Is there a reason it is King in the North and not King of the North?

[Craving Peaches]

It does stand out to me because most of the other pre-Conquest Kings are King of X. Aside from once in a Theon chapter the title is King in the North not King of the North? Do we know why? Historically you have the King in/of Prussia where they changed it to just 'of' when the situation allowed, but that was a more complicated political/legal situation than we appear to have had in Westeros...unless, and this is heavily speculating, the Starks were Kings in the North because someone else was King of the North...King in the North, but King of Winter...like they brought the Winter to the North...

[sweetsunray]

41 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

It does stand out to me because most of the other pre-Conquest Kings are King of X. Aside from once in a Theon chapter the title is King in the North not King of the North? Do we know why? Historically you have the King in/of Prussia where they changed it to just 'of' when the situation allowed, but that was a more complicated political/legal situation than we appear to have had in Westeros...unless, and this is heavily speculating, the Starks were Kings in the North because someone else was King of the North...King in the North, but King of Winter...like they brought the Winter to the North...

Well we know that after the Long Night the realm had many petty kings rising, including the Starks. The title King of Winter was the title until they were the sole royal rulers in the North.

It's safe to say imho they fought with the Barrow Kings first, because of their challenge and claim that only they were the true kings. Despite these wars taking decennia, the Barrow Kings bent the knee and survived.

The most brutal wars seemed to have been against the Warg King, and I think this was had to do with not just greenseeing, but the location of their territory seems a hint - sea dragon point. I have mentioned that I think Brandon the Builder was mixed greenseer blood with (proto-Valyrian) dragonblood of the Daynes, and that he sealed the magical ward of the Wall with that mixture of blood. There was a fear imo that a king with a similar mixture could undo the spell. This was one of the reasons that Brandon Stark decided to remain north and his descendants took the daughters of northerners to wife: to dillute the dragonblood. And also while they were genocidally hostile towards any Northern petty king who tried to acquire dragonblood as well. Unlike with the Barrow Kings, the Warg King, his sons and his greenseers were killed. Solely the daughters were "reabsorbed" into the Stark clan, and apparently not necessarily as wives. In reality the Warg King may have made some alliance with the Iron Born (and I do not think they have dragonblood), but the "sea dragon" stuff was enough for the Starks to want to destroy that line.

We have something similar almost with the crannogmen, who were said to "ride the lizard lions". However, once they bent the knee and it was clear that lizard lions weren't dragons whatsoever, the Stark Kings did not go the same length as they did with the Warg King.

I suspect that the Blackwoods were ousted from the North for a similar reason. The Blackwoods have a knack for making advantageous marriages and to many regions. Though they were petty kings of the Wolfswood, the Blackwoods were probably smart enough to submit and bend the knee early to House Stark, and were likely allies in the wars against other petty kings. And they likely offered daughters to House Stark, and also had their sons wed daughters of House Stark... in that way they became kin via multiple marriages. And then one of their heirs made some advantageous match to either a Hightower or Dayne. I suspect this was the offence that made House Stark oust them.

Anyhow, at some point House Stark were the sole kings left in the North, so the title King of Winter became "the King in the North".

[Alester Florent]

It presumably originated because when the Starks first claimed the title they did not control the whole of the North, and then it remained in use because the title had been around for so long that it stuck.

Or perhaps they consider the Gift (or even beyond the Wall) part of "the North" and since they do not rule these areas - and indeed there may be kings beyond the Wall - they retain the "in" designation.

I suspect that it is however merely because it sounds better.

[Aebram]

I've wondered about that too. I always assumed that it was written that way because, in medieval times, "King in" was a common usage. There are some other phrases that I also thought must be historical, such as "of a night" where we would say "at night" or "one night." There's also "mayhaps" instead of "maybe," "like to" instead of "likely to," etc.

[Craving Peaches]

7 hours ago, Alester Florent said:

It presumably originated because when the Starks first claimed the title they did not control the whole of the North

 

8 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

Anyhow, at some point House Stark were the sole kings left in the North, so the title King of Winter became "the King in the North".

Wouldn't this go for the other Kings too though? They had to fight many petty kings as well to secure their reign.

[Moiraine Sedai]

Maybe the Starks serve at the pleasure of the Others. The Starks are allowed to rule as long as they keep offering human sacrifice to the Others and the trees.  

[sifth]

1 minute ago, Moiraine Sedai said:

Maybe the Starks serve at the pleasure of the Others. The Starks are allowed to rule as long as they keep offering human sacrifice to the Others and the trees.  

Your turn to make the “Starks are evil as sin” post.

[Moiraine Sedai]

4 minutes ago, sifth said:

Your turn to make the “Starks are evil as sin” post.

I’ve not even started, sir.   

[Craving Peaches]

11 minutes ago, Moiraine Sedai said:

Maybe the Starks serve at the pleasure of the Others. The Starks are allowed to rule as long as they keep offering human sacrifice to the Others and the trees.  

This is a thread for discussion of what is actually printed in the books, if you don't mind, not fanfiction.

[sifth]

Truth be told, I think it’s just one of those silly changes GRRM liked to make; like replacing “Sir” with “Ser”. 

[sifth]

12 minutes ago, Moiraine Sedai said:

I’ve not even started, sir.   

A troll and proud of it, or so it seems. 

[GZ Bloodraven]

I think it's a testament to the Norths more, not necessarily communal style of governance, but of a governance built more out of generational respect rather than, like, divine providence or pure power. "King in the North" answers the question "where do you rule? in the north" not the question "what are you sovereign of? of the north." It suggests that the ruler is in charge of people in the territory, not the territory itself. Like, if the Targ king was "King in Westeros" it makes him more of a representative for Westeros, the place that he is in and in charge of, rather than the "King of Westeros" like he bought and owns the place. 

[three-eyed monkey]

I think this relates to a central theme about kings, and in particular true kings. It's a theme that's explored a lot through the arc of Stannis.

Quote

Lord Seaworth is a man of humble birth, but he reminded me of my duty, when all I could think of was my rights.

The point is that true kings put their duty as king, which is to defend their people and bring justice, ahead of their rights as king.

Quote

"Your first duty is to defend your own people, win back Winterfell, and hang Theon in a crow's cage to die slowly. Or else put off that crown for good, Robb, for men will know that you are no true king at all."

Quote

"He was no true king," Dany said scornfully. "He did no justice. Justice . . . that's what kings are for."

The title King of the North suggests that the North belongs to the king. It's a proclamation of the king's rights.

It's the same with the kings on the Iron Throne. 

Quote

"In the name of Robert of the House Baratheon, the First of his Name, King of the Andals and the Rhoynar and the First Men, Lord of the Seven Kingdoms and Protector of the Realm,

King over people and lord over the land comes first, duty to protect the realm comes last.

The title King in the North suggests that he is the person responsible for protection and justice in the North. It's a proclamation of duty, not rights. The Kings in the North were true kings in that respect. A good example is the last King in the North before Robb, Torrhen Stark, the king who knelt. Torrhen gave up the North rather than have his people incinerated by dragonfire. He protected his people, even if it cost him his kingdom. He put his duty ahead of his rights.

Kings of Winter is something different though. Winter is not a place or a people. Winter is a period of time. This suggests to me that the Kings of Winter rule during winter and their reign ends in spring. Hard men for a hard time, as Maester Luwin described them.