Barty Posted June 23, 2013 Share Posted June 23, 2013 Rickon as King and Jon as Regent. I wouldn't mind Rickon as Lord of WF either, as long as Jon rules in his name till Rickon comes of age and the King on the IT is Stannis - if its a Lannister or Targaryen then it has to be KiTN and not Warden of the North Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nictarion Posted June 23, 2013 Share Posted June 23, 2013 Neither, but I want Rickon as Lord of Winterfel and Warden of the North. :agree: Jon's place is with the NW, and Westeros should only have one ruler, and their place is in KL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barty Posted June 23, 2013 Share Posted June 23, 2013 There will be no King in the North, Robb proved what a smart idea that was. If the North continues with their war for succession then they deserve to be wiped out for being so damn stupid.who will be Lord of Winterfell and the North? when everything is said and done, Rickon will be Lord and all future Stark lords will be born from him. Sansa will return to Winterfell so I guess she'll be Lady of Winterfell until Rickon comes of age.It was a brilliant idea. The stupid idea was adding the riverlands. If Robb had gone back North with his entire army and jaime as captive and refused to acknowledge the IT then there was nothing the South could do(apart from launching a humongous campaign for which they neither had the time, resources of inclination) . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erkan12 Posted June 23, 2013 Share Posted June 23, 2013 There will be no King in the North, Robb proved what a smart idea that was. If the North continues with their war for succession then they deserve to be wiped out for being so damn stupid.who will be Lord of Winterfell and the North? when everything is said and done, Rickon will be Lord and all future Stark lords will be born from him. Sansa will return to Winterfell so I guess she'll be Lady of Winterfell until Rickon comes of age.Dragons are dead, Robert is dead. Why is that a bad idea ?If Robb did that damn marriage or not sending theon the reek, he or his heirs would ruling the norh right now...What kind of right south regions have to rule north ? Nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winterz Posted June 23, 2013 Share Posted June 23, 2013 It was a brilliant idea. The stupid idea was adding the riverlands. If Robb had gone back North with his entire army and jaime as captive and refused to acknowledge the IT then there was nothing the South could do(apart from launching a humongous campaign for which they neither had the time, resources of inclination) .Oh so a big King he'd be. The Riverlands being destroyed due to a Stark's acts, they then begin to fight for them and suddenly Robb decides to just leave them to be all destroyed and then proclaim for the King who caused all the destruction in their land. Yeah sounds reasonable, Robb was so foolish! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agirlsaysaname Posted June 23, 2013 Share Posted June 23, 2013 Do we KNOW that he named Jon? For all we know he named Howland Reed or someone like that to maintain a secure and orderly north after the Starks supposedly died out. Or maybe he listed his heirs in order, if alive and unencumbered by night's watch vows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikeygigs Posted June 23, 2013 Share Posted June 23, 2013 Jon, of course! He already broke his vows by marching south, and if Stannis didn't force him to burn the Godswood, then he'd be Jon Stark, Lord of Winterfell right now. That was a big problem with his offer, and I'm surprised to see that people don't realize that. Bran is never coming south again, and can most likely never have an heir if he did. Bran is going on to something far better than simply KiTN, he's becoming a god!Rickon is a child, and the North needs a strong hand, not a child who could potentially die during the Winter, and let the North pass to Sansa, a Lannister by name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kronz Posted June 23, 2013 Share Posted June 23, 2013 No one. And no one will end up being. The north will be involved in yet another civil war than will make the Others ivasion all the more easy. UnCat will probably burn the Twins and brigde and then the north will be isolated and reinforcements+supplies won't be able to make it to the north when the other kingdoms realise how dumb their game of thrones was, so the few people not to be killed by the WW will starve to death!!! :bang:Disabling The Twins would not really stop the flow of goods, it is not on the Kingsroad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winterz Posted June 23, 2013 Share Posted June 23, 2013 Jon, of course! He already broke his vows by marching south, and if Stannis didn't force him to burn the Godswood, then he'd be Jon Stark, Lord of Winterfell right now. That was a big problem with his offer, and I'm surprised to see that people don't realize that.Bran is never coming south again, and can most likely never have an heir if he did. Bran is going on to something far better than simply KiTN, he's becoming a god!Rickon is a child, and the North needs a strong hand, not a child who could potentially die during the Winter, and let the North pass to Sansa, a Lannister by name.Ah so not a child but an oathbreaker of immense extent (considering that an LC of the NW deserting sounds pretty catastrophic) who is yet to learn his ways around leadership? How the heck would Jon be a better regent than any of the eldest and seasoned northern lords? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lehnaru Posted June 23, 2013 Share Posted June 23, 2013 Jon as a corpse and Rickon as Lord of Winterfell under the rule of Sansa, the queen regnant of Westeros. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fire Eater Posted June 23, 2013 Share Posted June 23, 2013 I will see Jon as the KitN as per Robb's will, but he would let Rickon be the Lord of WF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Addam of Hull Posted June 23, 2013 Share Posted June 23, 2013 Well if you read the books, you'll know that his path is even less likely to lead to WF's lordship/kingship than Jon's. It's not that we forget about him, but it would seem very unlikely.I do read the books and, seeing as how this is the ASOIAF forum and not the GOT forum, it's a little presumptuous of you to qualify your statement like that. My point - subtle though it may be - is that Bran's claim is technically the strongest, but lots of posters - who use the argument that Rickon has the strongest viable claim - skip over Bran. They decide that it is okay to skip the order of succession in Bran's case, but use Rickon's position as next-in-line as fuel for their arguments that he should/would be KoW/LoW. It's humorous to me because once you decide to skip the first claimant in the order of succession, the order of the rest of the line becomes a much weaker argument for who should actually be Lord/King. Arya and Sansa would technically be just as viable as candidates for the heir of Winterfell if you pass over Bran, but they also aren't here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winterz Posted June 23, 2013 Share Posted June 23, 2013 I do read the books and, seeing as how this is the ASOIAF forum and not the GOT forum, it's a little presumptuous of you to qualify your statement like that. My point - subtle though it may be - is that Bran's claim is technically the strongest, but lots of posters - who use the argument that Rickon has the strongest viable claim - skip over Bran. They decide that it is okay to skip the order of succession in Bran's case, but use Rickon's position as next-in-line as fuel for their arguments that he should/would be KoW/LoW. It's humorous to me because once you decide to skip the first claimant in the order of succession, the order of the rest of the line becomes a much weaker argument for who should actually be Lord/King. Arya and Sansa would technically be just as viable as candidates for the heir of Winterfell if you pass over Bran, but they also aren't here.Except everyone that says Rickon is not attributing it to the line of succession. Rickon is a choice because he's the remaining Stark in plausible conditions to become Lord of WF, the only one. And it just so happens that Davos is bringing him back to the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jory Cassel Posted June 23, 2013 Share Posted June 23, 2013 No it was not, Jon said his vows to the Night's Watch. His duty is there, for life.This is a false conclusion, according to his vows, his duty is with the NW in the first place, but there is no doubt that he will feel obliged to restore Winterfell and take the Stark name when/if he learns that Robb named him his successor.And Jon couldn't care that much about religion, how many times have we seen him pray or even thinking about the Old Gods?He chose to say his vows in front of a weirwood, without a direct necessity, even if he's not religious, he clearly values and respects the Stark tradition.As for Robb's word it was done recognizing that Rickon was dead and leaving Robb no other choice but to go for the bastard boy but as it happens, Rickon is alive, and in better condition to be Lord of Winterfell than any of the other Starks (one is becoming a tree, other is sworn to the NW and is likely a Targ, other is becoming a FM and the other is a woman and married to a Lannister). Rickon is the only choice.A daring thing to say, for all we know Rickon is on the island of Skagos, cared for by a wildling woman and surrounded by savage clans. Jon is of adequate age and has experience concerning leading and commanding, so Jon clearly is in better condition, though admittedly bound by his vows.The only ones in possession of knowledge concerning Bran's and Rickon's survival are the Manderlys, and since everyone believed the two younger Stark siblings dead, Jon's legitimization would immediately take effect as soon as the Stark-loyalists, namely Robett Glover and Maege Mormont, learn of Robb's death. Catelyn herself states that once a bastard is legitimized, the legitimization cannot be taken back, so this is a grey zone as Glover and Mormont probably have spread the word of Jon's legitimization on to other loyal houses. And I doubt that there are rules or laws for such an unlikely situation, and there is no hint that any house except for the Manderly's knows of Bran's and Rickon's survival.Lastly, Jon believes Rickon and Bran alive and it goes against all his morales to go ahead and steal their claim and forsake his own vows and oaths.If he indeed knew, he would never put himself in front of Bran or Rickon, even if his legitimization would allow that, that's true, but I'm quite sure that he only senses that Bran might still live on in Summer, so could you give evidence for Jon knowing that Brand and Rickon are alive, please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteOwl18 Posted June 23, 2013 Share Posted June 23, 2013 If he indeed knew, he would never put himself in front of Bran or Rickon, even if his legitimization would allow that, that's true, but I'm quite sure that he only senses that Bran might still live on in Summer, so could you give evidence for Jon knowing that Brand and Rickon are alive, please?I agree, he doesn't know. When Stannis offers him Winterfell he says it belongs to Sansa; if he knew Bran and Rickon are alive why would he skip them and go straight to Sansa? He definitely thinks they're dead. If he learns that they're alive, he won't put himself in front of them. He might act as regent, but that's it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winterz Posted June 23, 2013 Share Posted June 23, 2013 I agree, he doesn't know. When Stannis offers him Winterfell he says it belongs to Sansa; if he knew Bran and Rickon are alive why would he skip them and go straight to Sansa? He definitely thinks they're dead. If he learns that they're alive, he won't put himself in front of them. He might act as regent, but that's it.Not definitely. He just wasn't sure, so saying that (without certainty) to King Stannis would come rather foolish. But as it so happens, Davos went for Rickon and considering how Jon ended up, I'm pretty sure Davos will be back to the world with Rickon before Jon wakes up, that's if he does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barty Posted June 23, 2013 Share Posted June 23, 2013 Oh so a big King he'd be. The Riverlands being destroyed due to a Stark's acts, they then begin to fight for them and suddenly Robb decides to just leave them to be all destroyed and then proclaim for the King who caused all the destruction in their land. Yeah sounds reasonable, Robb was so foolish!Robb saved the Riverlands when they needed him. After that the riverlords abandoned Robb to each defend his own lands. Robb had freed the Lord Paramount of the riverlands and it was Edmure's duty to protect the riverlands, not Robb's. Either way if Robb had gone back North, the riverlands could have easily reached a peace with Tywin. At that point Tywin did not need more enemies(with Renly and Stannis both arming up and half his strength destroyed), he would have welcomed a peace which involved the riverlands staying neutral if Tywin left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jory Cassel Posted June 23, 2013 Share Posted June 23, 2013 Not definitely. He just wasn't sure, so saying that (without certainty) to King Stannis would come rather foolish. But as it so happens, Davos went for Rickon and considering how Jon ended up, I'm pretty sure Davos will be back to the world with Rickon before Jon wakes up, that's if he does.since you already deviated from your original position, I'd like a quote for this one too. Jon is in denial because of the monstrosity of the deed (by theon) and the unlikeliness that someone could take a fortress such as Winterfell, and sensing Bran's spirit in Summer contributes to that, this isn't based on any facts, Jon is only coming to terms with their deaths.If he had serious doubts concerning their deaths, he wouldn't name Sansa as next in succession, which he did, as Red Queen pointed out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Wun Wun Posted June 23, 2013 Share Posted June 23, 2013 My personal preference would be no King in the North; I think the realm needs to be united for the Long Night. So ideally, Rickon would be Lord of Winterfell, but Jon would be the de facto leader of the North in his position as Lord Commander of the NW. The entire North would submit to the leadership of the NW as they prepare for the Long Night basically. This arrangement would provide the North with more flexibility in how that negotiate with the contenders for the Iron Throne (Stannis, Dany, Aegon, etc.) than they would have if they had a King in the North determined to keep the region independent from the South imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheQueenOfThorns Posted June 23, 2013 Share Posted June 23, 2013 Rickon. Jon was already offered Winterfell on a platter and he refused it- that was when he didn't even know that Bran and Rickon are alive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.