What can maege and Galbart do to enforce robb's will?

[divica]

1 hour ago, Targaryeninkingslanding said:

As fo Jon, I think your right that his status as a black brother is beyond problematic, but I think its lily the she-bear accompanying Asha to the wall will also be witness to Jon's corpse and resurrection. He died. His watch ended. No Vows then right?

As for his status as a bastard, any Blackfyre rebellions sets precedent for a popular bastard being rallied behind.

The problem with his belonging to the NW is that neither robb, cat, robb's lords that signed his will, stannis, mel or jon think that the northmen would have a problem following jon if he was released from his vows.

These are just too many people thinking the same way for there to be a problem. 

And robb's will should legitimize jon acording to his conversation with cat.

[Here's Looking At You, Kid]

There is the problem of Robb's lack of authority.  The watch is not going to honor the will of a rebel who failed to win his war. 

[Lord Varys]

If Galbart and Maege were with the clansmen they would know by now that Rickon and Bran are still alive and kicking. The Wulls know. The idea that they would go along with some kind of weirdo will idea if they know the Starks boys are still around is absolutely ludicrous.

In fact, the clansmen would like to see Lady Arya Stark freed from Bolton dominance and restored to her rightful place as Lady of Winterfell after Roose and Ramsay have been put down.

This entire idea that people would even consider scheming on the behalf of another pretender if there is one right there they could free makes no sense.

[divica]

16 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

If Galbart and Maege were with the clansmen they would know by now that Rickon and Bran are still alive and kicking. The Wulls know. The idea that they would go along with some kind of weirdo will idea if they know the Starks boys are still around is absolutely ludicrous.

Not true.

The clans know that bran was alive and traveling to the wall. Given that nobody has seen bran at the wall they might even think he is dead or lost somewhere.

And they have no idea about what happened to rickon.

19 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

In fact, the clansmen would like to see Lady Arya Stark freed from Bolton dominance and restored to her rightful place as Lady of Winterfell after Roose and Ramsay have been put down.

No, the clans want arya safe. They never say they want her to be lady of winterfell. Or do you have a quote of the clans saying that they think arya should be lady of winterfell?

 

[Lord Varys]

4 minutes ago, divica said:

Not true.

The clans know that bran was alive and traveling to the wall. Given that nobody has seen bran at the wall they might even think he is dead or lost somewhere.

And they have no idea about what happened to rickon.

No, the clans want arya safe. They never say they want her to be lady of winterfell. Or do you have a quote of the clans saying that they think arya should be lady of winterfell?

Do you have a quote of anybody saying they want Jon Snow for a king?

[divica]

2 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Do you have a quote of anybody saying they want Jon Snow for a king?

Quote

"Mother." There was a sharpness in Robb's tone. "You forget. My father had four sons."

She had not forgotten; she had not wanted to look at it, yet there it was. "A Snow is not a Stark."

"Jon's more a Stark than some lordlings from the Vale who have never so much as set eyes on Winterfell."

 

That was robb's wish.

On the other hand we do have clansmen talking about that they want to rescue arya and they never mention wanting more than that.

[Springwatch]

3 hours ago, divica said:

That was robb's wish.

Because he thought his brothers were dead. Because he thought his sisters were captive or dead.

[divica]

6 hours ago, Springwatch said:

Because he thought his brothers were dead. Because he thought his sisters were captive or dead.

But maege and galbart at the beginning of feast/dance still think they are dead. 

Afterwards they might learn that bran survived winter fell but since then has disappeared and might be dead and that Arya might be weded to ramsay (similar situation that put Sansa out of the will). 

From their perspective Jon is still the only choice. 

[Lord Varys]

16 hours ago, divica said:

That was robb's wish.

On the other hand we do have clansmen talking about that they want to rescue arya and they never mention wanting more than that.

Nope, you are misconstruing things. I asked specifically whether anyone wanted Jon to be king. Robb didn't want Jon to be king. Robb wanted Jon as a placeholder heir until such a time as Jeyne had given him sons. He had not intention to die prematurely nor any intention to not father trueborn heirs on his wife.

The idea that Galbart and Maege would ever bother with Jon Snow at all is quite ridiculous, actually. Like various Northmen supposedly 'don't know' whether Bran and Rickon are still alive - despite the fact that they know they survived Winterfell and thus have no reason to assume they are dead until they receive word that they are supposedly dead (like they did when Theon spread the word that they were dead) - they would have no idea that Jon Snow was still alive until he was elected Lord Commander ... and at that point they would never view him as a viable candidate for anything.

Jon did return in time to help defend CB and all ... but he wrote no letters telling the North that specifically he, Jon Snow, was still alive and kicking.

The earliest point in time where people south of the Wall would have realized that Jon Snow existed and was still alive would have been when he was elected Lord Commander. But that was a point in time where he had clearly also thrown in his lot with Stannis, so no Northmen trying crown another Stark king would consider Jon Snow a potential ally ... because by the time Jon becomes Lord Commander he had basically become Stannis' pet.

Nobody working with Jon Snow in ADwD - nobody contacting him, hanging out with him, etc. - can be mistaken about the fact that Jon is Stannis' man now. He sheltered him, he advised him, he worked with him, he continued his wildling policy, he even tried to avenge him before he was assassinated.

The idea that anyone would want to make a man king who clearly has already acknowledged another king is ludicrous. It would be ludicrous even if Jon wasn't also the Lord Commander of the Night's Watch. You need a willing pretender, not somebody who doesn't even want to be king.

17 hours ago, Here's Looking At You, Kid said:

There is the problem of Robb's lack of authority.  The watch is not going to honor the will of a rebel who failed to win his war. 

Of course they won't do that, just as Jon himself is not likely to ever want to take up the pieces of his brother's stillborn kingdom. Why should he? Robb failed and his ambitions cost thousands of people their lives, including many of Jon's brothers at the Wall - men who wouldn't have died if Robb Stark hadn't marched down south to wage a pointless war.

If Jon for so much as a moment thinks he could or should continue Robb's kingdom he would (again) show that he didn't really learn anything from his experiences beyond the Wall nor from his knowledge about the true enemy.

[divica]

11 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Nope, you are misconstruing things. I asked specifically whether anyone wanted Jon to be king. Robb didn't want Jon to be king. Robb wanted Jon as a placeholder heir until such a time as Jeyne had given him sons. He had not intention to die prematurely nor any intention to not father trueborn heirs on his wife.

It is pretty clear that robb wanted jon to be king IF he died. And if you read the books robb says this

Quote

One more matter. Lord Balon has left chaos in his wake, we hope. I would not do the same. Yet I have no son as yet, my brothers Bran and Rickon are dead, and my sister is wed to a Lannister. I've thought long and hard about who might follow me. I command you now as my true and loyal lords to fix your seals to this document as witnesses to my decision.

So it is pretty obvious that robb isn't talking about a placeholder heir. He wanted jon to be king if he died and was very clear about it to his lords. 

16 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

The idea that Galbart and Maege would ever bother with Jon Snow at all is quite ridiculous, actually. Like various Northmen supposedly 'don't know' whether Bran and Rickon are still alive - despite the fact that they know they survived Winterfell and thus have no reason to assume they are dead until they receive word that they are supposedly dead (like they did when Theon spread the word that they were dead)

I don't know why you keep insisting that several lords besides wyman know that rickon is alive. Nobody knows about him.

And if you read the books then you would remember that everyone thinks that arya is dead when she disapears for a long time after Ned's death. If people knew that bran was going to the wall but has gone missing for several months  without a clue about his whereabouts what are they suposed to think? 

23 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

they would have no idea that Jon Snow was still alive until he was elected Lord Commander ... and at that point they would never view him as a viable candidate for anything.

Jon did return in time to help defend CB and all ... but he wrote no letters telling the North that specifically he, Jon Snow, was still alive and kicking.

The earliest point in time where people south of the Wall would have realized that Jon Snow existed and was still alive would have been when he was elected Lord Commander.

This makes no sense. Everybody south of the wall constantly thinks that jon is in the NW and nothing else. There is no question about his location or doubts about if he is alive because they simply assume he is in the NW.

26 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

But that was a point in time where he had clearly also thrown in his lot with Stannis, so no Northmen trying crown another Stark king would consider Jon Snow a potential ally ... because by the time Jon becomes Lord Commander he had basically become Stannis' pet.

Nobody working with Jon Snow in ADwD - nobody contacting him, hanging out with him, etc. - can be mistaken about the fact that Jon is Stannis' man now. He sheltered him, he advised him, he worked with him, he continued his wildling policy, he even tried to avenge him before he was assassinated.

Have you read the books? Because this just isn't true. First, jon didn't try to avenge anyone. He was riding to ramsay because ramsay threatned to kill him if he didn't answer his demands. I have no idea why you would even think jon was avenging stannis.

Second, about him follow stannis policies regarding wildlings and being his pet

Quote

"Of course," the queen went on, "the wildlings must first acknowledge Stannis as their king and R'hllor as their god."

And here we are, face-to-face in the narrow passage. "Your Grace, forgive me. Those were not the terms that we agreed to."

And the conversation ends with

"I do not approve, Lord Commander. Nor will my lord husband. I cannot prevent you from opening your gate, as we both know full well, but I promise you that you shall answer for it when the King returns from battle. Mayhaps you might want to reconsider."

And we have more cases of jon doing what he wants despite stannis orders. Like sending val to get tormund or marrying alys to the magmar.

Third, jon fed and housed stannis because he needed to do it. Otherwise stannis would take what he needed at sword point.

Forth, while it is true that jon advised stannis it was for the benefit of both of them. You could even say that jon wanted to use stannis to deal with the boltons.

And fifth, Jon explains several times that he isn't stannis man. Both in his thoughts and to his allies. He is just doing what he has to and sometimes helping stannis because he favors him over the boltons.

50 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

The idea that anyone would want to make a man king who clearly has already acknowledged another king is ludicrous. It would be ludicrous even if Jon wasn't also the Lord Commander of the Night's Watch. You need a willing pretender, not somebody who doesn't even want to be king.

This also makes no sense. Jon is in the NW. He wouldn't contradict anyone calling themselves king because he is neutral. As long as stannis doesn't do anything to hurt the NW jon wouldn't raise any problem with him. And stannis is even acting against the boltons and IT and jon likes that.

54 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Of course they won't do that, just as Jon himself is not likely to ever want to take up the pieces of his brother's stillborn kingdom. Why should he? Robb failed and his ambitions cost thousands of people their lives, including many of Jon's brothers at the Wall - men who wouldn't have died if Robb Stark hadn't marched down south to wage a pointless war.

If Jon for so much as a moment thinks he could or should continue Robb's kingdom he would (again) show that he didn't really learn anything from his experiences beyond the Wall nor from his knowledge about the true enemy.

As long as the lannisters are on the IT it is obvious that in order to rule the north jon (or any onther stark) would need to become king and honnor robb's will. That is simply the only way. Even with stannis alive it is quite debatable if the northern lords would want to support him. Between his religion, aspirations to the IT and unlikelable character it is unlikely that he can unite the north for long.

[Lord Varys]

2 minutes ago, divica said:

It is pretty clear that robb wanted jon to be king IF he died. And if you read the books robb says this

So it is pretty obvious that robb isn't talking about a placeholder heir. He wanted jon to be king if he died and was very clear about it to his lords. 

And once those lords know that Robb was making a will based on false information they won't care about it anymore. The Manderlys and their allies won't, the clansmen won't, Robett Glover won't, etc.

2 minutes ago, divica said:

I don't know why you keep insisting that several lords besides wyman know that rickon is alive. Nobody knows about him.

Of course they do. Robett Glover knows, the Manderlys know, the clansmen know. Others might know, too, considering that Osha and Rickon couldn't have teleported to Skagos. They would have needed a ship.

2 minutes ago, divica said:

This makes no sense. Everybody south of the wall constantly thinks that jon is in the NW and nothing else. There is no question about his location or doubts about if he is alive because they simply assume he is in the NW.

Pretty much nobody south of the Wall thinks much about Jon Snow.

2 minutes ago, divica said:

Have you read the books? Because this just isn't true. First, jon didn't try to avenge anyone. He was riding to ramsay because ramsay threatned to kill him if he didn't answer his demands. I have no idea why you would even think jon was avenging stannis.

Because it is a rather crucial aspect of the letter that Stannis was dead.

2 minutes ago, divica said:

Second, about him follow stannis policies regarding wildlings and being his pet

And we have more cases of jon doing what he wants despite stannis orders. Like sending val to get tormund or marrying alys to the magmar.

I don't care about any of that. People in the North would only see that Jon has fallen in with Stannis, not about the intricacies of his consorting with the wildlings and stuff. They know he helped him and that means Jon is Stannis' man. Not a man you would trust to challenge Stannis' kingship.

2 minutes ago, divica said:

As long as the lannisters are on the IT it is obvious that in order to rule the north jon (or any onther stark) would need to become king and honnor robb's will. That is simply the only way. Even with stannis alive it is quite debatable if the northern lords would want to support him. Between his religion, aspirations to the IT and unlikelable character it is unlikely that he can unite the north for long.

LOL, no. Any Stark pretender could just style himself 'Lord of Winterfell'. He doesn't have to use a royal title.

[divica]

3 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

And once those lords know that Robb was making a will based on false information they won't care about it anymore. The Manderlys and their allies won't, the clansmen won't, Robett Glover won't, etc.

Once again these are only you assumptions. There isn't one shred of evidence that supports what you are saying. Who knows if a will based of false information is invalid? Who knows if robb legitimized jon lords wouldn't support him? And as we have seen time and time again you assumptions most of the time contradict the books...

8 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Of course they do. Robett Glover knows, the Manderlys know, the clansmen know. Others might know, too, considering that Osha and Rickon couldn't have teleported to Skagos. They would have needed a ship.

The clansmen don't know. No matter how many times you say that they do it doesn't change the fact that rickon wasn't with bran when he met the clansman. And if you want to be technical, wyman and robett don't know that rickon is alive. They think that he is and that he is in skagos. They have no proof of that.

11 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Because it is a rather crucial aspect of the letter that Stannis was dead.

It is crucial because the boltons became the undisputed leaders of the north. No character thinks about avenging stannis. That is simple one of your delusions.

13 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

I don't care about any of that. People in the North would only see that Jon has fallen in with Stannis, not about the intricacies of his consorting with the wildlings and stuff. They know he helped him and that means Jon is Stannis' man. Not a man you would trust to challenge Stannis' kingship.

It is sad to confirm that you don't care about what is actually written in the books. And we went from

"Nobody working with Jon Snow in ADwD - nobody contacting him, hanging out with him, etc."

to

"People in the North"

To try to justify your assumptions that were contradicted by the book? 

Because "People in the North" would only know that stannis is living in the NW castles. And "People in the North" would know that there is nothing that the NW can do to kick him out. IT isn't their buisiness. If the "People in the North" aren't in contact with jon how would they even know that jon advised him to go to the clans or that he warned stannis about the karstark betrayal? 

As a matter of fact, "People in the North" would see jon acting AGAINST stannis. He is acting against the karstarks that are in stannis armor suporting him and letting wildling enter the north without them swearing fealty to stannis. From the "People in the North" perspective jon is hardly a stannis man.

21 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

LOL, no. Any Stark pretender could just style himself 'Lord of Winterfell'. He doesn't have to use a royal title.

What is a lord of winterfell that is rebeling against the IT? He is a king...

[Lord Varys]

2 hours ago, divica said:

Once again these are only you assumptions. There isn't one shred of evidence that supports what you are saying. Who knows if a will based of false information is invalid? Who knows if robb legitimized jon lords wouldn't support him? And as we have seen time and time again you assumptions most of the time contradict the books...

LOL, you have to prove that your idea of a phanton conspiracy is real. I don't have to disprove it or even care about it because it isn't in the text. It is a fantasy.

2 hours ago, divica said:

The clansmen don't know. No matter how many times you say that they do it doesn't change the fact that rickon wasn't with bran when he met the clansman. And if you want to be technical, wyman and robett don't know that rickon is alive. They think that he is and that he is in skagos. They have no proof of that.

They know Bran and Rickon were not killed by Theon Greyjoy. Hence they are alive until proven otherwise.

2 hours ago, divica said:

What is a lord of winterfell that is rebeling against the IT? He is a king...

LOL, no. He is just the Lord of Winterfell. Like, you know, Mace Tyrell rebelling against the Iron Throne was just the Lord of Highgarden last time I looked, or Hoster/Edmure Tully merely the Lords of Riverrun while they did their rebelling.

The problem with that silly 'King in the North' idea is that this would benefit nobody after the Red Wedding. Not with the Northmen wanting to get revenge because for that they might need allies and because another King in the North could bring down the wrath of the Lannisters on them (who were led by Tywin for quite some time after the Red Wedding) not with the Northmen who want to feed their people in winter because the Iron Throne's subjects might not longer want to do trade with them, not with the Northmen who feel threatened by wildlings and Others because the Iron Throne would not help them against those, and so on and so forth.

By just going with a Stark being installed as Lord of Winterfell the North could make alliances with other Lannister/Frey/Bolton enemies and might, in time, be able to actually destroy all the enemies in the south not just get some semblance of revenge.

Also, even if we were thinking within the framework of Robb's kingdom and considering the possibility of there being still folks who wanted to continue that stillborn kingdom - which was the united kingdom of the North and the Trident - it is completely unthinkable that the unity of his kingdom could prevail if they were to install a new monarch who wasn't a Tully-Stark by blood and birth. Jon Snow could inherit/take over only the Northern part of Robb's kingdom, never the Riverlands. In fact, the proclamation of a 'King Jon Snow' could actually turn the Riverlords into enemies of this new northern kingdom because Lady Stoneheart does actually know that her daughters are still alive by now and would never suffer that the bastard get of her late husband steal the birthright of her daughters.

Assuming Catelyn doesn't just proclaim herself the true successor of her late son after she reveals to the world that she is still 'alive' of sorts. She is a magical creature now with a strong hold over pretty big portion of the Riverlands. And she already has Robb's crown. Why shouldn't she wear it? Who wouldn't submit to a woman who survived death?

The core fact remains that there are more 'Jon Snow should be king' fanboys in the real world than there are in Westeros. Especially among Robb's own people.

[divica]

Just now, Lord Varys said:

LOL, you have to prove that your idea of a phanton conspiracy is real. I don't have to disprove it or even care about it because it isn't in the text. It is a fantasy.

I never said it was true. I actually asked IF it could be true and if it made sense.

You are the one using arguments that contradict the books or have no suport from the books to contradict what I said. 

2 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

They know Bran and Rickon were not killed by Theon Greyjoy. Hence they are alive until proven otherwise.

If they never saw rickon how can they know he is alive?

And if according to their knowledge bran never reached the wall and has been missing ever since why wouldn't they think he died? Like people think about characters that disapear in places with low chances of survival...

9 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

The problem with that silly 'King in the North' idea is that this would benefit nobody after the Red Wedding. Not with the Northmen wanting to get revenge because for that they might need allies and because another King in the North could bring down the wrath of the Lannisters on them (who were led by Tywin for quite some time after the Red Wedding) not with the Northmen who want to feed their people in winter because the Iron Throne's subjects might not longer want to do trade with them, not with the Northmen who feel threatened by wildlings and Others because the Iron Throne would not help them against those, and so on and so forth.

By just going with a Stark being installed as Lord of Winterfell the North could make alliances with other Lannister/Frey/Bolton enemies and might, in time, be able to actually destroy all the enemies in the south not just get some semblance of revenge.

What would you call a lord of winterfell that rules over the north but doesn't pay homage to the IT?

And have you really read the books? If a stark rules the north neither the lannisters nor the starks would acept any peace between them. Being a lord or a king is irrelevant because they would be at war. The IT would never help in any way if a stark ruled north. They would exploit their problems and try to conquer them. And if you have doubts you just have to see how far cersei is willing to go to kill jon because he became LC.

And the only enemies of the freys/boltons/ lannisters that wouldn't acept the independence of the north are those that want the IT for themselves. And just because you say so doesn't mean that the northern don't want to be ruled by a northern as they wanted in AGoT. Did robb's defeat change that? Did the acts of southerns like the freys reinforce that? Does stannis with his foreign religion and lack of knowledge about their costumes reinforce that?

We simply don't have the answers yet. whatever you say is simply your opinion because people like wyman want a stark in charge of the north despite all the conflict that will create with the IT. And wyman has no idea about the others and knows that stannis offers very little to the north compared to the IT. So as far as we know the northerns do prefer starks over the IT despite you personal opinion.

22 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Also, even if we were thinking within the framework of Robb's kingdom and considering the possibility of there being still folks who wanted to continue that stillborn kingdom - which was the united kingdom of the North and the Trident - it is completely unthinkable that the unity of his kingdom could prevail if they were to install a new monarch who wasn't a Tully-Stark by blood and birth. Jon Snow could inherit/take over only the Northern part of Robb's kingdom, never the Riverlands. In fact, the proclamation of a 'King Jon Snow' could actually turn the Riverlords into enemies of this new northern kingdom because Lady Stoneheart does actually know that her daughters are still alive by now and would never suffer that the bastard get of her late husband steal the birthright of her daughters.

Assuming Catelyn doesn't just proclaim herself the true successor of her late son after she reveals to the world that she is still 'alive' of sorts. She is a magical creature now with a strong hold over pretty big portion of the Riverlands. And she already has Robb's crown. Why shouldn't she wear it? Who wouldn't submit to a woman who survived death?

Again you do know that cat never thought that sansa was dead right? THAT was never the problem. 

Even with arya there never was a confirmation. She just believed that because nobody knew anything about her. And once again cat only knows that arya was alive and has gone missing since then. She can easily believe she didn t survive this time as she believed she didn't survive KL. After all the riverlands are a dangerous place.

In adittion, for how long should cat wait and look before thinking arya is dead again and moving on?

And do you know who doesn t tell robb that the riverlords would never follow jon? Cat and the river lords that signed the will. If they don't have a problem with it why do you have?

In regards to cat I actually can agree that she could want to be queen. But there are enough lords around that know about robb's will and would confront her about it. And besides, she is too focused on her revenge instead of gathering an army and taking the north or the riverlands back.

32 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

The core fact remains that there are more 'Jon Snow should be king' fanboys in the real world than there are in Westeros. Especially among Robb's own people.

Not really. Just people that try to form opinions based on what is written on the books instead of some imaginary texts.

IF you haven't noticed over half of what you say is against what is written in the books or highly unlikely acording to westeros costums. 

[Lord Varys]

4 minutes ago, divica said:

I never said it was true. I actually asked IF it could be true and if it made sense.

Well, it doesn't. And I think I said that more than once by now. If you want to convince me you have to come up with better arguments.

4 minutes ago, divica said:

If they never saw rickon how can they know he is alive?

The Manderlys and Robett Glover never saw Bran and Rickon either. They still believe both are still alive, no?

The Wull guy saw Bran and the Reeds and spent a night with them. The point being there, though, that it is utter nonsense to assume the clansmen would view anyone but Brandon/Rickon Stark as their rightful ruler if they know this. They would not make common cause with morons who want to crown a black brother.

4 minutes ago, divica said:

And if according to their knowledge bran never reached the wall and has been missing ever since why wouldn't they think he died? Like people think about characters that disapear in places with low chances of survival...

That's just baseless conjecture. And actually one should ask why the Wull guy didn't take Brandon in? Wasn't he the brother of his king, with Robb being still alive at that time? Why didn't he mount a horse and ride to a castle and tell a maester to write to Robb Stark that Theon Greyjoy apparently didn't kill his brother(s)?

4 minutes ago, divica said:

What would you call a lord of winterfell that rules over the north but doesn't pay homage to the IT?

The Lord of Winterfell.

4 minutes ago, divica said:

And have you really read the books? If a stark rules the north neither the lannisters nor the starks would acept any peace between them. Being a lord or a king is irrelevant because they would be at war. The IT would never help in any way if a stark ruled north. They would exploit their problems and try to conquer them. And if you have doubts you just have to see how far cersei is willing to go to kill jon because he became LC.

LOL, that's also pretty much nonsense. The Starks could even make peace with King Tommen, say, if they felt they needed his help to save their people and the world from the Others. They are not *that* stupid. Not even Jon Snow is that stupid, I hope.

Cersei is another matter, it would be difficult with her. But not impossible.

4 minutes ago, divica said:

And the only enemies of the freys/boltons/ lannisters that wouldn't acept the independence of the north are those that want the IT for themselves. And just because you say so doesn't mean that the northern don't want to be ruled by a northern as they wanted in AGoT. Did robb's defeat change that? Did the acts of southerns like the freys reinforce that? Does stannis with his foreign religion and lack of knowledge about their costumes reinforce that?

LOL, how many Lords of the North were actually at Robb's war council where he was proclaimed king? I'll help you - three. Jon Umber, Maege Mormont, and Rickard Karstark. One of those lords those lords cut his ties with 'King Robb' before the man executed him. That leaves exactly two Northern lords who wanted Robb as their king. And Jon's uncles later side with the Boltons and Stannis ... not the Starks.

The idea that a majority of the North actually wanted this independence nonsense is not actually in the books. They fall in line with the thing, alright, and at first Robb is pretty successful. But it all went really badly for them.

Most Lords of the North never actually did homage to Robb Stark as their king - not Barbrey Dustin, not the Ryswells, not Wyman Manderly, not Roose Bolton, not the leaders of the clansmen, not all the other folks who remained back home or were with Roose Bolton's part of the army during the War of the Five Kings.

Robb's kingship at his war council had actually more support from Riverlords than Northmen. The idea that there is a broad consensus that the North should be independent is nowhere in the books to be found. What's there is that many Northmen supposedly should be very loyal to the Starks ... but that's a separate issue entirely.

4 minutes ago, divica said:

Again you do know that cat never thought that sansa was dead right? THAT was never the problem. 

Cat thought her other daughter was dead, though. And she knows now that both are alive.

4 minutes ago, divica said:

Even with arya there never was a confirmation. She just believed that because nobody knew anything about her. And once again cat only knows that arya was alive and has gone missing since then. She can easily believe she didn t survive this time as she believed she didn't survive KL. After all the riverlands are a dangerous place.

Yes, right, again this 'she cannot know for sure somebody is alive, so she must believe they are dead' routine. That isn't a given.

4 minutes ago, divica said:

In adittion, for how long should cat wait and look before thinking arya is dead again and moving on?

Cat would never move on to Jon Snow. Never. Even if he was the only Stark descendant left. Also, you kind of forget the Blackfish in all this, the de facto ruler of the Tullys in the Riverlands now while Edmure is imprisoned, who made it very clear in AFfC that he despises Jon Snow and would never follow him.

The Riverlords would never go with a King of the Trident who doesn't have Tully blood.

4 minutes ago, divica said:

And do you know who doesn t tell robb that the riverlords would never follow jon? Cat and the river lords that signed the will. If they don't have a problem with it why do you have?

LOL, you don't understand how this works, do you? Those lords witnessed the will, it doesn't mean they agree with it or are bound by it. King Robert also had a will. Do you know what his widow did with it? She ripped it apart. Cat might do the very same thing with her son's last will if she doesn't like it. Robb is dead, she is alive ... sort of.

And for the hundredth time - the Riverlords could give Robb a pass for his stupid Jon Snow idea because it might never come to this. He could have  a son soon. The Watch could tell him 'go fuck yourself, we will never release your brother from his vows', etc.

This is a scenario very much like Otto Hightower pushing Viserys I to name Rhaenyra his heir to prevent Daemon from becoming king. This was just a precaution back then, should the king die unexpectedly. Once Viserys had sons Otto wanted them to be heirs and turned against the decree he himself helped to draft the king.

In the case of Robb's will it is one thing to witness the thing ... and quite another to act upon it or consider it a great idea.

It is especially a weird idea to assume the people witnessing it would view themselves as the mindless executioners of Robb's will as if he was still ruling them from the grave.

4 minutes ago, divica said:

In regards to cat I actually can agree that she could want to be queen. But there are enough lords around that know about robb's will and would confront her about it. And besides, she is too focused on her revenge instead of gathering an army and taking the north or the riverlands back.

Catelyn might singlehandedly destroy the Lannisters and Freys left in the Riverlands. She has the support to do this among the common people and once she reveals herself she might become even more powerful. Nobody is going to undo a supernatural being who has defied death with a piece of paper.

Your take on things pretty much reminds me of Emmon Frey: I've a piece of paper signed by late King Robb. It says his bastard half-brother is the King in the North now, so we must all do homage to him. That's not going to happen.

[divica]

10 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

The Manderlys and Robett Glover never saw Bran and Rickon either. They still believe both are still alive, no?

The Wull guy saw Bran and the Reeds and spent a night with them. The point being there, though, that it is utter nonsense to assume the clansmen would view anyone but Brandon/Rickon Stark as their rightful ruler if they know this. They would not make common cause with morons who want to crown a black brother.

wyman and robett talked with someone that claims he saw both rickon and bran.

The clansmen don't know about anyone that saw rickon alive. I have no idea why you keep insisting they know rickon is alive.

And how many characters have been declared dead because they have gone missing for a long time while in an area with low chances of survival? It is very likely that the clansman think bran is dead because he isn't where he told the clansman he was going and nobody has heard from him ever since. I don't even understand why you refuse to acept this when it is something quite common...

16 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

That's just baseless conjecture. And actually one should ask why the Wull guy didn't take Brandon in? Wasn't he the brother of his king, with Robb being still alive at that time? Why didn't he mount a horse and ride to a castle and tell a maester to write to Robb Stark that Theon Greyjoy apparently didn't kill his brother(s)?

He didn't take bran in because he wanted to go to the wall.

And maybe the clansman was a low ranking member of the clan and never even talked about the meeting with anybody else. What do the actions of a random clansman matter about the political opinions of all clans?  You don't think the opinions of a random soldier represent what their lords think right?

And again, why is it baseless when we have examples in book of people thinking as I am telling you? you don't like it therefore it is baseless? 

22 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

LOL, that's also pretty much nonsense. The Starks could even make peace with King Tommen, say, if they felt they needed his help to save their people and the world from the Others. They are not *that* stupid. Not even Jon Snow is that stupid, I hope.

Cersei is another matter, it would be difficult with her. But not impossible.

LOL any king can always surrender and ask for help. You don't need to be a lord to have that option...

25 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Most Lords of the North never actually did homage to Robb Stark as their king - not Barbrey Dustin, not the Ryswells, not Wyman Manderly, not Roose Bolton, not the leaders of the clansmen, not all the other folks who remained back home or were with Roose Bolton's part of the army during the War of the Five Kings.

You write these things and prove you don't know what you are talking about.

Because you don't know that wyman's son was taken hostage and that tywin ofered to release him if wyman stoped suporting robb. Do you know what happened? Wyman refused and his son kept being a hostage. Are you realy sugesting that wyman didn't suport robb as his king after this?

Or that the ryswell's are so loyal to the starks that theon thinks the only thing keeping them in winterfel is farya despite their familly ties with lady dustin.

And you do know that roose's army reunited with robb. Whoever lords were with him certainly paid homage then.

30 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

LOL, how many Lords of the North were actually at Robb's war council where he was proclaimed king? I'll help you - three. Jon Umber, Maege Mormont, and Rickard Karstark. One of those lords those lords cut his ties with 'King Robb' before the man executed him. That leaves exactly two Northern lords who wanted Robb as their king. And Jon's uncles later side with the Boltons and Stannis ... not the Starks

The fact that only 3 were present doesn't mean that the other lords were against the idea or that they didn't suport robb afterwards. I don't even remeber anyone regreting naming robb king. Just that he took a lot of men and lost the north. 

34 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Cat thought her other daughter was dead, though. And she knows now that both are alive

No. She knows that arya was alive in the past and that sansa also has gone missing.

It actually makes sense that now she thinks both are dead. After all, if she tought arya was dead before why would she think otherwise now when the riverlands are a pretty dangerous place? Certainly if arya was around her network would have found her by now.

And if arya couldn't survive escaping KL why would she think that sansa can?

As time passes and she doesn't find her daughters the chances of her thinking of them dead increases.

And I have no idea where you come up with the no sense that if a character knows that someone was alive in the past the it mean that the character knows that the person is still alive. That makes no sense.

38 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Yes, right, again this 'she cannot know for sure somebody is alive, so she must believe they are dead' routine. That isn't a given.

It isn't a given, but is common practice. By the time of the RW arya was considered dead by several people. The boltons think bran and rickon dead. It is just what happens in asoiaf. I am sorry if the books work this way instead of like in your theories...

41 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Cat would never move on to Jon Snow. Never. Even if he was the only Stark descendant left. Also, you kind of forget the Blackfish in all this, the de facto ruler of the Tullys in the Riverlands now while Edmure is imprisoned, who made it very clear in AFfC that he despises Jon Snow and would never follow him.

The Riverlords would never go with a King of the Trident who doesn't have Tully blood.

Actually, who read the books knows that 2 relatively important people in the riverlands that were in contact with the balckfish and later edmure ask jaime to go to the wall. And edmure knows about the will. One of the theories is that these people are going there to know jon.

And where in this line does he say he despises jon?

Quote

Did your father arrange for that as well? Catelyn never trusted the boy, as I recall, no more than she ever trusted Theon Greyjoy. It would seem she was right about them both. No, ser, I think not. I'll die warm, if you please, with a sword in hand running red with lion blood.

Until that moment he probably never even thought of jon. And he isn't sure if cat was right or no. So it makes sense that he learns about the will he wants to know something about the boy before comiting himself. Hence there go the riverman to the wall.

In regards to cat, would she really go against her son's last wishes? Would she let the boltons keep winterfell? I don't think so...

53 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

LOL, you don't understand how this works, do you? Those lords witnessed the will, it doesn't mean they agree with it or are bound by it. King Robert also had a will. Do you know what his widow did with it? She ripped it apart. Cat might do the very same thing with her son's last will if she doesn't like it. Robb is dead, she is alive ... sort of.

And for the hundredth time - the Riverlords could give Robb a pass for his stupid Jon Snow idea because it might never come to this. He could have  a son soon. The Watch could tell him 'go fuck yourself, we will never release your brother from his vows', etc.

This is a scenario very much like Otto Hightower pushing Viserys I to name Rhaenyra his heir to prevent Daemon from becoming king. This was just a precaution back then, should the king die unexpectedly. Once Viserys had sons Otto wanted them to be heirs and turned against the decree he himself helped to draft the king.

In the case of Robb's will it is one thing to witness the thing ... and quite another to act upon it or consider it a great idea.

It is especially a weird idea to assume the people witnessing it would view themselves as the mindless executioners of Robb's will as if he was still ruling them from the grave.

And by naming Rhaenyra in his will she had the support of several lords.

Wether the lords follow robb's will is a matter of loyalty and honor and not if they think it is a good idea or if they agree with it. And as robb should have invited his most loyal lords to witness his will then it makes sense that would feel obligated to follow it.

This is just as things work.

And for the hundredth time, if no riverlord complained why are you creating problems? You can say some riverlords would opose the will, but the ones present should suport it. End of story.

Cersei ripped the will because she didn't care about robert wishes and has no honnor. We have no reason to believe any of the lords present at his will would behave like this.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Catelyn might singlehandedly destroy the Lannisters and Freys left in the Riverlands. She has the support to do this among the common people and once she reveals herself she might become even more powerful. Nobody is going to undo a supernatural being who has defied death with a piece of paper.

Your take on things pretty much reminds me of Emmon Frey: I've a piece of paper signed by late King Robb. It says his bastard half-brother is the King in the North now, so we must all do homage to him. That's not going to happen.

However catelyn looks like a monster that can barely speak. People are as likely to follow her as to be horrorified by her.

And I don't know how much the BwB represents ALL common people. Even some BwB don't like cat's leadership and abandoned her. And I have serious doubts about how much power a mother of a dead king has.

But if cat wanted to be queen I could see that happening at least in the riverlands. In the north would depend on the timing she anounces herself.

[Lord Varys]

1 hour ago, divica said:

And maybe the clansman was a low ranking member of the clan and never even talked about the meeting with anybody else. What do the actions of a random clansman matter about the political opinions of all clans?  You don't think the opinions of a random soldier represent what their lords think right?

And perhaps Galbart and Maege and all the North don't give a rat's ass about their late king's last will ... if they even have it with them, which is actually not clear. They are given false orders and stuff ... but nobody actually said anything about them being given King Robb's will. It may have still been with him when he was killed.

1 hour ago, divica said:

And again, why is it baseless when we have examples in book of people thinking as I am telling you? you don't like it therefore it is baseless? 

No, it is baseless, if there is no textual evidence implying that something like that is actually happening. There are clues to conspiracies in those books ... and then there are random things people try to fit together which have nothing to do with each other.

1 hour ago, divica said:

LOL any king can always surrender and ask for help. You don't need to be a lord to have that option...

But they would all fare better if they did not crown another king.

1 hour ago, divica said:

Because you don't know that wyman's son was taken hostage and that tywin ofered to release him if wyman stoped suporting robb. Do you know what happened? Wyman refused and his son kept being a hostage. Are you realy sugesting that wyman didn't suport robb as his king after this?

Or that the ryswell's are so loyal to the starks that theon thinks the only thing keeping them in winterfel is farya despite their familly ties with lady dustin.

And you do know that roose's army reunited with robb. Whoever lords were with him certainly paid homage then.

Paying homage is something rather ritualistic ... and it is crucial to establish a bond between a vassal/subject and his king in a monarchy.

And that just didn't happen for most of the Northern lords. I never said the Northmen didn't continue to follow Robb once he had been proclaimed king. I said there weren't doing him homage at his proclamation nor later ... and their voices weren't heard in this entire kingmaking business which makes it questionable that they approved of the idea.

That you can only say for the three Northmen actually proclaiming Robb Stark king.

1 hour ago, divica said:

The fact that only 3 were present doesn't mean that the other lords were against the idea or that they didn't suport robb afterwards. I don't even remeber anyone regreting naming robb king. Just that he took a lot of men and lost the north. 

What it does is that it casts doubt on the idea that the North is a unified block who want to secede from the Iron Throne and/or have a Stark king.

As a block they might want or be happy with a Stark overlord, but that's not the same as having a Stark king.

1 hour ago, divica said:

It actually makes sense that now she thinks both are dead. After all, if she tought arya was dead before why would she think otherwise now when the riverlands are a pretty dangerous place? Certainly if arya was around her network would have found her by now.

Honestly, I don't think Lady Stoneheart gives a rat's ass about her daughters anymore. She has more important things to do - revenge. But what she also would not want is that the bastard sit where only her children should sit.

1 hour ago, divica said:

And I have no idea where you come up with the no sense that if a character knows that someone was alive in the past the it mean that the character knows that the person is still alive. That makes no sense.

LOL, because there can be good reasons why those people might want to hide. That Arya was alive this late after everybody believed her to be dead indicates she can survive. And that Sansa just disapeared and there is no body would also indicate that she fled ... not that she was killed.

I mean, you are also the guy who makes proclamations about the validity of Sansa's marriage. Couldn't she and Littlefinger not just proclaim Tyrion to be dead since he disappeared and it might make sense that he is dead ... and then Sansa's marriage goes away, too?

That would actually be a realistic scenario because no woman is forced to wait forever for the return of a missing husband.

1 hour ago, divica said:

Actually, who read the books knows that 2 relatively important people in the riverlands that were in contact with the balckfish and later edmure ask jaime to go to the wall. And edmure knows about the will. One of the theories is that these people are going there to know jon.

Yes, right, of course, they want to get to know Jon Snow...

1 hour ago, divica said:

Until that moment he probably never even thought of jon. And he isn't sure if cat was right or no. So it makes sense that he learns about the will he wants to know something about the boy before comiting himself. Hence there go the riverman to the wall.

LOL, right. Whatever.

1 hour ago, divica said:

In regards to cat, would she really go against her son's last wishes? Would she let the boltons keep winterfell? I don't think so...

She can take it herself. Or find her daughters. What do you think she is going to charge Brienne with now, if she lets her live?

1 hour ago, divica said:

And by naming Rhaenyra in his will she had the support of several lords.

No, Rhaenyra had support of many lords because her father didn't just leave a will. He had said lords come to the Red Keep and do Rhaenyra obeisance at the foot of the Iron Throne and have them swear vows to defend her right to the succession.

Robb Stark did nothing of that sort for Jon Snow. He just left a piece of paper.

1 hour ago, divica said:

Wether the lords follow robb's will is a matter of loyalty and honor and not if they think it is a good idea or if they agree with it. And as robb should have invited his most loyal lords to witness his will then it makes sense that would feel obligated to follow it.

No, that's not something about loyalty and honor, especially not if their late king was terribly mistaken in his will insofar as the fate of his trueborn siblings are concerned. But also simply because they might not give a rat's ass about Robb's will if current political realities no longer support the idea of his kingdom.

And once/if this will is ever going to be revealed the fate of the Bran, Rickon, Arya, and Sansa will be publicly known, too - at least the fate of some of them.

1 hour ago, divica said:

And for the hundredth time, if no riverlord complained why are you creating problems? You can say some riverlords would opose the will, but the ones present should suport it. End of story.

Those present actually already submitted to the Lannisters. They switched camps.

1 hour ago, divica said:

However catelyn looks like a monster that can barely speak. People are as likely to follow her as to be horrorified by her.

So what? Jon Snow is a dead black brother at the moment.

1 hour ago, divica said:

And I don't know how much the BwB represents ALL common people. Even some BwB don't like cat's leadership and abandoned her. And I have serious doubts about how much power a mother of a dead king has.

Much more than Jon Snow.

1 hour ago, divica said:

But if cat wanted to be queen I could see that happening at least in the riverlands. In the north would depend on the timing she anounces herself.

As Robb's mother Catelyn could claim both. She has her son's crown now. What do you think she is going to do with that?

[divica]

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

And perhaps Galbart and Maege and all the North don't give a rat's ass about their late king's last will ... if they even have it with them, which is actually not clear. They are given false orders and stuff ... but nobody actually said anything about them being given King Robb's will. It may have still been with him when he was killed.

If it was with him then somebody would have found it at the twins. With robb is the least likely place for it to have been.

And if maege and galbart didn't care about robb's they would have gone to their homes or in galbart's case he would be trying to gather suport to get his lands from the IB.

Their unexpected behaviour is proof they are doing something about the will.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

No, it is baseless, if there is no textual evidence implying that something like that is actually happening. There are clues to conspiracies in those books ... and then there are random things people try to fit together which have nothing to do with each other.

There is enough evidence to imply that something like that could be happening. That characters believe that people in simillar circunstances might be dead and act acordingly. Besides, it is more likely that despite learning that bran was alive in the past, that presently the clans think he is dead. After all he was going to the wall and as far as they know he never reached there and is missing for 3 or 4 months in an area where he is being hunted. And we have no reason to believe that 1 random clansman spread the story of seeing bran to ALL clans.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

What it does is that it casts doubt on the idea that the North is a unified block who want to secede from the Iron Throne and/or have a Stark king.

As a block they might want or be happy with a Stark overlord, but that's not the same as having a Stark king.

However we don't have northmen regreting having a stark king. They regret that robb lost the north. I bet you don't find a quote of a northmen saying they should never have named robb king or something simillar...

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Honestly, I don't think Lady Stoneheart gives a rat's ass about her daughters anymore. She has more important things to do - revenge. But what she also would not want is that the bastard sit where only her children should sit.

So why would she care about that house for orphans?

And if she thinks her children are dead I see no reason for her to bother with jon. You can't take cat's emotions about her children when you want but keep her emotions about jon.

The bottom line is if she wants her son's kingdom to continue the kingdom needs a leader. If she doesn't know the whereabouts of her offspring then her only options are herself or jon. 

And as you are talking about her obecession with revenge. It makes sense that she thinks that revenge is the only thing she has left because she believes the freys/lannisters/boltons killed all her kids. That until she actually sees one of her kids in front of her she will never believe they are still alive.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

LOL, because there can be good reasons why those people might want to hide. That Arya was alive this late after everybody believed her to be dead indicates she can survive. And that Sansa just disapeared and there is no body would also indicate that she fled ... not that she was killed.

I mean, you are also the guy who makes proclamations about the validity of Sansa's marriage. Couldn't she and Littlefinger not just proclaim Tyrion to be dead since he disappeared and it might make sense that he is dead ... and then Sansa's marriage goes away, too?

That would actually be a realistic scenario because no woman is forced to wait forever for the return of a missing husband.

Actually that is one of the things I asked about sansa. Who can declare tyrion dead in order for sansa to remarry? What happens if he is alive and returns? The logical scenario is that after a while missing she can declare that he is dead. And I am totally fine with that.

There was no body when arya disapeared and after a while everybody just declared her dead. Her situation at the time and sansa's are quite similar. So it makes sense that after enough time without clues about her they think she is dead.

And how much time do you wait to start thinking that 10 year old girl missing in a war zone is dead? because even with the BwB knowing arya's location she has been missing for a lot of months. Maybe a year? 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Yes, right, of course, they want to get to know Jon Snow...

Why else would those 2 relativaly important people from riverrun want to go to the wall after the blackfish says that maybe jon is as bad as cat tought? 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Yes, right, of course, they want to get to know Jon Snow...

You have literaly motive, means and oportunity.But as you don't like it it should be dismissed.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

She can take it herself. Or find her daughters. What do you think she is going to charge Brienne with now, if she lets her live?

She already declared brienne guilty. She might forgive her if she delivers jaime, but certainly won't charge brienne with anything because she doesn't believe in her. She probably even kept pod hostage to ensure that brienne kept her word.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Robb Stark did nothing of that sort for Jon Snow. He just left a piece of paper.

And made his intentions clear to a group of his loyal lords. If they remain loyal they would follow his will.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

No, that's not something about loyalty and honor, especially not if their late king was terribly mistaken in his will insofar as the fate of his trueborn siblings are concerned. But also simply because they might not give a rat's ass about Robb's will if current political realities no longer support the idea of his kingdom.

And once/if this will is ever going to be revealed the fate of the Bran, Rickon, Arya, and Sansa will be publicly known, too - at least the fate of some of them.

That all depends on when the will is revealed. But what you are forgeting is that for most people his siblings remain dead.

rickon-only wyman and robett believe that he is alive and they haven't shared this information with any of the lords that know robb's will.

bran-only wyman, robett and 1 clansman know he survived winterfell. It is very unclear if they shared this information with anyone or if at the moment they don't think he died afterwards.

arya- Only the BwB might have shared she was alive several months ago. She probably is still presumed dead.

sansa- is missing and still married. 

So people can easily be acting under the assumption that jon is the only stark alive not married to tyrion lannister.

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Those present actually already submitted to the Lannisters. They switched camps.

Yeah, but we do know that the prologue might be about the BWB releasing several hostages. That would change the alliances of several lords.

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

So what? Jon Snow is a dead black brother at the moment.

Have you seen him die?

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

As Robb's mother Catelyn could claim both. She has her son's crown now. What do you think she is going to do with that?

Actualy she might be shipping it of to the north. After wall she was going in the direction of the neck the last time we saw her.

[Free Northman Reborn]

Haven’t read this whole thread but I imagine it largely consists of Lord Varys pooh-pooing the Northern Conspiracy  while almost everyone else points out the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

The fact is - Maege and Galbart are with Howland Reed. They know the truth. The little feisty Mormont girl in Bear Island knows the truth, and didn’t have the self control to entirely keep it hidden in her fiery response to Stannis.

Robbet Glover is with Manderly, so Manderly therefore likely knows the truth as well.  

And why would Howland, Gallbart and Wyman not inform other loyalists like the Umbers, Widow’s Watch Flints, Cerwyns, Slates and Mountain clansmen of this truth? The North is big, and unlike in the Show, undetected travel between various settlements is a trivially easy affair. Every loyal lord could have been informed by rider or messenger without any need of using a raven.

The big decider now will be Houses Dustin and Ryswell, and seems to me they were playing it safe, waiting to see which side fortune favours before making their move. And the Battle of Ice will likely be that decisive tipping point.

[Springwatch]

I'm more with Lord Varys so far. The only reason to respect Robb's will is loyalty to the Stark dynasty - and we've seen it, the northerners love their Starks. But that same loyalty means they will always choose the Stark before the Snow. Where there is a real possibility of rescuing Arya or Rickon, they will take it.