A King in Hiding: Adding It All Up

[Bushido]

That's not how succession works. You can't just arbitrarily pick some random person to succeed you, write it in your will, and then expect it to happen. The very definition of "king" intrinsically implies DIVINE RIGHT to rule (by European medieval standards). That's why bloodlines are important, why bastards are considered a "watered" down, and thus ultimately useless; because they were born of sin, and obviously God does not intend for those born out of sin to hold any sort of divine right to a throne.

The religious aspect of succession cannot be ignored. The only way to truly legitimize a successor is for the church to recognize you as such. A monarch in medieval Europe could not effectively control the state without the support and recognition of the church (in most cases, the Catholic church). Social mechanisms for control add to the stratification of the status quo and ultimately is what keeps the "common folk" in line. You see this quite a lot in ASOIF, Cersei has to make some serious concessions to get the High Septim to recognize Joffrey.

For every historical law,George can simply respond with "It's fantasy"

Jon is not random,but,to everyone's knowledge,Ned's bastard son.

What Robb can do is to legitimize him and by the right of first born,Jon would have precedence over Bran,Rickon.

[pamparius]

Actually, Rob can't legitimize anything because he was a king in name only. For all intents and purposes the North has been re-assimilated into the seven kingdoms. The only person who actually could legitimize Jon, legally, across all seven kingdoms, is Tommen. And yes, you're right, Martin COULD say that, but it would be a total cop out to do so.

I didn't mean Jon is "some random" just that you can't arbitrarily pick someone, whether they are a bastard or not, and a king's endorsement for your legitimacy only goes so far. Because, as I pointed out,t he religious factors run much deeper and serve the deeper purpose of keeping up appearances for the common folk. That said, Jon, as a bastard, even as a [potentially] legitimized one, probably does not hold any claim that supersedes Bran's or Rickon's or even the girls'. Ultimately Jon would be the less favorable choice than any of the other four. Plus there is the fact that he's a man of the night's Watch and not actually eligible to rule anything anyway.

[J. Stargaryen]

Well... the two main families during the war of the roses were Lancaster and York... in Martin's world he has Lannister and Stark... That's a little obvious, if you ask me. But he blatantly states often that there are historical parallels, not that it runs exactly with our history.

See, I'm the type of person who thinks the more obvious something is, the more likely it is to be true. I know a lot of people expect GRRM to shock them at every turn, but I'm not a part of that group. I only expect him to shock me sometimes. ;)

[Scipio Africanus]

Actually, Rob can't legitimize anything because he was a king in name only. For all intents and purposes the North has been re-assimilated into the seven kingdoms.

?

The North declared independance. And it even wasn't Robb's idea it was his own bannerman's initiative (GREATJON) which got picked up by the rest and even the Riverlords decided they had enough of the Iron Throne.

That Tywin doesn't recognize it doesn't make it that the North wasn't de facto independant. For all intents and purposes the North was independant. As are the Iron Isles.

[Bushido]

No,he wasn't king in name only,he restored independency and autonomy. Aegon's conquering has same factual impact as Robb's action.

North will accept his ruling of the will,and legitimization,if indeed,that is what we are dealing with - and that is kingship in full actualization.

[pamparius]

Pretty sure the North's independence ended when it was invaded by the Ironmen and the effective leadership of the rebellion murdered or held prisoner. Most of the Northern and Riverlands lords' have bent knee to the Iron Throne. Believing there is a kingdom for Jon to inherit is wishful thinking at best at this point. You can't recognize two kings of the same Kingdom. Even though it's called the "seven kingdoms" it's actually just one. Meaning there can be only one king. Most of the North is now choosing to recognize Tommen.

Rob's will is meaningless unless the North rises up again around another Stark.

[Ser Daegon]

Actually, Rob can't legitimize anything because he was a king in name only. For all intents and purposes the North has been re-assimilated into the seven kingdoms. And yes, you're right, Martin COULD say that, but it would be a total cop out to do so, so the only person who actually could legitimize Jon, legally, across all seven kingdoms, is Tommen.

I didn't mean Jon is "some random" just that you can't arbitrarily pick someone, whether they are a bastard or not, and a king's endorsement for your legitimacy only goes so far. Because, as I pointed out,t he religious factors run much deeper and serve the deeper purpose of keeping up appearances for the common folk. That said, Jon, as a bastard, even as a [potentially] legitimized one, probably does not hold any claim that supersedes Bran's or Rickon's or even the girls'. Ultimately Jon would be the less favorable choice than any of the other four. Plus there is the fact that he's a man of the night's Watch and not actually eligible to rule anything anyway.

Part of the problem with your thinking is that you're basing this mostly off of English history. Religious implications were FAR greater in European history then in the world of Westeros. Cersei sants a public acceptance by the High Septon only because of the doubt that Stannis cast on his legitimacy. Having the Faith officially accept him as the rightful king would help strengthen people to Tommen's cause. Stannis, on the other hand, goes around burning symbols of the Faith and openly worships a fully different God. Also, the North primarily worships the Old Gods, and that's a sizable chunk of the Realm. Aegon the Conqueror took the Faith as his religion merely to help him control the Seven Kingdoms, as it would help him appeal to the people.

There's nothing to say that a King cannot name whoever he wants as his heir, such as a favored bastard or even a woman. The Dance of the Dragons was caused by one such thing.

[Scipio Africanus]

Pretty sure the North's independence ended when it was invaded by the Ironmen and the effective leadership of the rebellion murdered or held prisoner. Most of the Northern and Riverlands lords' have bent knee to the Iron Throne. Believing there is a kingdom for Jon to inherit is wishful thinking at best at this point.

I daresay the North never lost its independance but that it was temporarily occupied by a foreign power and later a loyalist faction. The majority still supports the Starks and its extention: a regain of autonomy.

By your reasoning the United States was never independant till Great Britain finally acknowledged it so, since Britain had troops on American soil and even occupied one of the biggest cities, New York, for much of the war. And there were still loyalists present. But for all intents and purposes America was independant as soon as they signed the declaration.

Robb's bannermen and even the Riverlords declared themselves independant. In other words they didn't recognize the Iron Throne anymore but the Kings of Winter and Winterfell.

[pamparius]

Part of the problem with your thinking is that you're basing this mostly off of English history. Religious implications were FAR greater in European history then in the world of Westeros. Cersei sants a public acceptance by the High Septon only because of the doubt that Stannis cast on his legitimacy. Having the Faith officially accept him as the rightful king would help strengthen people to Tommen's cause. Stannis, on the other hand, goes around burning symbols of the Faith and openly worships a fully different God. Also, the North primarily worships the Old Gods, and that's a sizable chunk of the Realm. Aegon the Conqueror took the Faith as his religion merely to help him control the Seven Kingdoms, as it would help him appeal to the people.

There's nothing to say that a King cannot name whoever he wants as his heir, such as a favored bastard or even a woman. The Dance of the Dragons was caused by one such thing.

I don't know... The North seems to have a fairly vest interest in their religion and there's plenty of pious nobles in Westeros who worship the Seven.

Aegon the Conqueror took the Faith as his religion merely to help him control the Seven Kingdoms, as it would help him appeal to the people.

Exactly. You can't control a kingdom of people dedicated to one set of religious Dogma and then try to rule over them without adopting their religious views. Constantine didn't adopt the Christian faith because he had some religious epiphany, he adopted it out of necessity, much like Aegon.

Rob isn't a king and the North isn't independent at this point so there is no reason for his Will to carry any actual weight unless the North rises up again around another Stark and actually does win independence the second go.

[pamparius]

I daresay the North never lost its independance but that it was temporarily occupied by a foreign power and later a loyalist faction. The majority still supports the Starks and its extention: a regain of autonomy.

By your reasoning the United States was never independant till Great Britain finally acknowledged it so, since Britain had troops on American soil and even occupied one of the biggest cities, New York, for much of the war. And there were still loyalists present. But for all intents and purposes America was independant as soon as they signed the declaration.

Robb's bannermen and even the Riverlords declared themselves independant. In other words they didn't recognize the Iron Throne anymore but the Kings of Winter and Winterfell.

terrible comparison. America forcibly removed British presence or at least made it unprofitable to continue wasting lives on maintaining control over a vast colony. The North LOST the war. Whether the British recognized America's sovereignty or not is irrelevant in this case because THE NORTH (much of it) has recognized TOMMEN and sworn fealty. Roose Bolten IS the warden of the North. There are NO Starks currently available to occupy the seat of this supposed free kingdom. And even if there were, their seat is now a burned out husk.

So far the ONLY lords of the North declaring for anyone other than Tommen are the Karstarks and the Manderly's and the Manderly's aren't even doing it openly.

What you WANT to happen and what would happen in reality are two very, very different things.

[Narea]

Actually, Rob can't legitimize anything because he was a king in name only. For all intents and purposes the North has been re-assimilated into the seven kingdoms. The only person who actually could legitimize Jon, legally, across all seven kingdoms, is Tommen. And yes, you're right, Martin COULD say that, but it would be a total cop out to do so.

I didn't mean Jon is "some random" just that you can't arbitrarily pick someone, whether they are a bastard or not, and a king's endorsement for your legitimacy only goes so far. Because, as I pointed out,the religious factors run much deeper and serve the deeper purpose of keeping up appearances for the common folk. That said, Jon, as a bastard, even as a [potentially] legitimized one, probably does not hold any claim that supersedes Bran's or Rickon's or even the girls'. Ultimately Jon would be the less favorable choice than any of the other four. Plus there is the fact that he's a man of the night's Watch and not actually eligible to rule anything anyway.

I have three issues with your post.

First, Robb was much more of a king than Renly or Stannis. He had unquestionable support of whole North and the added advantage that North was never conquered by Targs but recognized them to avoid further bloodshed. North and Dorne are the only kingdoms with no actual obligation to the current dynasty (including Robert).

Second, the North never gave up it's independence and as such is not re-assimilated into the Seven Kingdoms. There is only one Northern House with loyalty to the Iron throne and noone really respects their authority. An ability to enforce the laws of the Iron Throne in North would be necessery for the IT to have any claim on it. I suppose current situation with Northern independence is much like Kosovo situation. De facto independent but not recognized as such by state they used to be part of.

Third, religion ??? You are claiming that king needs to be recognized by a religious institution...Need I remind you that North keeps the Old Gods and that those aren't the kind with clergy ? The beauty of the Old Gods is that they listen to your troubles and prayers, let you clear your conscience and don't tell you off. No representative of Old Gods is gonna speak out against Jon for the simple reason that there isn't one. (Manderlys are the only Northern noble family that follow the Seven).

[Scipio Africanus]

terrible comparison. america forcibly removed British presence or at lest made it unprofitable to continue wasting lives on maintain control over a vast colony. The North LOST the war.

The war isn't over. That's the problem I have with your reasoning. I know Tywin claimed victory but Britain likely claimed victory too after occupying New York. But just like what happened then, in the North the rebellion isn't over. For the simple fact that there are still armed forces active in the North fighting against the loyalist faction. This isn't wishful thinking, this is still occuring at the end of DwD and beginning WoW that we can objectively read about.

[Narea]

So far the ONLY lords of the North declaring for anyone other than Tommen are the Karstarks and the Manderly's and the Manderly's aren't even doing it openly.

And Mormonts, Glovers, Reeds, the Mountain Clans ...

ETA: If other Houses were declaring for the Iron Throne en masse, then Boltons wouldn't have much need of those hostages they requested, would they ?

[pamparius]

I have three issues with your post.

First, Robb was much more of a king than Renly or Stannis.

Not that I disagree but.. So what?

He had unquestionable support of whole North and the added advantage that North was never conquered by Targs but recognized them to avoid further bloodshed. North and Dorne are the only kingdoms with no actual obligation to the current dynasty (including Robert).

Second, the North never gave up it's independence

...yes he did, but Robb is dead and his primary bannermen dead with him.

and as such is not re-assimilated into the Seven Kingdoms. There is only one Northern House with loyalty to the Iron throne and noone really respects their authority. An ability to enforce the laws of the Iron Throne in North would be necessery for the IT to have any claim on it. I suppose current situation with Northern independence is much like Kosovo situation. De facto independent but not recognized as such by state they used to be part of.

I don't think they willing assimilated and I don't believe that their desire for revenge/freedom is completely extinguished but AT THIS POINT IN TIME, in the story, they are just another fiefdom of the seven kingdoms, not a sovereign nation. They are a beaten people.

Third, religion ??? You are claiming that king needs to be recognized by a religious institution...Need I remind you that North keeps the Old Gods and that those aren't the kind with clergy ? The beauty of the Old Gods is that they listen to your troubles and prayers, let you clear your conscience and don't tell you off. No representative of Old Gods is gonna speak out against Jon for the simple reason that there isn't one. (Manderlys are the only Northern noble family that follow the Seven).

Yes. That is exactly what I am saying and it is exactly the truth. Which gods the North represent is irrelevant. Kingship is all about perception and I don't think worship of the seven is actually all that uncommon in the North, to be honest. Martin kind of made it seem like worship of the old gods was a waning tradition among many of the houses of the North and certainly the common folk.

The war isn't over. That's the problem I have with your reasoning. I know Tywin claimed victory but Britain likely claimed victory too after occupying New York. But just like what happened then, in the North the rebellion isn't over. For the simple fact that there are still armed forces active in the North fighting against the loyalist faction. This isn't wishful thinking, this is still occuring at the end of DwD and beginning WoW that we can objectively read about.

No, the problem with your reasoning is that Robb is dead, Bran and Rickon believed dead, "Arya" is marrying a Bolton and Sansa is believed to be in the hands of the enemy and married to a Lannister. There is literally not one single Stark for the North to rally behind, except Jon, whom, for all we know is dead as well by the end of DWD. Where does it say there are loyalists factions in the north doing any fighting? As far as I know it's only Stannis, The Manderlys (maybe) and the Karstarks who are allied with Stannis only out of necessity. They disbanded after the red wedding and returned home to the harvest, not to continue the fight.

[Ser Daegon]

I don't know... The North seems to have a fairly vest interest in their religion and there's plenty of pious nobles in Westeros who worship the Seven.

Exactly. You can't control a kingdom of people dedicated to one set of religious Dogma and then try to rule over them without adopting their religious views. Constantine didn't adopt the Christian faith because he had some religious epiphany, he adopted it out of necessity, much like Aegon.

Rob isn't a king and the North isn't independent at this point so there is no reason for his Will to carry any actual weight unless the North rises up again around another Stark and actually does win independence the second go.

I didn't say the people and the nobles don't necessarily take active roles in their religions, or that the main standing religions don't have a strong influence on the people. But Westeros is essentially a realm of Religious freedom, so the church does not have rights over the king, nor do they ultimately decide who is rightly the king. The entire point is that Robb could and did name an heir that was not of his body and also legitimized him... as king it is HIS right only to name his successor. The Targaryen kings also have that right. As it stands... the North is held again by the Iron Throne, but it's a tenuous hold at best as most of the northern lords could rise against the Boltons at the mere sight of someone who might be deemed "Robb's Heir" as that is who, by law according to their King, is next in line of succession.

[pamparius]

And Mormonts, Glovers, Reeds, the Mountain Clans ...

ETA: If other Houses were declaring for the Iron Throne en masse, then Boltons wouldn't have much need of those hostages they requested, would they ?

The reeds are fighting the Ironmen at Moat Cailin, I know Roose was worried about the possibility of the Crannogmen engaging his forces while marching on MC but did they actually try to attack his entourage? I don't remember. Have the Mountain Clans have pledged their alleigance to Stannis, yes, but have they actually fought anyone as of yet? The Mormonts/Glovers, I thought, told Stannis to take a hike?

[Narea]

I don't think they willing assimilated and I don't believe that their desire for revenge/freedom is completely extinguished but AT THIS POINT IN TIME, in the story, they are just another fiefdom of the seven kingdoms, not a sovereign nation. They are a beaten people.

You completely ignored the part where one needs to be able to enforce the laws of the IT to rule the North. So far Boltons fail completely in this. To rule some territory doesn't mean that you appoint someone to govern it and you consider yourself successful even though noone listens to them.

Yes. That is exactly what I am saying and it is exactly the truth. Which gods the North represent is irrelevant. Kingship is all about perception and I don't think worship of the seven is actually all that uncommon in the North, to be honest. Martin kind of made it seem like worship of the old gods was a waning tradition among many of the houses of the North and certainly the common folk.

Is it ? Name one House other than Manderlys that worships the Seven. There wasn't even a sept in WF when Cat first came there and it's the only one in the North other than the one in White Harbor mentioned so far. One of the reasons for there being virtually no knights in the North is that their tradition is primarily bound to the Faith of the Seven.

[pamparius]

You completely ignored the part where one needs to be able to enforce the laws of the IT to rule the North. So far Boltons fail completely in this. To rule some territory doesn't mean that you appoint someone to govern it and you consider yourself successful even though noone listens to them.

I just don't see any evidence to support what you are saying. None of this is adding up to Jon inheriting Winterfell or a Kingdom. Fighting for Stannis does not mean fighting for the Northern independence. Stannis explicitly states he is unwilling to allow the North self determination as a free people.

Is it ? Name one House other than Manderlys that worships the Seven. There wasn't even a sept in WF when Cat first came there and it's the only one in the North other than the one in White Harbor mentioned so far. One of the reasons for there being virtually no knights in the North is that their tradition is primarily bound to the Faith of the Seven.

it was just the impression i got *shrug*

[Narea]

The reeds are fighting the Ironmen at Moat Cailin, I know Roose was worried about the possibility of the Crannogmen engaging his forces while marching on MC but did they actually try to attack his entourage? I don't remember. Have the Mountain Clans have pledged their alleigance to Stannis, yes, but have they actually fought anyone as of yet? The Mormonts/Glovers, I thought, told Stannis to take a hike?

Lyanna Mormont quite clearly declared for Starks and so it would seem the Mountain Clans (judging by their talk in ADWD). Reeds and Glovers so far didn't declare for anyone new and as such their previous oaths of fealty stand (as does their loyalty to Starks).

[Scipio Africanus]

No, the problem with your reasoning is that Robb is dead, Bran and Rickon believed dead, "Arya" is marrying a Bolton and Sansa is believed to be in the hands of the enemy and married to a Lannister. There is literally not one single Stark for the North to rally behind, except Jon, whom, for all we know is dead as well by the end of DWD. Where does it say there are loyalists factions in the north doing any fighting? As far as I know it's only Stannis, The Manderlys (maybe) and the Karstarks who are allied with Stannis only out of necessity. They disbanded after the red wedding and returned home to the harvest, not to continue the fight.

Battle of Winterfell. Last chapter Theon/Reek DwD. First chapter Theon in WoW.

Let me rephrase it then. There are four factions now active in the North. The Nothern houses who never bent the knee to the Iron Throne and principally recognize only the Starks (Mormonts, Glovers, Mountain Clans, Reeds). Stannis Baratheon. And the loyalist faction under Roose Bolton and Hosteen/Aenys Frey. And finally what's left of the Ironborn (by the end of DwD, near nothing).

Loyalist: Bolton, Frey (foreigners), Dustin, Rhyswell (though devided by infighting), Karstark (part of their house), Umber (part of their house, won't fight their kinsmen), Dustin, Manderly (downright disloyal, known to the loyalists), Cerwyns (leaderless, absorbed by the Boltons), Harwoods (leaderless, absorbed by the Boltons), total strength 6000-7000

Rebels: Mormonts, Glovers, Reeds (no troops present), Umbers (part, won't fight their kindsmen) Mountain clans, total forces of around 4000-4500

Stannis Baratheon, King at the Wall: total strength of 1000, but suffered casualties and reduced fighting effectiveness in the march to Winterfell

Ironborn: no troops present apart from Torghen's Square I believe end DwD, unknown strength but negligable

Unknown: Flints

Other factions: Night's Watch, Wildlings, the Others (not involved with the battle of Winterfell - yet)

The situation end DwD was that some of the houses and the Mountain clans joined Stan temporarily to drive out the Boltons (Lannister loyalists) from Winterfell and restore Arya Stark. In other words they're still not bending any knees here. Not even to ol' Stan. Manderly has said to Davos that he might support Stan if Davos retrieves his liege lord Rickon Stark. The Karstarks planned on betraying Stan but we know this might not come to fruition (won't spoil here). But the ones now in charge of the Karstarks are not the true lords of that family (that's Harrion, captured at Maidenpool) and we know Alys Karstark is against her uncles.

To conclude the war is far from over, even though the Lannisters may think they've won. I could go further on how badly things look for the loyalists but there are other threads for that.