differently. That may include the author of the story... there may have been previous discharges even in the history of the NW. SSM.

The second concerns the oaths of the Night Watch, Maesters, King's Guard, silent sisters, etc. Both Robb and Stannis, and presumably Robb's great lords, thought it was possible that Jon could be released form his oaths. Other than the precedent established by Joffrey with Ser Barristan, is there any other past precedent with any of the other organizations were the members swear poverty, celibacy, etc. to be honorably released from their vows? I ask because if the NW has been around for 8000 years, and many great lords and/or their families may have joined (not entirely willing in some cases), there seems to be a lot of potential for "exceptions" to develop as time went on.

Yes, there have been a few other cases, but they have been very rare. Such vows are taken very seriously.

Whether any of these previous dischargees would've kept the old gods I do not know.

And of course, if one keeps in mind this view of the oaths sworn to/before the old gods (no way to get out of the contract, at least not universally accepted one), the style "the old gods and the new" can take a far stricter sense. See the following quote, for example. (AGoT Jon IX.)

He found himself thinking of the deserter his father had beheaded the day they'd found the direwolves. "You said the words," Lord Eddard had told him. "You took a vow, before your brothers, before the old gods and the new." Desmond and Fat Tom had dragged the man to the stump. Bran's eyes had been wide as saucers, and Jon had to remind him to keep his pony in hand. He remembered the look on Father's face when Theon Greyjoy brought forth Ice, the spray of blood on the snow, the way Theon had kicked the head when it came rolling at his feet.

So say Jaime is released from his oaths by the High Septon and the king. Assume he said those before the old gods and the new. Tough luck - still not free. Now try to marry him to a heiress from a house which keeps the old gods.

Note also what Ned says about Gared's brothers. Not only are the old gods and the new mentioned as the witnesses of his vow... his sworn brothers are as well.

[divica]

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Robb was a king who thought he could force/bribe the NW into doing what he wanted. But the NW isn't really the problem there. The problem is the societal taboo of breaking the NW vows, especially in the North. The NW would most likely like it if they lost one brother and got a hundred good men in return. But whether Robb's bannermen and subjects would like it that their childless king put his own selfish desires (again!) before solemn vows which are generally viewed as unbreakable is the real question.

But people don't hunt down and kill people that break vows. They do that to deserters of the NW. And if the NW says that one sworn brother isn t a deserter who has the authority to say otherwise? People might not like it and call the person an oathbreaker but not a deserter. And that is important.

Because for example both robb and jaime are oathbreakers.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, he might not want that a false son of Eddard Stark's takes possession of Winterfell. Decisions already have been made. The Manderlys want to restore Rickon Stark to Winterfell, not Jon Snow. They know that Bran and Rickon are alive, too. And at this point Rickon might be found and brought back before Robb's will even leaves the Neck. Assuming it actually contains what we think it contains ... which George himself told us we don't actually know.

Jon could only be made king/lord if people wanted him to be king/lord ... and chances are not that high that folks will want to do that while a considerable portion of powerful Northmen know that Eddard's trueborn sons are still out there and about to be brought back. Not to mention that Sansa might make a move before that happens ... or it might at least be revealed that she is alive and well in the Vale, a power in her own right.

The only way it may make sense for Jon to claim real power in the North is if there is a real and lasting power vacuum there. Stannis and Shireen and the Boltons are dead ... as well as Rickon Stark and even Sansa Stark. And I really don't see that danger at this point. If Stannis were to do the news would spread, the same if Rickon were to be revealed to be alive and died then shortly after. In both cases Sansa would likely make a move.

And if Jon Snow were to make a move to usurp power against any of Ned's trueborn children - not matter what Robb's will said - somebody should cut his fucking head. That is a no-go. Winterfell doesn't belong to him, it belongs to Ned's children.

And to be perfectly clear - if Sansa were to make a move to take possession of the North while knowing Bran and Rickon are still around she would also deserve to be put down. For Rickon, I make an exception, because he would be a pawn in the hands of others.

The true and rightful heir of Winterfell and the North is Brandon Stark until such a time as he himself decides he doesn't want it. Which I don't think he'll ever do if he were to leave the cave again.

But I really also don't see Jon Snow wanting to be a King in the North even if he could be. He knows the Others are the problem, so if he were to continue Robb's silly separatism it would be very difficult to get support from the folks in the south. He could easily enough be some kind of informal leader but he would, most likely, not style himself king or allow himself to be crowned or proclaimed king. He could go with Lord Protector of the North, say, ruling in the name of absent Bran/Rickon/Sansa/Arya.

Ok, sansa isn't an option because she is married to tyrion. Until that is solved nobody would ever suport her for power in the north. And if in the mean time she marries some vale lord she would continue to not be an option.

In regards to the will, we have lyanna's mormont letter where she declares the north already has a king and the clans leaders that have an odd behaviour at the wall that indicate they know something.

About the bran, jon, rickon debacle I think it is very confusing and will depend on the timing instead of who has a better claim.

First and foremost, howland reed wont betray his vows of silence so that jon who is a stark (and that was the reason robb chosed him) doesn t become the ruler of the north. He might do it in private under specific conditions but otherwise he will remain in silence. 

Then we have a problem of vows again. Because we are talking about robb's heir and not ned's heir. So if robb legitimated jon he is legaly robb's heir wether any of his brothers is alive or not. And the will must mention that being in the NW isn t a problem otherwise it would be a pretty useless will when tyrion lannister puts his claim forth because of the marriage with sansa. So whoever was sworn to robb should be sworn to jon. 

So as you can see there are good chances that jon is the rightfull heir to the north if he can get out of the NW.

However this is also pretty moot if one of his brothers comes forth and declares himself king or warden because jon won't beguin a civil war. However I think the same would also be true for either rickon or bran.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Of course that's possible. The Kingsguard is just the king's bodyguard. He can fire them all.

If the KG are his bodyguards then the NW are the LC soldiers. Wich leader can't kick out a member of his army without killing him?

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Ask George. So far we have no precedent for this. But what he cannot do, it seems, is send such folks back home because they would not take him in. Else we would have heard about black brothers who returned back home.

The idea that a Lord Commander has the authority to pick and choose who is a proper black brother and who isn't isn't very likely in light of the fact that Mormont has files about men in his service who are serial killers and mass murderers.

And the entire point of the Watch as a penal colony wouldn't work if the Lord Commander could reject volunteers or allow them to leave the order.

But the NW didn't start as a penal colony. And you are forgeting that robb thought that the NW could send a sworn brother home. Maybe there were precedents that we haven't heard about. 

But the problem is that there isn t a clear law that says that the LC can't release a sworn brother from his vows. Westeros might not like and turn against such lord comander, but there are enough precedents with the KG that show that it should be within his powers.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Nah, that's just nonsense. The Watch are subjects of the Iron Throne. That's why they beg the Crown for help, that's why they 'Your Grace' the kings and queens who visit them, that's why there's a King's Tower there, that's why Tyrion is buttered up during his visit, that's why Stannis tells that he will do as he please no matter what the Watch says, etc.

The only privilege they have is that they can settle their own internal affairs independently and elect their own lord commander. That's privilege they have, but that's not that different from a lord appointing the members of his own household or dealing on his own terms with his peasants. The Crown also doesn't oversee or interfere with that as long the lord doesn't break any laws.

Of course the king could decree that the NW is dissolved. He would then also have to deal with the black brothers as such, like Maegor and Jaehaerys I did with the Faith Militant. But that wouldn't be that hard, or would it?

You are dead wrong. The NW is always polite to kings because it depends on the goodwill of westeros to survive. However, jon cand decide to settle wildlings in the gift without asking anyone for permission. He does't need to act against or in favor of stannis wether he is the king or a traitor to the IT. He doesn t pay taxes to the IT. He doesn't have to follow the orders of the IT. He doesn't report to the IT. I don't see anyway that they are subjects to the IT.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Does he now? Says who? He could set a new precedent being the first man of the NW/Lord Commander who is also proclaimed king. And who said anything about Jon wanting to marry? He could be a king and not marry.

If we had a scenario where he took power in the North and later it came out that his siblings were still all alive then, well, one way to restore power to the trueborn Starks would be if Jon's line died with him, so Winterfell could revert to Bran or Rickon or Rickon's children.

We are talking about jon snow not jesus or some saint. And we had a member of the NW who proclaimed himself king and things didn't end well for him. Being king and a member of the NW are completly contradictory and doesn t even make sense. One person doesn t have to be a member of the NW in order to go to the wall and defend the realm. 

If you ask people they would even say that the NW should end because it is clearly a failed project. It needs to reinvent itself in order to survive in modern times. And it needs members that aren't criminals... And after being murdered it makes sense that jon would want to end the NW and create a diferent order.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

They have already pledged themselves to him. Stannis is the one fighting the Boltons and avenging the Starks, not the Northmen. They are, for the most part, just scheming cowards like Manderly and the Umbers.

Hardly. They pledged to save farya and she is already saved. The only people who might continue to suport stannis are those scheming cowards that want a stark back as warden. And stannis doesn't have a stark...

 

[divica]

1 hour ago, TsarGrey said:

I think that depends. Oath, as I see it, is essentially a sort of contract. A solemn promise made to/before someone, with or without religious elements. And contracts can be undone.

KG oaths are made to the king/throne/Crown, one expects, presumably in the light of the Seven. So the king or regent or perhaps even the Hand (who speaks with the king's voice) can discharge a KG, as done to Barristan. But that's the legal, secular authority... there's also the religious one. Just because the king does not require your service anymore does not necessarily mean that the gods or their faithful have forgotten what you swore. So if a discharged KG wants to say marry and leave whatever possessions he might acquire as inheritance to his legitimate children, better get the vows annulled by the Faith as well. The High Septon can do it: one of them offered that to Maester Aemon, and Tywin suggests same to Jaime. ACoK Jon I.

Jon was not entirely innocent of the history of the realm; his own maester had seen to that. "That was the year of the Great Council," he said. "The lords passed over Prince Aerion's infant son and Prince Daeron's daughter and gave the crown to Aegon."

"Yes and no. First they offered it, quietly, to Aemon. And quietly he refused. The gods meant for him to serve, not to rule, he told them. He had sworn a vow and would not break it, though the High Septon himself offered to absolve him. Well, no sane man wanted any blood of Aerion's on the throne, and Daeron's girl was a lackwit besides being female, so they had no choice but to turn to Aemon's younger brother—Aegon, the Fifth of His Name. Aegon the Unlikely, they called him, born the fourth son of a fourth son. Aemon knew, and rightly, that if he remained at court those who disliked his brother's rule would seek to use him, so he came to the Wall. And here he has remained, while his brother and his brother's son and his son each reigned and died in turn, until Jaime Lannister put an end to the line of the dragonkings."

ASoS Jaime VII.

"It was poison that killed Joffrey, not sorcery." Lord Tywin glanced at Jaime's stump again. "You cannot serve in the Kingsguard without a sword hand—"

"I can," he interrupted. "And I will. There's precedent. I'll look in the White Book and find it, if you like. Crippled or whole, a knight of the Kingsguard serves for life."

"Cersei ended that when she replaced Ser Barristan on grounds of age. A suitable gift to the Faith will persuade the High Septon to release you from your vows. Your sister was foolish to dismiss Selmy, admittedly, but now that she has opened the gates—"

As for Jon, he technically might be able to do that (discharge himself) in the secular sphere, I think. It's not like there's any higher authority in the Watch. Whether such a breach of tradition/new precedent would fly with either his sworn brothers or anyone else south of the Wall is another thing entirely, and the answer, one imagines, is a resounding no. People might be more amenable to such idea if there was some powerful faction trying get Jon out of the NW, like the KitN Robb... Qhorin Halfhand (who is dead by this point) might tell Jon that their honor means no more than their lives, so long as the realm is safe, and as the realm is better served by a friendly KitN supporting the Wall and the men he offers in Jon's place, he better give up his mission in the NW and agree to be discharged. ACoK Jon VIII.

The flames were burning low by then, the warmth fading. "The fire will soon go out," Qhorin said, "but if the Wall should ever fall, all the fires will go out."

There was nothing Jon could say to that. He nodded.

"We may escape them yet," the ranger said. "Or not."

"I'm not afraid to die." It was only half a lie.

"It may not be so easy as that, Jon."

He did not understand. "What do you mean?"

"If we are taken, you must yield."

"Yield?" He blinked in disbelief. The wildlings did not make captives of the men they called the crows. They killed them, except for . . . "They only spare oathbreakers. Those who join them, like Mance Rayder."

"And you."

"No." He shook his head. "Never. I won't."

"You will. I command it of you."

"Command it? But . . ."

"Our honor means no more than our lives, so long as the realm is safe. Are you a man of the Night's Watch?"

"Yes, but—"

"There is no but, Jon Snow. You are, or you are not."

Jon sat up straight. "I am."

"Then hear me. If we are taken, you will go over to them, as the wildling girl you captured once urged you. They may demand that you cut your cloak to ribbons, that you swear them an oath on your father's grave, that you curse your brothers and your Lord Commander. You must not balk, whatever is asked of you. Do as they bid you . . . but in your heart, remember who and what you are. Ride with them, eat with them, fight with them, for as long as it takes. And watch."

"For what?" Jon asked.

"Would that I knew," said Qhorin. "Your wolf saw their diggings in the valley of the Milkwater. What did they seek, in such a bleak and distant place? Did they find it? That is what you must learn, before you return to Lord Mormont and your brothers. That is the duty I lay on you, Jon Snow."

"I'll do as you say," Jon said reluctantly, "but . . . you will tell them, won't you? The Old Bear, at least? You'll tell him that I never broke my oath."

Qhorin Halfhand gazed at him across the fire, his eyes lost in pools of shadow. "When I see him next. I swear it." He gestured at the fire. "More wood. I want it bright and hot."

Jon went to cut more branches, snapping each one in two before tossing it into the flames. The tree had been dead a long time, but it seemed to live again in the fire, as fiery dancers woke within each stick of wood to whirl and spin in their glowing gowns of yellow, red, and orange.

Though of course Jon was not the LC when Robb and Stannis introduced their ideas... there would have been no conflict of interest.

But again, we also have the religion to consider. Jon made his oath in a weirwood grove, before the old gods of the forest, stream, and stone, whose names are secret, if they have them. They have no priesthood or texts. Who can speak for them, as the High Septon speaks for the Seven? The greenseers?

One might imagine that these old gods are nothing but the spirits or echoes of those who have gone before. ADwD, Bran III.

And they did sing. They sang in True Tongue, so Bran could not understand the words, but their voices were as pure as winter air. "Where are the rest of you?" Bran asked Leaf, once.

"Gone down into the earth," she answered. "Into the stones, into the trees. Before the First Men came all this land that you call Westeros was home to us, yet even in those days we were few. The gods gave us long lives but not great numbers, lest we overrun the world as deer will overrun a wood where there are no wolves to hunt them. That was in the dawn of days, when our sun was rising. Now it sinks, and this is our long dwindling. The giants are almost gone as well, they who were our bane and our brothers. The great lions of the western hills have been slain, the unicorns are all but gone, the mammoths down to a few hundred. The direwolves will outlast us all, but their time will come as well. In the world that men have made, there is no room for them, or us."

But as we can see, even Leaf refers to the gods... the gods with a power to shape, not mere ancestral spirits. And even if all worship was reserved to such spirits, could the greenseers contact them? And if they were, how many? Not even a greenseer is necessarily an any sort of proper religious authority, whether or not s/he is tapped to the weirnet. Therefore, if one keeps the old gods as Jon does, there may be no way to undo the oath without dying... if even that is enough. The NW oath speaks of all the nights to come.

So if nobody can speak for the old gods, one might imagine that practising the religion is very dependent of personal interpretation... and of course, personal integrity, as nobody but perhaps yourself and the nameless gods can tell whether you have stayed true, whether you have done the best you can. And of course, both Jon and Ned know what the guilt is. They have a conscience, and prefer to keep their vows and promises. As a general rule, anyway. ADwD Jon VIII.

"You have my word, Lord Snow. I will return, with Tormund or without him." Val glanced at the sky. The moon was but half-full. "Look for me on the first day of the full moon."

"I will." Do not fail me, he thought, or Stannis will have my head. "Do I have your word that you will keep our princess closely?" the king had said, and Jon had promised that he would. Val is no princess, though. I told him that half a hundred times. It was a feeble sort of evasion, a sad rag wrapped around his wounded word. His father would never have approved. I am the sword that guards the realm of men, Jon reminded himself, and in the end, that must be worth more than one man's honor.

Whether the outside perception of their actions matches to their deepest intent is a different matter, and totally irrelevant in regard to whether they have, in fact, kept their word. (Note that I do not refer to Jon's word about Val to Stannis here.) Can the ends justify the means?

Of course, Melisandre offered conversion to Jon. If he is resurrected as a fire wight, well, that might cause a severe crisis of faith.

That, obviously, is just my view on the nature of the oaths and the two situations... others, including the characters in the universe, might see things differently. That may include the author of the story... there may have been previous discharges even in the history of the NW. SSM.

The second concerns the oaths of the Night Watch, Maesters, King's Guard, silent sisters, etc. Both Robb and Stannis, and presumably Robb's great lords, thought it was possible that Jon could be released form his oaths. Other than the precedent established by Joffrey with Ser Barristan, is there any other past precedent with any of the other organizations were the members swear poverty, celibacy, etc. to be honorably released from their vows? I ask because if the NW has been around for 8000 years, and many great lords and/or their families may have joined (not entirely willing in some cases), there seems to be a lot of potential for "exceptions" to develop as time went on.

Yes, there have been a few other cases, but they have been very rare. Such vows are taken very seriously.

Whether any of these previous dischargees would've kept the old gods I do not know.

And of course, if one keeps in mind this view of the oaths sworn to/before the old gods (no way to get out of the contract, at least not universally accepted one), the style "the old gods and the new" can take a far stricter sense. See the following quote, for example. (AGoT Jon IX.)

He found himself thinking of the deserter his father had beheaded the day they'd found the direwolves. "You said the words," Lord Eddard had told him. "You took a vow, before your brothers, before the old gods and the new." Desmond and Fat Tom had dragged the man to the stump. Bran's eyes had been wide as saucers, and Jon had to remind him to keep his pony in hand. He remembered the look on Father's face when Theon Greyjoy brought forth Ice, the spray of blood on the snow, the way Theon had kicked the head when it came rolling at his feet.

So say Jaime is released from his oaths by the High Septon and the king. Assume he said those before the old gods and the new. Tough luck - still not free. Now try to marry him to a heiress from a house which keeps the old gods.

Note also what Ned says about Gared's brothers. Not only are the old gods and the new mentioned as the witnesses of his vow... his sworn brothers are as well.

Great post. Just to say that I think that the old gods are the spirits of greenseers and cotf instead of some misterious gods. And by that logic they can talk back to jon by bran or through dreams. 

[Lord Varys]

On 4/25/2021 at 6:37 PM, divica said:

But people don't hunt down and kill people that break vows. They do that to deserters of the NW. And if the NW says that one sworn brother isn t a deserter who has the authority to say otherwise? People might not like it and call the person an oathbreaker but not a deserter. And that is important.

Everybody can say that a black brother who left his post is a deserter. Who is to say otherwise? They? Hardly.

On 4/25/2021 at 6:37 PM, divica said:

Because for example both robb and jaime are oathbreakers.

Breaking the vows of the NW is an altogether different animal than breaking the KG vows, obviously. This is very well illustrated by the example of Lord Ryswell and his son.

On 4/25/2021 at 6:37 PM, divica said:

Ok, sansa isn't an option because she is married to tyrion. Until that is solved nobody would ever suport her for power in the north. And if in the mean time she marries some vale lord she would continue to not be an option.

In light of Littlefinger's plans for Sansa this seems to be a completely unfounded assumption on your part. If Sansa had 30,000 Vale men on her side then the Northmen will fall in line or they will be crushed.

And the Tyrion thing is a non-issue while the guy is away and, most likely, presumed to be dead. Not to mention that Sansa could just kill the creep if he ever showed his face again.

On 4/25/2021 at 6:37 PM, divica said:

In regards to the will, we have lyanna's mormont letter where she declares the north already has a king and the clans leaders that have an odd behaviour at the wall that indicate they know something.

A letter of a ten-year-old girl means nothing. And it basically referred to the dead Robb Stark since no other Stark king has been proclaimed and crowned so far. It is a fantasy king Lyanna Mormont talks about, sort of like the Blacks continued to fight for a dead queen after Rhaenyra's death ... or the Brotherhood without Banners is still loyal to King Robert.

On 4/25/2021 at 6:37 PM, divica said:

About the bran, jon, rickon debacle I think it is very confusing and will depend on the timing instead of who has a better claim.

It is not that hard. Brandon Stark is Robb's rightful heir. Period. Robb's will is null and void if it operates under the wrong assumption that his brothers Brandon and Rickon are dead.

If the Northmen were to ignore that they would all be traitors. And a lot of men do already know that Bran and Rickon are still alive. Some clansmen do, Manderly and Robett Glover do, the Reeds do (or else Howland would have sent his children to Winterfell to lead Bran to Bloodraven - he wouldn't think his children and the Stark boys are dead).

And, in fact, Wyman Manderly is already a traitor of sorts in his desire to hand Winterfell to Rickon rather than Brandon Stark.

On 4/25/2021 at 6:37 PM, divica said:

First and foremost, howland reed wont betray his vows of silence so that jon who is a stark (and that was the reason robb chosed him) doesn t become the ruler of the north. He might do it in private under specific conditions but otherwise he will remain in silence. 

That is a baseless assumption since there is no indication that Howland ever made such a vow of silence. More important, Howland should know/expect Bran and Rickon are still alive since Jojen went to Winterfell for a reason. The idea that Howland would help anyone to steal Winterfell away from Ned's sons isn't very convincing.

In fact, he may already have decided to suppress Robb's last will. Or why do you think he didn't allow Maege Mormont and Galbart Glover to leave his lands?

And, no, Jon Snow isn't a Stark. He is either a Targaryen prince or a Targaryen bastard disguised as a Stark bastard. And Robb's last will would legitimize Eddard Stark's bastard and/or name him his heir ... he would not name Lyanna Stark's son his heir.

On 4/25/2021 at 6:37 PM, divica said:

Then we have a problem of vows again. Because we are talking about robb's heir and not ned's heir. So if robb legitimated jon he is legaly robb's heir wether any of his brothers is alive or not. And the will must mention that being in the NW isn t a problem otherwise it would be a pretty useless will when tyrion lannister puts his claim forth because of the marriage with sansa. So whoever was sworn to robb should be sworn to jon. 

That is also not a very good argument since Robb's will would be contingent on Jon Snow being allowed to leave the NW. Which he could never accomplish.

And by the way - Robb's hubris got him killed. Him not being able to keep his pants down, his delusion he could do whatever he wanted. Roose and Walder made it clear that was mistaken in that department. Robb's idea that he could get Jon out of his vows - and force his people to accept this - may be about as realistic as his belief the Freys would accept his apology.

And, no, Robb's last will presupposes wrongly that Robb's trueborn siblings (aside from Sansa) are dead. If folks know that's crap by the time the will is made public, people are very likely to ignore it. Also, Sansa may be disinherited because she is married to a Lannister at the time the will has been written ... but if that marriage is no longer a thing by the time the will is revealed then Sansa would not longer be seen as disinherited.

On 4/25/2021 at 6:37 PM, divica said:

However this is also pretty moot if one of his brothers comes forth and declares himself king or warden because jon won't beguin a civil war. However I think the same would also be true for either rickon or bran.

It depends who proclaims a new Stark king/Lord of Winterfell and at which time. Rickon, of instance, will always be just a puppet. And if he were to fall into the hands of people who really want to see him as king/lord then they might also try to do away with Jon Snow if he were standing in their way. Say, if the Manderlys married him to Wylla then they might not be willing to back down. The same might be true if the Skagosi supporting Rickon felt it was their due that the Stark who had come to them should rule.

You could also have different factions proclaiming/crowning different pretenders to Winterfell without knowing about each other.

You do remember that 'to crown Myrcella means to kill her', according to Tyrion, meaning that if this were down Tommen's government would, in the end, be forced to actually kill Myrcella because she had become a vital threat to Tommen's throne.

Something like that could also happen if there are multiple Stark pretenders to Winterfell.

On 4/25/2021 at 6:37 PM, divica said:

If the KG are his bodyguards then the NW are the LC soldiers. Wich leader can't kick out a member of his army without killing him?

Nope, that's just wrong. The LC is the elected leader of a military order with follows a specific purpose - protecting the northern border of the Seven Kingdoms. He isn't a sovereign king.

You confuse what it means to be a king with what it means to be a lord (commander). The Kingsguard is also run by a lord commander ... like the NW. And both are subject to the king.

On 4/25/2021 at 6:37 PM, divica said:

But the NW didn't start as a penal colony. And you are forgeting that robb thought that the NW could send a sworn brother home. Maybe there were precedents that we haven't heard about. 

Or maybe not. We don't know. And as I said - Robb also thought Theon could be trusted and that the Freys would forgive him.

On 4/25/2021 at 6:37 PM, divica said:

But the problem is that there isn t a clear law that says that the LC can't release a sworn brother from his vows. Westeros might not like and turn against such lord comander, but there are enough precedents with the KG that show that it should be within his powers.

Those are apples and oranges. Everybody knows and believes that taking the black means you never come back. That is why even the vilest of criminals and traitors are allowed to take the black if they want to. Because insofar as the Seven Kingdoms are concerned they will never come back.

The problem with a man of the NW is that the social norms of the Seven Kingdoms would not allow such a person to rejoin society. Never mind what Robb wished. Getting Jon out of his vows would have been another blunder like the Theon or the Westerling or the Karstark thing. It may have caused the Tullys (Catelyn included) to turn their backs on him ... and with them all the Riverlords.

And in the North this kind of selfish desire - to make exceptions for a bastard half-brother - would have been very unpopular. If Robb had actually dared to name such a person his heir they would have either rebelled or arranged the murder of Jon Snow.

On 4/25/2021 at 6:37 PM, divica said:

You are dead wrong. The NW is always polite to kings because it depends on the goodwill of westeros to survive. However, jon cand decide to settle wildlings in the gift without asking anyone for permission. He does't need to act against or in favor of stannis wether he is the king or a traitor to the IT. He doesn t pay taxes to the IT. He doesn't have to follow the orders of the IT. He doesn't report to the IT. I don't see anyway that they are subjects to the IT.

Settling wildlings on your own lands is your own business. The Iron Throne wouldn't have necessarily an opinion on this.

But of course, the Iron Throne can command the NW and have done so in the past. If they were no longer doing their jobs, if they allied with the wildlings, if they refused to stop them from entering the Seven Kingdoms, etc.

Whether they pay taxes we don't know, by the way.

Anyone who is dependent on another entity to survive is subservient to them, by the way. That's why the boss who pays you money so you can buy food and a roof over your head is your boss and not your friend or equal.

On 4/25/2021 at 6:37 PM, divica said:

We are talking about jon snow not jesus or some saint. And we had a member of the NW who proclaimed himself king and things didn't end well for him. Being king and a member of the NW are completly contradictory and doesn t even make sense. One person doesn t have to be a member of the NW in order to go to the wall and defend the realm. 

The idea is that I don't see any reason why Jon shouldn't want to continue whatever he is going to do after his resurrection as a member of the NW.

On 4/25/2021 at 6:37 PM, divica said:

If you ask people they would even say that the NW should end because it is clearly a failed project. It needs to reinvent itself in order to survive in modern times. And it needs members that aren't criminals... And after being murdered it makes sense that jon would want to end the NW and create a diferent order.

Nope, that wouldn't make sense. The NW can continue as before. All that should, perhaps, change is that more men of quality take the black. But there being criminals among the black brothers wasn't what triggered Jon's assassination. Bowen Marsh isn't a criminal.

On 4/25/2021 at 6:37 PM, divica said:

Hardly. They pledged to save farya and she is already saved. The only people who might continue to suport stannis are those scheming cowards that want a stark back as warden. And stannis doesn't have a stark...

Manderly wants to provide Stannis with a Stark. Or do you think he send Stannis' Hand to Skagos so that Stannis could not get his hands on Rickon? That would be rather weird, no?

I mean, seriously, the only context in which we can expect Jon wanting to be a lord is if everybody wanted him to become a lord. And so far there is no indication in that direction.

That he would ever consider becoming a king in the North is completely out of the question in my opinion because he is not stupid enough to think that's a good idea in light of the common enemy they face.

If Stannis were to die he would likely rather have the Northmen declare for some southron non-Lannister toady pretender - Aegon, say, or even Euron, considering he knows nothing about that chap aside from the fact that he is also an enemy of King Tommen. And, of course, he would want to make common cause with the dragon queen in light of the fact the thinks they could need a dragon at the Wall.

[Jaenara Belarys]

54 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

It is not that hard. Brandon Stark is Robb's rightful heir. Period. Robb's will is null and void if it operates under the wrong assumption that his brothers Brandon and Rickon are dead.

 

Yeah, because everybody in the story knows that Bran and Rickon are alive.

54 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

If Stannis were to die he would likely rather have the Northmen declare for some southron non-Lannister toady pretender - Aegon, say, or even Euron, considering he knows nothing about that chap aside from the fact that he is also an enemy of King Tommen. And, of course, he would want to make common cause with the dragon queen in light of the fact the thinks they could need a dragon at the Wall.

Considering that the northmen don't like the Greyjoys that much, I don't think they'll declare for Euron. fAegon....maybe. Doesn't Jon make that dragon comment as a joke, like "We could use a dragon, it might warm things up"? And also, we already know who Stannis wants to sit the throne if he dies: Shireen. Which, to be sure, is unlikely considering Westerosi opinion on female rulers.

54 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

And in the North this kind of selfish desire - to make exceptions for a bastard half-brother - would have been very unpopular. If Robb had actually dared to name such a person his heir they would have either rebelled or arranged the murder of Jon Snow.

I think they'd rather have a bastard half brother than some lordling from the Vale, like that idiotic idea Catelyn suggests. 

54 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

And, in fact, Wyman Manderly is already a traitor of sorts in his desire to hand Winterfell to Rickon rather than Brandon Stark.

Ah, yes, because Wex can be at two places at the same time so that he can tell Lord Manderly exactly where Bran is.

 

[divica]

2 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

In light of Littlefinger's plans for Sansa this seems to be a completely unfounded assumption on your part. If Sansa had 30,000 Vale men on her side then the Northmen will fall in line or they will be crushed.

And the Tyrion thing is a non-issue while the guy is away and, most likely, presumed to be dead. Not to mention that Sansa could just kill the creep if he ever showed his face again.

This is a fantasy. Sansa won't have the support of the vale if she doesn't offer something to the vale. She won't have any value as a bride as long as tyrion isn't declared dead or the marrieage anuled. 

The problem with LF plans is that they don't have a time frame. Alayne stone can marry whoever he wants and if years later tyrion is found dead or his marriage anuled he can reveal she is sansa and use her power base in the vale to claim the north. 

However, for the forseable future sansa stark will stay hidden and no army will invade the north in winter. This line of thought is absurd.

7 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

A letter of a ten-year-old girl means nothing. And it basically referred to the dead Robb Stark since no other Stark king has been proclaimed and crowned so far. It is a fantasy king Lyanna Mormont talks about, sort of like the Blacks continued to fight for a dead queen after Rhaenyra's death ... or the Brotherhood without Banners is still loyal to King Robert.

Or she knows about the will and has accepted her new king. After all it makes sense that her sister would send her a letter about the will in order to start preparing their forces. 

9 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

t is not that hard. Brandon Stark is Robb's rightful heir. Period. Robb's will is null and void if it operates under the wrong assumption that his brothers Brandon and Rickon are dead.

If the Northmen were to ignore that they would all be traitors. And a lot of men do already know that Bran and Rickon are still alive. Some clansmen do, Manderly and Robett Glover do, the Reeds do (or else Howland would have sent his children to Winterfell to lead Bran to Bloodraven - he wouldn't think his children and the Stark boys are dead).

And, in fact, Wyman Manderly is already a traitor of sorts in his desire to hand Winterfell to Rickon rather than Brandon Stark.

LOL do you know the legal details of westeros? No reader knows if robb's will would be null if his brothers are alive. But what you are forgeting is that robb only needs to legitimize jon in order for him to become his heir. And jon's legitimity has nothing to do with bran and rickon being alive or dead.

You keep talking about ned's children when what matters is robb's heir. And a legitimized older brother comes first. 

In regards to the survival of bran and rickon, while several peolpe can know that they survived the attack on winterfel nobody knows if they are still alive. And this probably includes howland reed. 

15 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

That is a baseless assumption since there is no indication that Howland ever made such a vow of silence. More important, Howland should know/expect Bran and Rickon are still alive since Jojen went to Winterfell for a reason. The idea that Howland would help anyone to steal Winterfell away from Ned's sons isn't very convincing.

In fact, he may already have decided to suppress Robb's last will. Or why do you think he didn't allow Maege Mormont and Galbart Glover to leave his lands?

And, no, Jon Snow isn't a Stark. He is either a Targaryen prince or a Targaryen bastard disguised as a Stark bastard. And Robb's last will would legitimize Eddard Stark's bastard and/or name him his heir ... he would not name Lyanna Stark's son his heir.

Are you really arguing that howland hasn't sworn a vow of secrecy to ned? We are talking about a secret so big that ned never trusted his wife with it. However his pal didn t swear never to reveal the truth? come on...

And it is much more likely that howland, maege and galbart are having problems knowing who they can trust to put the rightful heir on the throne than anything else. After all, we know that the clansmen probably know something about the will and lyana even claims there is a stark king in a letter so it isn't being supressed... 

And having stark blood would always make jon a stark from his mother side. We have several character that think like this in similar situations.

22 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

That is also not a very good argument since Robb's will would be contingent on Jon Snow being allowed to leave the NW. Which he could never accomplish.

And by the way - Robb's hubris got him killed. Him not being able to keep his pants down, his delusion he could do whatever he wanted. Roose and Walder made it clear that was mistaken in that department. Robb's idea that he could get Jon out of his vows - and force his people to accept this - may be about as realistic as his belief the Freys would accept his apology.

And, no, Robb's last will presupposes wrongly that Robb's trueborn siblings (aside from Sansa) are dead. If folks know that's crap by the time the will is made public, people are very likely to ignore it. Also, Sansa may be disinherited because she is married to a Lannister at the time the will has been written ... but if that marriage is no longer a thing by the time the will is revealed then Sansa would not longer be seen as disinherited.

Well, from what we know neither cat nor the lords present when he showed them his will doubted that jon could be released from his NW vows. So we have several northern lords/ladys thinking that it is possible for jon to leave the NW against you. Who do you think is more reliable? And even if you doubt what is in the will we know that cat didn t argue against robb's arguments about jon leaving the NW... 

In regards to the rest. As I said multiple times, as long as jon is legitimized all arguments about his siblings are moot because he becomes robb's heir. There isn't anything to discuss. 

29 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Or maybe not. We don't know. And as I said - Robb also thought Theon could be trusted and that the Freys would forgive him.

As a matter of fact, some posts above someone quoted an interview of grrm saying there are some precedents. And at least cat agreed with robb. And lords present also didn t voice objections.

31 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Those are apples and oranges. Everybody knows and believes that taking the black means you never come back. That is why even the vilest of criminals and traitors are allowed to take the black if they want to. Because insofar as the Seven Kingdoms are concerned they will never come back.

The problem with a man of the NW is that the social norms of the Seven Kingdoms would not allow such a person to rejoin society. Never mind what Robb wished. Getting Jon out of his vows would have been another blunder like the Theon or the Westerling or the Karstark thing. It may have caused the Tullys (Catelyn included) to turn their backs on him ... and with them all the Riverlords.

And in the North this kind of selfish desire - to make exceptions for a bastard half-brother - would have been very unpopular. If Robb had actually dared to name such a person his heir they would have either rebelled or arranged the murder of Jon Snow.

As I said above, it seems that grrm said there were precedents. And cat, her brother and other northern lords know about robb's will and didn't object. He literaly discussed this with cat and she didn t doubt that it was possible or argument other lords wouldn't acept it. 

34 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

The idea is that I don't see any reason why Jon shouldn't want to continue whatever he is going to do after his resurrection as a member of the NW.

Because the members of the NW hate him, tried to kill him and is an institution that is failing and has no means to defend the north? It isn't even a relevant organization at the moment. Between the weeper, the fight that will hapen in CB and the brothers breaking their vows by the time jon is in fighting condition their will be almost no NW...

37 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Nope, that wouldn't make sense. The NW can continue as before. All that should, perhaps, change is that more men of quality take the black. But there being criminals among the black brothers wasn't what triggered Jon's assassination. Bowen Marsh isn't a criminal.

Yeah, because the NW situation is clearly working...

They only have 3 of the 18 castles they used to have and are full of criminals. This situiton only acelerated the fall of the NW. It clearly needs to change.

39 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Manderly wants to provide Stannis with a Stark. Or do you think he send Stannis' Hand to Skagos so that Stannis could not get his hands on Rickon? That would be rather weird, no?

I mean, seriously, the only context in which we can expect Jon wanting to be a lord is if everybody wanted him to become a lord. And so far there is no indication in that direction.

That he would ever consider becoming a king in the North is completely out of the question in my opinion because he is not stupid enough to think that's a good idea in light of the common enemy they face.

If Stannis were to die he would likely rather have the Northmen declare for some southron non-Lannister toady pretender - Aegon, say, or even Euron, considering he knows nothing about that chap aside from the fact that he is also an enemy of King Tommen. And, of course, he would want to make common cause with the dragon queen in light of the fact the thinks they could need a dragon at the Wall.

The manderleys might want a lot of things but the facts are that they don't have any stark. 

And what jon or any other sensible person would do is to acept the crown and then get to know his new souther ruler. Nobody would bend the knee to a person they don't know or isn't powerfull enough. If faegon doesn't believe in the others what would be the point of kneeling?

And I agree the part about danny. As long as she has dragons jon would be more than willing to negotiate some terms that the other northern lords would acept.

[divica]

40 minutes ago, Jaenara Belarys said:

Yeah, because everybody in the story knows that Bran and Rickon are alive.

But the thing is that robb only need to legitimize jon to make him his rightfull heir wether bran and rickon are alive or not.

 

[Jaenara Belarys]

3 minutes ago, divica said:

But the thing is that robb only need to legitimize jon to make him his rightfull heir wether bran and rickon are alive or not.

 

I realize that, it was sarcasm. 

[Lord Varys]

30 minutes ago, Jaenara Belarys said:

Yeah, because everybody in the story knows that Bran and Rickon are alive.

Enough, and chances are pretty good that Bran will actually make it clear that he is alive pretty soon. He already spoke to Theon, he may speak to others, too.

30 minutes ago, Jaenara Belarys said:

Considering that the northmen don't like the Greyjoys that much, I don't think they'll declare for Euron. fAegon....maybe. Doesn't Jon make that dragon comment as a joke, like "We could use a dragon, it might warm things up"? And also, we already know who Stannis wants to sit the throne if he dies: Shireen. Which, to be sure, is unlikely considering Westerosi opinion on female rulers.

Shireen will predecease Stannis if he burns her ... which he most likely will. But if she outlived him then, yes, she could become a queen and she could be married to a Stark ... Bran or Rickon, say. I'd not be surprised if Stannis betrothed Rickon to Shireen if he ever got his hands on him. That way he could really tie things together.

Euron is a theoretical option because he wasn't involved in the attack on the North and because, at this point at least, he is also an enemy of Tommen and the Lannisters.

Jon so far doesn't believe dragons are out there. But his fun remark indicates he wouldn't say: 'Well, there is a dragon queen in Westeros now, let's provoke her by continuing the secession nonsense instead of asking her to use her dragons to help us with our Others problem.'

Jon isn't stupid.

30 minutes ago, Jaenara Belarys said:

I think they'd rather have a bastard half brother than some lordling from the Vale, like that idiotic idea Catelyn suggests. 

Robb's will is about a presumptive heir in case he dies without issue. He plans to have children with Jeyne, it is just a precautionary measure.

The idea that anyone would want to go with Jon if they know there are trueborn Starks still out there is very far-fetched.

30 minutes ago, Jaenara Belarys said:

Ah, yes, because Wex can be at two places at the same time so that he can tell Lord Manderly exactly where Bran is.

Wex told Manderys about both Stark boys ... but he refers to Rickon as his liege lord which Rickon simply is not. Bran is his liege lord if a Stark is still his liege lord, not Rickon. It might be practical to go with the boy who isn't a cripple, but it isn't the right thing to do.

6 minutes ago, divica said:

This is a fantasy. Sansa won't have the support of the vale if she doesn't offer something to the vale. She won't have any value as a bride as long as tyrion isn't declared dead or the marrieage anuled.

They seem to have a plan to get Sansa's marriage annulled, no?

6 minutes ago, divica said:

The problem with LF plans is that they don't have a time frame. Alayne stone can marry whoever he wants and if years later tyrion is found dead or his marriage anuled he can reveal she is sansa and use her power base in the vale to claim the north. 

That is actually not the plan. The plan is very much to marry Sansa Stark not Alayne Stone to Harrold Hardyng. That's what's Littlefinger talks about in AFfC.

6 minutes ago, divica said:

However, for the forseable future sansa stark will stay hidden and no army will invade the north in winter. This line of thought is absurd.

I agree that there won't be an invasion ... but so what? Once the Northmen know Sansa Stark is alive and commands the allegiance of the Vale they will think twice before they install another pretender at Winterfell. Because 30,000 Vale men are going to make short work out of any such pretender in the next spring.

Even more so considering the Northmen will likely be dependent on food imports from the Vale during the winter in light of the bad last harvest ... meaning they may be forced to accept Sansa as their ruler or starve to death.

6 minutes ago, divica said:

Or she knows about the will and has accepted her new king. After all it makes sense that her sister would send her a letter about the will in order to start preparing their forces. 

LOL, what? There is only a king if a king is actually proclaimed or crowned. I can write a will leaving all my stuff to you ... but while you haven't accepted that and taken possession of my stuff it still isn't yours, right? Is Jon right now calling himself 'Stark'? Does he wear a crown? Has he been proclaimed king? I don't think so.

Do you think the Mormonts would have a little girl write strange letters ... but not write a letter to Jon Snow telling him that he is their king? I don't think so.

6 minutes ago, divica said:

LOL do you know the legal details of westeros? No reader knows if robb's will would be null if his brothers are alive. But what you are forgeting is that robb only needs to legitimize jon in order for him to become his heir. And jon's legitimity has nothing to do with bran and rickon being alive or dead.

Ah, no?! Jon would be Robb's heir if he were legitimized and folks thought that this legitimization means he is ahead of Bran and Rickon in the succession (but that's not a given) ... but more importantly: Jon Snow isn't Ned's son nor Robb's half-brother. Legitimizing the son of Lyanna Stark won't make him the heir of the North.

6 minutes ago, divica said:

You keep talking about ned's children when what matters is robb's heir. And a legitimized older brother comes first. 

That is actually not known. George himself makes it clear in an SSM on succession laws that it is unclear whether legitimized bastards are treated according to birth order or whether they come behind the trueborn children.

Also - do you really think Jon is as vile as to use Robb's will to steal Bran and Rickon's birthright? Or that of Sansa and Arya? Do you think he is the villain of this story?

6 minutes ago, divica said:

In regards to the survival of bran and rickon, while several peolpe can know that they survived the attack on winterfel nobody knows if they are still alive. And this probably includes howland reed. 

I'd not count on that ... especially since both Starks could make themselves known before this will shows up. Or Jon gives a damn about the will.

6 minutes ago, divica said:

Are you really arguing that howland hasn't sworn a vow of secrecy to ned? We are talking about a secret so big that ned never trusted his wife with it. However his pal didn t swear never to reveal the truth? come on...

Go back and reread ASoS. Jojen and Meera are surprised that Bran doesn't know the story of the Knight of the Laughing Tree. This indicates that Howland actually told his children a lot of stuff Ned didn't tell his children ... possibly including the true parentage of Jon Snow.

There is no indication of a vow of secrecy or anything else you might imagine.

6 minutes ago, divica said:

And it is much more likely that howland, maege and galbart are having problems knowing who they can trust to put the rightful heir on the throne than anything else. After all, we know that the clansmen probably know something about the will and lyana even claims there is a stark king in a letter so it isn't being supressed... 

The only thing the clansmen know something about is that Brandon Stark is still alive, not about Robb's will. How should they even know about that?

6 minutes ago, divica said:

And having stark blood would always make jon a stark from his mother side. We have several character that think like this in similar situations.

Yes, right, as if anyone in the North would want Rhaegar's son as a king or a lord...

6 minutes ago, divica said:

Well, from what we know neither cat nor the lords present when he showed them his will doubted that jon could be released from his NW vows. So we have several northern lords/ladys thinking that it is possible for jon to leave the NW against you. Who do you think is more reliable? And even if you doubt what is in the will we know that cat didn t argue against robb's arguments about jon leaving the NW... 

Robb didn't ask his mother or his lords for their opinion. He told them to witness his will, not to advise him. Cat tried, but Robb just shut her down.

6 minutes ago, divica said:

As a matter of fact, some posts above someone quoted an interview of grrm saying there are some precedents. And at least cat agreed with robb. And lords present also didn t voice objections.

That interview talks about all the various orders - NW, maesters, Kingsguard, Faith, etc. There might be precedents were maesters and septons, etc. got out of their vows ... doesn't mean there are NW men who got out of their vows.

If we had those, it is kind of silly to assume that, say, Aerys I would allow Bittersteel to take the black to neutralize him (he could get out of his vows and become a nuisance again). Folks could have risen against Aegon V in the name of the rightful king, Aemon I, because him taking the black didn't really undo his claim to the throne because there were precedents. And so on and so forth. Hell, Renly and Stannis would have likely pushed Robert to murder Aemon at the Wall if he could get out of his vows.

There isn't really anything to that. If George came up now with precedents for people getting out of the NW he would undermine everything he told us about that institution so far.

6 minutes ago, divica said:

The manderleys might want a lot of things but the facts are that they don't have any stark. 

They are trying to get one, no?

6 minutes ago, divica said:

And what jon or any other sensible person would do is to acept the crown and then get to know his new souther ruler. Nobody would bend the knee to a person they don't know or isn't powerfull enough. If faegon doesn't believe in the others what would be the point of kneeling?

To convince him to send troops when he starts to believe there are Others? To ensure that the North won't face dangers from two fronts - the Others could attack from the north at the same time as Aegon or Daenerys or Euron or whoever launches an invasion from the south.

Sansa could invade the North if the Vale is on her side and willing to go to war in winter, too. Those are all realistic possibilities.

And by the way - how ridiculous is a scenario where Howland Reed allows the will to get to Jon - which could lead to him becoming the King in the North - putting him into a position where he might end up fighting his Targaryen half-brother and/or aunt. That is completely ridiculous. This man would have to be another Littlefinger to allow that to happen, somebody getting off watching how families tear each other apart without even knowing it.

6 minutes ago, divica said:

And I agree the part about danny. As long as she has dragons jon would be more than willing to negotiate some terms that the other northern lords would acept.

Dragons are just a part of that. Thousands of Dothraki taking the Northmen in the rear while they have to fight the Others would be equally shitty. Or Dany just ensuring that no food be send to the North from the south of Westeros or the Free Cities. That's something she could also do if she were to tell the Dothraki to attack all the land-based Free Cities, Braavos included.

[Jaenara Belarys]

3 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Enough, and chances are pretty good that Bran will actually make it clear that he is alive pretty soon. He already spoke to Theon, he may speak to others, too.

 

Enough what? Sarcasm? Anyway, I agree that Bran was probably talking to Theon, but Theon doesn't know it was him.

 

5 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Wex told Manderys about both Stark boys ... but he refers to Rickon as his liege lord which Rickon simply is not. Bran is his liege lord if a Stark is still his liege lord, not Rickon. It might be practical to go with the boy who isn't a cripple, but it isn't the right thing to do.

 

Don't get me wrong, I agree, but since Manderly doesn't know where Bran is, he's going to have to go with Rickon. 

 

6 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Shireen will predecease Stannis if he burns her ... which he most likely will. But if she outlived him then, yes, she could become a queen and she could be married to a Stark ... Bran or Rickon, say. I'd not be surprised if Stannis betrothed Rickon to Shireen if he ever got his hands on him. That way he could really tie things together.

 

I already hate Stannis, so if he burns Shireen......