King in the North or Warden of the North?

[Prince of the Green]

Having numbers means nothing to be honest. The wildlings are untrained, indisciplined, under armed to pose any serious threat to the Watch.

They hate wildlings because wildling kill crows.

Um, I am trying to move the thread back to its original purpose. You seem to have an argument for everything anyone says about anything. I could say I like the way Jaime's redemption has been played out since his fateful nap on the trunk of a weirwood, you'd call me a fool and tell me I was wrong. I could say I love Arya's wit and her capacity to survive, and you'd call me stupid and give me some made up fact that pertains to absolutely nothing I said.

In light of this, why don't both of us, you and I, go back to discussing the possibilities of another King in the North or Warden in the North, and the identity of that person (who is going to be named Stark, regardless).

[Batman]

The North will never bend their knees to Jon, while the trueborn sons and daughters of Eddard Stark are rumoured to be still alive. The highest position Jon can hope for is to be the castellan of Winterfall. Jon Snow is a bastard, after all.

Robb legitimized him in ASOS. A number of Northern lords know this Maege Mormont, Greatjon Umber, Galbert Glover and Jason Mallister. They fixed their seal to Robbs decree stating that if he did not have a son that Jon was his heir. Personally I hope Jon remains a member of the nights watch and tells his other family that he is a Stark.

[Third World King]

I was talking about perception of the NW. I made it clear that this was not the reality. Regardless, it still does not explain why highborn children would go there such as Waymar Royce + Jon, who obviously has a high opinion of the NW whether he is mistaken or not in that opinion.

Jon is about as highborn as Gendry is. Bastards can never be high-born.

The only reason Jon decided to join the Watch is because that was the only place he would be welcome. He knew staying at Winterfell once Ned was gone was a no no and Robert wasn't going to allow Ned to take a bastard to King's landing. So, he cried himself at night and pretended that joining the Watch was an honrable thing to do, while ignoring all the signs which said otherwise.

And what would Stannis do then? As I pointed out, the NW had no power to deny Stannis. He wanted to do it legitimately, Jon agreed with his idea, so it happened. If Jon disagreed, who knows what happens? NW does not have the manpower to deny Stannis if he really wants this.

Stannis wouldn't have done nothing because he needs the North. Going against the Watch is a sure way of ticking off the North.

What does Mormont have to do with anything? We have no idea what he would have done, as he has never faced a situation where a King showed up at the Wall in the middle of a war and demanded concessions that the NW could not safely deny.

Mormont would rather have died than go against the Watch rules. He would never have supported Stannis, that I know for a fact.

This is all largely irrelevant anyway because Jon agreed with Stannis's policy. It's not like Stannis was even twisting his arm or anything, Jon thought it was the right idea.

You haven't answered my question. How did Benjen or Ned agree to any of Stannis terms?

Wow, you seem to know the Weeper pretty well based on what? Either way, again this is just a diversion and irrelevant to the argument that I made. So, what is Jon's decision here? Leave the Weeper alone so he can try and raid the unguarded and undermanned Wall in weak spots, leave him alone so he can get killed by the Others and raised as a wight to again attack the Watch, or he can try and turn him into an ally under threat of good behavior and gain much needed manpower. I'm really not sure what point you're trying to make here, based on Jon's available options it seems pretty obvious what the correct choice is.

Based on what? Jon sent a couple of rangers after the defeat of the wildlings, and what did Weeper do? He beheaded them, removed their eyes (or vice versa) and returned them to the wall for all to see. Is that a man you want to let loose in the Seven kingdoms? All of the North HATES the weeping man for what he does to the village women. Did you know that the Weeping blinds all the women he is not able to carry off in a raid? If the Weeping Man is seen in the North, they will kill him on the spot, even Jon will not be able save him.

It is better for the Weeping Man to die and become a zombie than to let that monster lose in the south of the Wall. You cannot turn the Weeper into an ally, just as you cannot turn a snake into a pet. It will always do what comes to its nature...

Again, this is another diversion. I'm not sure what you're trying to argue about- Jon took 2 enemies in the Arnolf Karsarks and the Thenns and turned both into allies. Who is to say what happens with Alys and Sigorn? And who exactly is Sigorn of Thenn "commanding"? And who is "deposing" Alys Karstark, by all accounts the rightful heir to Karhold (after her brother who is captive), while Arnolf Karstark is stuck with Stannis who is about to be warned of his impending betrayal? Arnolf is probably about to be short a head, while Cregan is not gonna have any men to help him out.

Are you really that blind? If the Vale had trouble with Littlefinger being the husband of Lysa, imagine what the Northmen will feel about being ruled by a wildling?

The North will never allow themselves to be ruled by a wildling. Either they will kill the husband or both the husband and the wife..

Again, you're not answering the point I made and using diversionary arguments. What happens in the future is not relevant should the NW cease to exist because it doesn't have the manpower to fight the Others. I really don't understand what kind of argument you are making-

Is it that it was a mistake to allow the wildlings through in the first place? I can't imagine any impartial reader of the books would try to make that argument. The NW is entirely undermanned and incapable of fighting off an invasion of both wildlings and extra wights created by not allowing those wildlings through. So assuming you don't agree with Bowen Marsh's entirely illogical, idiotic, and flat-out cowardly plan of sticking his head in the Snow, hiding behind the Wall, and hoping for the best, what entirely are you trying to argue?

So, you think borrowing money from the Iron Bank to feed the wildlings is a wise move? If that winter is going to be as long as some are predicting, the Night Watch will forever be in debt.

Likewise, I don't understand how you can say that Stannis is the "losing horse" when it seems as if the Boltons are about to get massacred by their own men and the Lannisters are slowly whittling down to nothing. Either way, how is Jon supposed to not get involved in the affairs of the realm when the affairs of the realm are involving him?

Stannis is a losing horse. He is the one king who will never get to sit on the Iron Throne. Nobody loves him except Jon.

Who helped steal Ramsay's bride? Was it not Mance? Who sent Mance from the Wall?

Why should Jon stay neutral when the Bolton's and Lannisters aren't?

Uhmm, the Boltons and Lannisters are only reacting to what Jon did. Had Jon remained neutral like a good commander would, none of this would have happened.

Why shouldn't Jon try and support the candidate who cares about the Watch and who will support them with the necessary reinforcements and manpower?

...because it's against the rules for the Night's Watch to support one King over the other. How hard is that to understand? What do you think will happen if the Lannisters remain in power? Will the King support the Watch?

There is a reason why all the Night's Watch castles do not have any walls surrounding them...

Where is there evidence of Mel "consolidating power" on the Wall? Her POV seems to indicate her feeling entirely isolated and frustrated over her inability to gain Jon's trust and attention, so she resorts to increasingly desperate and tacky gestures of "magic tricks" to try and show him her power.

Her POV may say one thing, but her actions are clear as daylight. That woman is evil and dangerous.

She's not desperate, she knows exactly what she is doing. Jon will be her creature before he knows it, the way this is going. She's playing him just as she plays Stannis by making her victims feel like they are in charge, and making them feel like they need her.

Jon pretty much gave Mel and Mance one chance to prove themselves. She failed when she was wrong about Alys- Does the final exchange between them mean nothing, when Jon calls putting hope in her a "fools hope" and dismisses her right away?

Yet Jon will come running back to Melisandre. The writing is on the wall...

Cersei didn't seem to mind taking sides when she planned on sending men to assassinate Jon Snow. And why is everything the Watch believes in suddenly wrong to go against, when you yourself have dismissed it as an institution full of murderers and rapists that no one has any respect for? Well, maybe that's the problem with the Watch's current operating principles. They are unworkable and obsolete in modern-day Westeros.

Why did Cersei feel the need to send men to assassinate Jon? Why send men to kill Jon if Jon never did anything wrong? Cersei may be stupid, but even she is not that stupid.

Cersei wanted Jon dead because Jon was playing house with Stannis. If you lie down with dogs, you will get fleas...

[winterbird]

Jon stated his desire to lead a host to attack Bolton. That's enough reason for desertion to me.

Send them to me, bastard, and I will not trouble you or your black crows. Keep them from me and I will cut out your bastard's heart and eat it.

This sounds to me like a direct threat on the Lord Commander of the Night Watch. Being that the Lord commander needs to defend the watch he needs to answer this. Otherwise Ramsay is going to come to the Watch. And the Watch has enough trouble right now, it doesn't need troops coming up from the south as well. Jon says they are not siding for Stannis but answering a threat on the Lord Commander. Ramsay even mentioned the "crows" in the letter implying the threat would extend to the Night's Watch

ETA:

Why did Cersei feel the need to send men to assassinate Jon? Why send men to kill Jon if Jon never did anything wrong? Cersei may be stupid, but even she is not that stupid.

Cersei wanted Jon dead because Jon was playing house with Stannis. If you lie down with dogs, you will get fleas...

Cersei wanted Jon dead because he wasn't a Lannister supporter. Tywin was even scheming before Jon was elected to get Slynt elected so the NW would have a Lannister man running it. They mentioned interfering before Jon was even Lord Commander.

[Vympel]

Having numbers means nothing to be honest. The wildlings are untrained, indisciplined, under armed to pose any serious threat to the Watch.

At the Battle of the Bridge of Skulls, the Weeper and 300 Wildlings killed 100 brothers of the Night's Watch. Even if every single Wildling was slaughtered, a 3 to 1 exchange ratio does not make for "no serious thread to the Watch". Victory in battle depends on many many things, and having a horde of Wildlings amongst you with no natural defences isn't part of that recipe.

[Third World King]

I'm also a reader and I think Jon didn't deserve to get stabbed. See how that works?

I guess that's why we are in disagreement.

Whose commands? Who gives Jon commands? The Lord Commander doesn't take commands, her gives them. It's part of that whole "commander" thing being in the title, you see.

Jon isn't exempt from the rules of the Watch, even the lord commander takes commands as well.

One rule explicitly states that the Watch does not take sides. It ain't is not a polite suggestion...

The fact that you support the Old Pomegranate while gleefully anticipating the mass slaughter of people under the Watch's protection makes me very sad.

Anyway. As hilarious — and, sorry, utterly, 100% futile — as your irrational hatred for Jon is, I'm going to have to leave you to it. Have a good night.

Actually, I do not in any way condone what Marsh did, but I can understand why they did it. What would have happened had the Lord commander of the Night Watch marched against the King? It's high time Jon stops being emo and start thinking rationale, otherwise, the Watch will die..

[Third World King]

This sounds to me like a direct threat on the Lord Commander of the Night Watch. Being that the Lord commander needs to defend the watch he needs to answer this. Otherwise Ramsay is going to come to the Watch. And the Watch has enough trouble right now, it doesn't need troops coming up from the south as well. Jon says they are not siding for Stannis but answering a threat on the Lord Commander. Ramsay even mentioned the "crows" in the letter implying the threat would extend to the Night's Watch

Why did Ramsay threaten Jon? Was it not because Mance helped kidnap Jeyne from Winterfell? Now who does Mance belong to? If Jon did not release Mance, none of this would have ever happened.

Cersei wanted Jon dead because he wasn't a Lannister supporter. Tywin was even scheming before Jon was elected to get Slynt elected so the NW would have a Lannister man running it. They mentioned interfering before Jon was even Lord Commander.

No, it was because Jon supported Stannis. Why do you think Cersei never bothered with those who kept to themselves? Cersei never gave a damn her father's schemes or about Slynt, she only became concerned once Jon started extending his hands to rebels as Stannis. Maester Aemon knew what would happen that's why he sent that letter to Cersei, talking about how the NW was not aiding Stannis and what not, but the dame was already done.

[Prince of the Green]

Let me ask you just one question, Third World King. You hate Jon Snow, that's fine, you don't understand the plot lines, can't comprehend the character, and what-not. Which character do you like the most, if any?

[Third World King]

Robb legitimized him in ASOS. A number of Northern lords know this Maege Mormont, Greatjon Umber, Galbert Glover and Jason Mallister. They fixed their seal to Robbs decree stating that if he did not have a son that Jon was his heir. Personally I hope Jon remains a member of the nights watch and tells his other family that he is a Stark.

As I have said on numerous occasions, the will was made under false assumptions. Everyone assumed Rickon and Bran were dead. However, they are alive and that changes everything.

[Third World King]

Let me ask you just one question, Third World King. You hate Jon Snow, that's fine, you don't understand the plot lines, can't comprehend the character, and what-not.

..and I suppose you understand them well enough?

Which character do you like the most, if any?

Tyrion is fast becoming my favourite, followed closely by Drogon.

[Vympel]

As I said on numerous occasion, the will was made under false assumptions. Everyone assumed Rickon and Bran were dead. However, they are alive and that changes everything.

Unless the will specifically provides for Bran and Rickon being alive, then the assumption the will was based on is completely irrelevant. The will is the will is the will.

[Prince of the Green]

..and I suppose you understand them well enough?

Tyrion is fast becoming my favourite, followed closely by Drogon.

Sure. I can't say I comprehend each and every blip on his arc, but I feel like I know the character pretty well.

And, Drogon? Seriously? A creature who would roast a little girl and eat her?

[Third World King]

Unless the will specifically provides for Bran and Rickon being alive, then the assumption the will was based on is completely irrelevant. The will is the will is the will.

Robb (and all the witnesses present) ASSUMED that Rickon and Bran were dead, that is why he named Jon as his heir should he die without a child. However, as Rickon is very much alive, he comes before Jon.

[Third World King]

Sure. I can't say I comprehend each and every blip on his arc, but I feel like I know the character pretty well.

Why was Jon stabbed?

And, Drogon? Seriously? A creature who would roast a little girl and eat her?

It's a dragon. What do you expect? Do you hate all lions?

[Castel]

Why did Ramsay threaten Jon? Was it not because Mance helped kidnap Jeyne from Winterfell? Now who does Mance belong to? If Jon did not release Mance, none of this would have ever happened.

Now you're misrepresenting facts. Jon did not in fact release Mance, Mance was never Jon's prisoner.

No, it was because Jon supported Stannis. Why do you think Cersei never bothered with those who kept to themselves? Cersei never gave a damn her father's schemes or about Slynt, she only became concerned once Jon started extending his hands to rebels as Stannis. Maester Aemon knew what would happen that's why he sent that letter to Cersei, talking about how the NW was not aiding Stannis and what not, but the dame was already done.

Cersei's dislike of Jon started the minute he was elected. It all had to do with him being a son of Ned.

[Tagganaro]

Jon is about as highborn as Gendry is. Bastards can never be high-born.

The only reason Jon decided to join the Watch is because that was the only place he would be welcome. He knew staying at Winterfell once Ned was gone was a no no and Robert wasn't going to allow Ned to take a bastard to King's landing. So, he cried himself at night and pretended that joining the Watch was an honrable thing to do, while ignoring all the signs which said otherwise.

Ok, so what about Waymar Royce or any of the other highborns who have ever joined the Watch?

Stannis wouldn't have done nothing because he needs the North. Going against the Watch is a sure way of ticking off the North.

So let me get this straight: One the one hand no one in the North cares about the Watch and it has a terrible reputation. On the other hand going against the Watch will piss off the entire North? Which one is it?

Mormont would rather have died than go against the Watch rules. He would never have supported Stannis, that I know for a fact.

Well, Mormont did die so I'm not sure why it's relevant. Either way, why has Mormont become the symbol for being a great NW Commander?

You haven't answered my question. How did Benjen or Ned agree to any of Stannis terms?

Not that it matters, but they had been planning on resettling the Gift for a while. It was a pet project of theirs. The plan was never to do it with wildlings, but I have no doubt they would support that position had they been presented with the choice Jon was- wights or wildlings.

Based on what? Jon sent a couple of rangers after the defeat of the wildlings, and what did Weeper do? He beheaded them, removed their eyes (or vice versa) and returned them to the wall for all to see. Is that a man you want to let loose in the Seven kingdoms? All of the North HATES the weeping man for what he does to the village women. Did you know that the Weeping blinds all the women he is not able to carry off in a raid? If the Weeping Man is seen in the North, they will kill him on the spot, even Jon will not be able save him.

It is better for the Weeping Man to die and become a zombie than to let that monster lose in the south of the Wall. You cannot turn the Weeper into an ally, just as you cannot turn a snake into a pet. It will always do what comes to its nature...

Ok, fair enough if that is your opinion. I completely disagree but whatever, not gonna change your mind if that's what you think about that.

Are you really that blind? If the Vale had trouble with Littlefinger being the husband of Lysa, imagine what the Northmen will feel about being ruled by a wildling?

The North will never allow themselves to be ruled by a wildling. Either they will kill the husband or both the husband and the wife..

What are you responding to? I asked you who the heck the Thenns would be ruling. They're not ruling anybody. They're just another House in the North. For everything we know, he is happily married to Alys Karstark who will vouch for him. She seemed pretty certain that her people would be fine with it if she was, so again...Who are the Thenns ruling? Who are they giving commands to? No one but the Karstarks who Alys seems to think will support her.

So, you think borrowing money from the Iron Bank to feed the wildlings is a wise move? If that winter is going to be as long as some are predicting, the Night Watch will forever be in debt.

Again, avoiding the response. I don't really want to keep talking in circles like this. Whether borrowing money from the Iron Bank is a "wise" move is not relevant to my response, which was that debt won't matter if the NW is overrun by the Others due to inferior numbers. So if they need the wildlings numbers and they need the money to afford the food to feed them, then how can this be bad in the short term? So again, what is the alternative you propose? Leaving the wildlings to die and being turned into wights and hoping for the best? If that's your "plan" then you have the same plan as Bowen Marsh and it seems like a truly awful idiotic plan to me.

Stannis is a losing horse. He is the one king who will never get to sit on the Iron Throne. Nobody loves him except Jon.

Ok again, what does this have to do with the Lannisters and Boltons? You said Stannis was the losing horse, and maybe he is, but he's certainly not as much of a losing horse as the Lannisters and Boltons seem to be at the moment. Either way, it's pointless to argue with someone with prescience apparently.

Who helped steal Ramsay's bride? Was it not Mance? Who sent Mance from the Wall?

Jon did, based on faulty information from Melisandre, and apparently Mance has gone to Winterfell on his own or with some help from Melisandre. Either way, Jon did not know about it nor did he support Mance going to Winterfell. I don't think it's entirely relevant either way though. The Boltons are not long for this world and I don't blame Jon for being concerned about Arya being stuck with that monster.

Uhmm, the Boltons and Lannisters are only reacting to what Jon did. Had Jon remained neutral like a good commander would, none of this would have happened.

...because it's against the rules for the Night's Watch to support one King over the other. How hard is that to understand? What do you think will happen if the Lannisters remain in power? Will the King support the Watch?

There is a reason why all the Night's Watch castles do not have any walls surrounding them...

And as I said before and you conveniently didn't answer, how is that working out for the NW. It was impossible for Jon to remain entirely neutral anyway- Stannis had just come with superior troops and saved the NW's asses while none of the other Kings did. The least Jon could do is let him stay at their castles for a little bit. Again, I fail to see what Jon can do here. He can maybe order Stannis to leave, Stannis refuses, then what?

Yes, the Lannisters have done such a bang-up job before helping the Watch. I'm sure they would have really cared about grumkins and snarks had Jon not done anything.

Her POV may say one thing, but her actions are clear as daylight. That woman is evil and dangerous.

She's not desperate, she knows exactly what she is doing. Jon will be her creature before he knows it, the way this is going. She's playing him just as she plays Stannis by making her victims feel like they are in charge, and making them feel like they need her.

Yet Jon will come running back to Melisandre. The writing is on the wall...

Again, I can't argue with your future-predicting abilities lol. Whatever. What I can argue with is your mistaken assumptions- Melisandre is increasingly desperate to gain Jon's attention. That much is proven by her chapter, where she thinks about this a lot. She's not fooling herself here, She's the POV. And we have her consistently thinking that Jon won't listen to her and pay attention to her, so she's resorting to increasingly tacky tricks to try and appeal to him. And then Jon's POV ends with him telling her to go screw herself eventually. Don't really see how you can predict what you do, but again I'm not prescient like you apparently are.

Why did Cersei feel the need to send men to assassinate Jon? Why send men to kill Jon if Jon never did anything wrong? Cersei may be stupid, but even she is not that stupid.

Cersei wanted Jon dead because Jon was playing house with Stannis. If you lie down with dogs, you will get fleas...

This is another misrepresentation. Cersei/the Lannisters were pissed about Jon from the start of his election. Tywin sent a letter telling the NW to elect Slynt, and Cersei was pissed right from the beginning about Jon Snow. And again I ask, what is Jon supposed to do here? Stannis has just saved the NW's asses, and you want him to just be kicked out, despite the fact that he has superior numbers and troops and could do whatever he wants anyway?

[Batman]

As I have said on numerous occasions, the will was made under false assumptions. Everyone assumed Rickon and Bran were dead. However, they are alive and that changes everything.

It makes things disputable about who is truly heir, but by royal decree Jon Snow is Jon Stark. Cat said so herself "once you do this there is no way to undo it". Rickon and Bran are better claimants but Jon is legitmate according to royal decree.

[Third World King]

Now you're misrepresenting facts. Jon did not in fact release Mance, Mance was never Jon's prisoner.

Who released Mance then? Who provided Mace with all the spearwives, horses and provisions for the journey?

Cersei's dislike of Jon started the minute he was elected. It all had to do with him being a son of Ned.

She may have disliked him before, but she never had any reason to kill the boy. However, that quickly changed after Jon allied himself with Stannis.

[Prince of the Green]

^^ Jon was stabbed because he didn't agree with the complacency that had set in on the Wall. The old guard, otherwise known as Marsh, thought that the enemy that the Night's Watch was destined to fight were men, women, and children who were extremely angry that a 700 foot high wall of ice separated them from food, shelter, warmth, as opposed to the Others, the real enemy. Also, Bowen Marsh is more than likely touched in the head; fallout from his skirmish on the Bridge of Skulls. He thought if he killed the Lord Commander that he could undo all of the things that he had done and go back to the constant inventory-taking and penny-pinching that he was comfortable with.

I don't doubt that the fear of a vain Lannister woman, spoiled and soiled, thousands of leagues to the south, who promised to strip any and all aid from the Watch played a part in that decision as well. All because a young man, who claims Eddard Stark as a father, made a choice that would spare the 800 souls he was elected to command from 'the pointy end' of 1500 swords, lances, and axes.

[Third World King]

It makes things disputable about who is truly heir, but by royal decree Jon Snow is Jon Stark. Cat said so herself "once you do this there is no way to undo it". Rickon and Bran are better claimants but Jon is legitmate according to royal decree.

No, it does not. The true heir remains Bran, Rickon, Ayra even with the piece of paper. Legitimized bastards come last after all the trueborn children.