King in the North or Warden of the North?

[Ser Illin']

Oh, I know they're different. I just meant, that if all the other kindgoms are together, maybe it's best for the North to stay with them. I know the North is as big as the rest put together, but that doesn't mean it has as big a population/army as all the rest put together...If the others all decide to conquer the North, they'll suffer quite a bit, I think.

Now that winter's come, no one in their right mind will think of invading the North. If the northmen overthrow the boltons and rally behind Rickon/Sansa/Jon/Whoever, they'll probably be unmolested for at least a few years. And even then, who wants to try and march past moat cailin when the crannogmen (as far as we know) have been totally untouched by the war?

To be frank, the Northern lords do not care that Jon makes for a better lord than Bran, Sansa or Rickon. All they see in Jon Snow is a BASTARD.

I don't think this is true. Alys Karstark explicitly sought out "the last son of Eddard Stark." A teenage girl doesn't come up with that kind of respect out of nowhere. It's likely her family thinks the same way. Furthermore, back in CoK, no one seemed to think it was out of the question to have the late Lord Hornwood's bastard succeed him if no heir could be found.

[Third World King]

What are you basing this on, exactly? I like to think that the pro-Stark northerners have a little more honor than Cersei's bunch and would make an attempt to honor their king's will.

I think Rickon probably is the key to a Stark restoration in the North — probably his entire purpose, really — but the way you're making your argument is tenuous.

The will does not matter as long as other heirs of Winterfell still exist. The will was made under false assumptions (Robb thought Rickon and Bran were dead).

[Third World King]

So who the hell are all the guys who marched to the Wall with Stannis? Did he go alone?

Only 1500 men went with Stannis to the North. These are the only southrons that were loyal to Stannis- most of them "queens men". The rest deserted him and ran back to Renly- a dead guy. If you call the Casterly Rock a spent force, then what does that make Stannis? A beggar king?

And if he's legitimized, he's no longer a BASTARD.

Also, do you have proof of this? Has anyone specifically said that they would not recognize Jon's authority, specifically, because he's a BASTARD? If you don't, how do you know what the lords do and don't care about?

Well, how come no lord ever came running Jon to take his "rightful" place as the lord of Winterfell after the death of Robb? Nobody, except the desperate Stannis, ever considered Jon as an heir to Winterfell. That says a lot really.

If Jon wants to be lord, he's gonna have to go through Rickon, Sansa, Bran and Arya...

[winterbird]

And if he's legitimized, he's no longer a BASTARD.

Also, do you have proof of this? Has anyone specifically said that they would not recognize Jon's authority, specifically, because he's a BASTARD? If you don't, how do you know what the lords do and don't care about?

There is a lot of dislike when they turn Ramsay from a Snow to a Bolton. Granted he is a pretty terrible person. They recognize the authority and him as "heir" but they intensely dislike him and call him Snow behind his back. (We can garner more from how much Theon tells us Ramsay insists on Bolton not Snow... seems he meets some resistance other than Theon on that front).

That being said Jon Stark is not Ramsay Bolton, and that could make a world of difference. Of all Ned's children I believe Jon is most like Ned (yes even if he isn't Ned's) and I think it will help him to be a great leader. But then you still have to deal with the legitimizing him as a Stark and relieving him of his duty to the night watch of which he is Lord Commander. Jon is the character who seems most of the North and it seems even back in book one that GRRM is telling us Jon belongs to the Wall and beyond, belongs to the night. He was meant to be Lord Commander and his fight is north of the Wall not south of it. :dunno: Just what I am getting.

I think he would be a great Lord of Winterfell or King in the North, but I think he has other things to deal with.

[lostcause]

I think by the end of the book, there will be no more Wall, and the Nights Watch will have undergone radical changes, including their oaths.

I also believe that the threat of The Others, now being quite real and present, will require a Warden of the North again, with all the military power it needs to secure the area.

Going with the - almost - certainty that R + L = J, I think Jon will retain the titles of Warden/Steward of the North/Nights Watch, and whoever sits the Iron Throne, if it even exists anymore, will have to accept and support that notion.

[Erkan12]

Lets think North Kingdom, if someone useful arrested in south for foolish crime they can escape there, or if you not happy with south kingdoms governance, they can come your kingdom too, this is very big benefit for north, also they shouldn't pay tax or anything to kingdom, this is also big benefit too.

Much as I like Robb, I think seceding from the realm was a bad move, the North doesn't have enough population to fight the South on it's own and this alienated him from potential allies. The Starks are really in no position now or any time soon to lead a kingdom. What the North needs to do is just join Stannis so he can place the Starks back in Winterfell and the Tully's back in Riverrun while sacking the Dreadfort and the Twins and then join with Riverlords and than deal with the Lannisters.

I don't agree, the reason Torrhen bend knee Targaryens, cos they have dragons, if there is a war and when winter is come, the south or westerns armies can't fight with northern armies in this circumstances. And they should retreat from north.

[winterbird]

I think by the end of the book, there will be no more Wall, and the Nights Watch will have undergone radical changes, including their oaths.

I also believe that the threat of The Others, now being quite real and present, will require a Warden of the North again, with all the military power it needs to secure the area.

Going with the - almost - certainty that R + L = J, I think Jon will retain the titles of Warden/Steward of the North/Nights Watch, and whoever sits the Iron Throne, if it even exists anymore, will have to accept and support that notion.

I do too. I think there is going to be a complete re-vamping of the NW, but I have no idea whether the Wall will stand. But the problem is even if the NW changes their oath, Jon made his vows to the old gods.

[Third World King]

I don't think this is true. Alys Karstark explicitly sought out "the last son of Eddard Stark." A teenage girl doesn't come up with that kind of respect out of nowhere. It's likely her family thinks the same way. Furthermore, back in CoK, no one seemed to think it was out of the question to have the late Lord Hornwood's bastard succeed him if no heir could be found.

Rights of Inheritance

The baseborn have few rights under the law and custom when it comes to rights of inheritance. A bastard may inherit if the father has no other trueborn children nor any other likely kin to follow him. Additionally, a bastard can inherit if he is legitimized by a royal decree. However, a legitimized bastard falls in the order of succession at the end, after all trueborn offspring, including daughters.

http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Bastardy

Taken form wikipedia, so dunno how reliable that article is. However, if we are to believe what is written above, even though Jon has been legitimazed by Robb and made heir to Winterfell, he would still come last after Bran, Rickon, Arya and Sansa- the trueborn Starks.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

There is a lot of dislike when they turn Ramsay from a Snow to a Bolton. Granted he is a pretty terrible person. They recognize the authority and him as "heir" but they intensely dislike him and call him Snow behind his back.

There is a big damn difference between King's Landing legitimizing Ramsay as part of the "payment" for betraying Robb, and Robb himself legitimizing Jon and naming him his heir.

Only 1500 men went with Stannis to the North. These are the only southrons that were loyal to Stannis- most of them "queens men". The rest deserted him and ran back to Renly- a dead guy. If you call the Casterly Rock a spent force, then what does that make Stannis? A beggar king?

I think Stannis is in better shape — especially after gaining a few thousand members of the northern mountain clans — than the Casterly Rock crowd at this point, considering most of them are dead or in complete disgrace.

Well, how come no lord ever came running Jon to take his "rightful" place as the lord of Winterfell after the death of Robb? Nobody, except the desperate Stannis, ever considered Jon as an heir to Winterfell. That says a lot really.

If Jon wants to be lord, he's gonna have to go through Rickon, Sansa, Bran and Arya...

Possibly because the will hasn't surfaced yet and no one really knows what's in it?

There's actually a very nuanced argument that Manderly is aware of the will and possibly aware of Jon's role in it, based on the songs (all having to do with the Night's Watch) he called for at the Ramsay-Arya wedding. Such speculation is based on pretty intense analysis though and might not be your particular cup of tea. Jon's encounter with Alys Karstark should prove that many northerners are well aware of Jon's presence and hold him in high regard as Ned's son.

[nothatso]

Taken form wikipedia, so dunno how reliable that article is. However, if we are to believe what is written above, even though Jon has been legitimazed by Robb and made heir to Winterfell, he would still come last after Bran, Rickon, Arya and Sansa- the trueborn Starks.

I'm fairly certain this is incorrect. There is no precedent for this in the books and the article itself doesn't provide a citation for the statement. I've talked to people about this many times and I have yet to see an example, in Westeros or in the real world, of a legitimized bastard being placed behind all trueborn siblings in the line of succession regardless of age. This is probably because bastards are usually only legitimized when there are no other options to continue a particular dynastic line, so legitimization is rare.

[PatrickStormborn]

I'm playing devil's advocate here, but pragmatically, Jon makes far more sense as a leader than a small boy, a crippled boy, a girl who's still a Lannister by marriage and a girl with a pretender running around. Jon is a grown man with significant military and leadership experience, and that's something that could be very attractive to northern lords. If nothing else, he'd be an excellent regent for Rickon.

Jon is also a bad choice for a couple of reasons. Firstly, he's dead, and I imagine that by the time he's revived Davos will have returned with Rickon. Moreover, he has been assassinated by his own men for bringing wildlings through the Wall. Whilst this is evidently a good thing in the long-run, it is not a good political move, as the Northern lords have always felt antagonistic towards the wildlings. And I don't think that being assassinated by his own men would exactly be a glowing reference. Leaving the Night's Watch to become king would also make him an oathbreaker. Even if being dead and being revived counts as "for all nights to come...", I can't see the North accepting this, or even believing it.

I could see him as Rickon's regent, but I can't help but feel that Manderly will want this position for himself, and I think Sansa still has a huge role to play in the governing of the North. (I will admit to being biased here, as I'm hoping to see Sansa ruling the North through Rickon.)

Robb's will was made under the belief that Bran and Rickon were dead, so I'm not sure how relevant it is to the lords who are aware of Bran and Rickon being alive.

[winterbird]

There is a big damn difference between King's Landing legitimizing Ramsay as part of the "payment" for betraying Robb, and Robb himself legitimizing Jon and naming him his heir.

I agree with you there. I mentioned the same thing in the next line. :) Didn't want you to think I was opposing you just was to show another bastard in position of power in the North. I do think Jon being Ned's son is different. And it depends on who legitimizes him. Did anyone ever receive word that Jon was meant to be legitimized? I was under the impression that the King of the North dies with Robb and that his wish to make Jon heir was pretty much "lost" there. He wrote it down I'm assuming, but where did it go? To whom? And why haven't they heard of it? It would have led credence to Stannis making him Lord of Winterfell, if he'd had some proof Robb wanted him as heir or if someone had proof. We've heard nothing of what happened to the decree. (I'm not arguing Jon wouldn't be a good leader or shouldn't be it's an honest question not an argument as a question. I thought we were looking at him being legitimatized by Stannis or something. I think Jon is a better leader than most and has the ability to see further toward the future than most other men around him.)

[The Young Wolfs Champion]

It depends who sits on the iron throne.

[nothatso]

Jon's encounter with Alys Karstark should prove that many northerners are well aware of Jon's presence and hold him in high regard as Ned's son.

Jon's encounter with Alys Karstark should also prove that, at the very least, not all northmen share an irreconcilable predisposition of hatred for the wildlings, as some seem to believe. I've long held the belief that it wouldn't be altogether too hard to reconcile the North and the wildlings, given they come from similar roots, have the same religion, and - perhaps most importantly - have far greater enemies afoot. I'm not sure why people seem so inclined to think the wildlings and northmen have differences so great that they'd be irreconcilable in the face of war with the Lannisters, Freys, Boltons, or The Others.

[Pearlthegirl]

There are lots of possibilities. The North may kneel to Jon on the iron throne if his true heritage is ever revealed.

The North may increase in size to include the Riverlands and the Vale thanks to Sansa and the Tully connection and remain independent. If this happens, I'd love to see Sansa as Rickon's Regent and have a Regent face-off with Cercei! That would be priceless!

[Third World King]

I think Stannis is in better shape — especially after gaining a few thousand members of the northern mountain clans — than the Casterly Rock crowd at this point, considering most of them are dead or in complete disgrace.

Seriously? You think Stannis is in better shape than the Lannisters in terms of military power? Stannis has how many men under his banner now? 3 000 at most.

You really think Casterly Rock has less than 3 000 men at disposal? C'mon now.

By the way, the mountain clansmen ain't fighting for Stannis, but only for Eddard Stark. They only joined Stannis to rescue the supposed daughter of Eddard and to dispose the Boltons from power. To be honest, I do not think the mountain men will march south for Stannis.

Possibly because the will hasn't surfaced yet and no one really knows what's in it?

There's actually a very nuanced argument that Manderly is aware of the will and possibly aware of Jon's role in it, based on the songs (all having to do with the Night's Watch) he called for at the Ramsay-Arya wedding. Such speculation is based on pretty intense analysis though and might not be your particular cup of tea. Jon's encounter with Alys Karstark should prove that many northerners are well aware of Jon's presence and hold him in high regard as Ned's son.

Alys holds Jon in high regards because she thinks that all the trueborn children and kin of Ned Stark are dead. To her, Jon is the only one of Ned's blood that remains, so it's only natural for her to feel that way. However, that will quickly change once Rickon returns to the North with that savage direwolf in tow to claim his RIGHTFUL place as the lord of Winterfell. If Jon sees himself as the lord of Winterfell, he has to get rid of Bran, Rickon, Sansa and Arya before claiming that title. Even the will written by Robb will not matter, since the witnesses who signed it all were under the false assumption that the trueborn sons of Ned were all dead (the legitimized bastards come at the end of all trueborn children according to the inheritance customs).

[Every]

What's happened to the Others in this scenario? If the north were to secede before they were defeated, it would be facing them on its own. I don't know that the north has enough resources to guard from invasion (potentially supernatural invasion) from the north and south and the sea, if Euron's still kicking.

[Third World King]

I'm fairly certain this is incorrect. There is no precedent for this in the books and the article itself doesn't provide a citation for the statement. I've talked to people about this many times and I have yet to see an example, in Westeros or in the real world, of a legitimized bastard being placed behind all trueborn siblings in the line of succession regardless of age. This is probably because bastards are usually only legitimized when there are no other options to continue a particular dynastic line, so legitimization is rare.

Why do you claim that is incorrect? Do you have any information from the books that proves it's false?

Another interesting point to note: Roose revealed to Theon Greyjoy that if Walda would give him any children Ramsay would most likely kill them, which Roose states is just as well since he most likely won't live to see the child reach adulthood and won't have to see a child lord (which he believes are the bane of any House) follow after him as Lord of Dreadfort.

Ramsay is only the true heir to Dreadfort, since Roose does not have any trueborn children of his own. However, this would change should Roose have kids with fat Walda.

[nothatso]

Do you have any information from the books that proves it's false?

It's a claim made by fans and written in a fan-edited article without any citation. It has no basis in the books to begin with, how can it be proven or disproven? Is your defense about it not being provable really that it cant be disproven?

The universe is created by a flying spaghetti monster. It's true because you can't disprove it.

Why would Ramsay "the legitimized bastard" Bolton feel threatened by any future trueborn sons of Roose to fat Walda Frey if he is the true heir to Dreadfort?

Why does Cersei want Jon dead?

Why does Catelyn caution Robb against legitimizing Jon?

Why does Ramsay want to make sure Jon stays on the wall?

Rightful claim or not, siblings can be viewed as political opponents. I'd urge you to look up how siblings were handled in the Ottoman line of succession, iirc sisters were locked in a harem and brothers were often murdered. Whether or not Ramsay's claim is legitimate, his siblings might feel obligated to contest his claim out of some distorted perception of their blood being more pure. He's also - you know - a crazy, sadistic, murderer that just kind of likes to kill people.

Jon is only a "bastard brother of the Night's watch" - and yet Ramsay, Catelyn, Robb, Stannis, and Cersei all view him as a potential claimant to House Stark.

[Third World King]

It's a claim made by fans and written in a fan-edited article without any citation. It has no basis in the books to begin with, how can it be proven or disproven? Is your defense about it not being provable really that it cant be disproven?

The universe is created by a flying spaghetti monster. It's true because you can't disprove it.

Why do you claim it's false when you do not have any evidence to prove otherwise? I have showed you mine, show me yours?

How can I believe anything you say when you provide no support for your claims? Am I supposed to believe you because you say so?

Why does Cersei want Jon dead?

..because Jon has been favoring Stannis in the war. Cersei was not deceived by Maester Aemon's letter, not one bit.

Why does Catelyn caution Robb against legitimizing Jon?

Because Jon is a bastard, and everytime she saw the bastard, she only saw Ned's unfaithfulness. Ned dishonored her by bringing the bastard home with him (although Ned probably lied to her about the birth-parents of Jon).

Bottomline, Catelyn hates Jon for simply being a "child" of Ned.

Rightful claim or not, siblings can be viewed as political opponents. Whether or not Ramsay's claim is legitimate, his siblings might feel obligated to contest his claim out of some distorted perception of their blood being more pure. He's also - you know - a crazy, sadistic, murderer that just kind of likes to kill and harm people.

Let me point it out again:

Roose revealed to Theon Greyjoy that if Walda would give him any children Ramsay would most likely kill them, which Roose states is just as well since he most likely won't live to see the child reach adulthood and won't have to see a child lord (which he believes are the bane of any House) follow after him as Lord of Dreadfort.

Roose confessed that any child born with fat Walda would come before Ramsay Bolton due to the inheritance laws. Do you disagree?