Lady Gwynhyfvar Posted November 10, 2013 Share Posted November 10, 2013 Have you even read my whole post? I gave textual evidence why I'm dismissing the theory. People are going after Rickon. No one is going after Jon. If you could give me any textual evidence to proof the opposite please do. The only "evidence" I've gotten are some quotes proving that the North might be going for independence and they want a Stark as leader. The only "evidence" that Jon would be that leader, is the will, which I've addressed in my previous post. (meaningless) Your argument against my post as I'm reading it is:- there might be some rare cases where a bastard comes first- there might be some precedent of someone leaving the Night's Watch with no problem, if not Jon might be the first- if this all isn't the case, they can just bend the laws as they like You probably disagree but that is a lot of twisting the laws to get a Stark as an (independent) Northern leader. It seems far more likely to me, that they would follow the straight path and take Rickon as their leader. You know, as suggested in the text.And a five year old would be a legitimate leader of a nation at war, in your opinion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkaggCannibal Posted November 10, 2013 Share Posted November 10, 2013 And a five year old would be a legitimate leader of a nation at war, in your opinion? He's the legitimate heir, so of course. Age got nothing to do with being legitimate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Addam of Hull Posted November 10, 2013 Share Posted November 10, 2013 He's the legitimate heir, so of course. Age got nothing to do with being legitimate. No, he isn't. Bran is the heir of House Stark if we discard Jon's legitimization due to whatever circumstances. There is no scenario in which Rickon is the heir to Winterfell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkaggCannibal Posted November 10, 2013 Share Posted November 10, 2013 No, he isn't. Bran is the heir of House Stark if we discard Jon's legitimization due to whatever circumstances. There is no scenario in which Rickon is the heir to Winterfell. When Bran dies or never returns there is. But I agree, Bran is the heir and only then comes Rickon, Sansa and Arya. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pingslayer Posted November 10, 2013 Share Posted November 10, 2013 Bran is the legimiate heir, followed by Rickon, then Sansa and Arya. First, Robb declared Jon his heir based only on the assumption that his other siblings were all dead and Sansa will soon be killed by Lannisters. When the whole world sees that Bran is alive, the assumption will be proven untrue and the North will support him. If Jon is proven to be Rhaegar's son, there will be more likelihood as to why the North will not support him. Manderly was searching for Rickon, not Jon. I would totally support GNC if only the theory discarded the part that the northern men will support Jon as the rightful king and that the northern lords were actually having secret meetings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arya kiddin' Posted November 10, 2013 Share Posted November 10, 2013 Is there a TLDR version of the theory, not essay, just th key points - the forecasts the GNC tries to make. Because it is very broad now, can someone link me up some post that highlights the main insights? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady Gwynhyfvar Posted November 10, 2013 Share Posted November 10, 2013 He's the legitimate heir, so of course. Age got nothing to do with being legitimate.No he isn't (though others best me to it) and age has quite a bit to do with leading a region to war, don't you think?I suggest you and the poster above who would support this theory "if only it didn't involve Jon becoming King" really read the entire thing.Most of us believe that yes, there is a will naming Jon, but that once Jon realizes his brothers are alive he will serve as a war leader. It is not in his character, as presently developed, to steal his brothers' birthright, no matter what Robb's will says.If you're arguing against Jon becoming King (whether in the north or on the IT) you're chasing shadows. There's a lot more nuance to it than that. Dismissing supporters of a theory as "fan-boys" really just shows your own ignorance of those nuances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady Gwynhyfvar Posted November 10, 2013 Share Posted November 10, 2013 Is there a TLDR version of the theory, not essay, just th key points - the forecasts the GNC tries to make. Because it is very broad now, can someone link me up some post that highlights the main insights?The first page of this thread had a good summary as well as links to other discussions and essays which, while not exactly tl/dr, are well worth reading if you're interested:http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/95448-le-grande-northern-conspiracy-parte-the-fourth/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkaggCannibal Posted November 10, 2013 Share Posted November 10, 2013 No he isn't (though others best me to it) and age has quite a bit to do with leading a region to war, don't you think?I suggest you and the poster above who would support this theory "if only it didn't involve Jon becoming King" really read the entire thing.Most of us believe that yes, there is a will naming Jon, but that once Jon realizes his brothers are alive he will serve as a war leader. It is not in his character, as presently developed, to steal his brothers' birthright, no matter what Robb's will says.If you're arguing against Jon becoming King (whether in the north or on the IT) you're chasing shadows. There's a lot more nuance to it than that. Dismissing supporters of a theory as "fan-boys" really just shows your own ignorance of those nuances.LOL so when someone says Jon will become King, I can't argue against it? I think I can, and must. If you and most of the supporters agree with me that Jon will never become King, I can only be happy about that. But I'm not so sure, as I've argued with a lot of people who believe unconditionally in King Jon. And I'm not dismissing supporters of the theory as fan-boys, I'm dismissing believers of the whole North working together for KitN Jon as fanboys. But everyone is free to disagree. Lastly yes, age has a lot to do with leading, but that's not what Rickon would be doing. He would have a Regent, just like Tommen and SweetRobin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pingslayer Posted November 10, 2013 Share Posted November 10, 2013 Rickon's regent would first go to Sansa in the first place. Only if she does not turn up, Jon will be the regent.I think Jon would rather be the military leader than a regent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteOwl18 Posted November 10, 2013 Share Posted November 10, 2013 Rickon's regent would first go to Sansa in the first place. Only if she does not turn up, Jon will be the regent. I think Jon would rather be the military leader than a regent. I don't see why he can't be both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady Gwynhyfvar Posted November 10, 2013 Share Posted November 10, 2013 LOL so when someone says Jon will become King, I can't argue against it? I think I can, and must. If you and most of the supporters agree with me that Jon will never become King, I can only be happy about that. But I'm not so sure, as I've argued with a lot of people who believe unconditionally in King Jon. And I'm not dismissing supporters of the theory as fan-boys, I'm dismissing believers of the whole North working together for KitN Jon as fanboys. But everyone is free to disagree. Lastly yes, age has a lot to do with leading, but that's not what Rickon would be doing. He would have a Regent, just like Tommen and SweetRobin.Argue against it all you like. Since your original argument appears to have been with someone who said "I am by no means saying that Jon will be the King" I'm not really sure where you're going with said argument.I'm simply saying that it would serve you well to familiarize yourself with the nuances of the topic. I and many other supporters of the GNC do not dismiss Robb's will as carelessly as you seem to. It is highly significant because its existence will place the temptation of Jon's heart's desire within his reach. He would be within bounds to accept the position but will necessarily refuse it once he realizes his brothers are alive. The torment of that decision will be huge part of the story, IMO, and shouldn't be written off so quickly.As for people who think that Jon will be King, it's a common enough perception and those people are entitled to their opinions without being dismissed as fanboys.One more thing- the regent (or as I like to call him-- dux bellorum) for Bran or Rickon will be their big brother Jon Snow, seasoned at command and capable of rallying Northmen and Wildlings alike in the war against the Others. Making him the effective leader of the GNC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heyo Winter Comin' Posted November 10, 2013 Share Posted November 10, 2013 LOL so when someone says Jon will become King, I can't argue against it? I think I can, and must. If you and most of the supporters agree with me that Jon will never become King, I can only be happy about that. But I'm not so sure, as I've argued with a lot of people who believe unconditionally in King Jon. And I'm not dismissing supporters of the theory as fan-boys, I'm dismissing believers of the whole North working together for KitN Jon as fanboys. But everyone is free to disagree. Lastly yes, age has a lot to do with leading, but that's not what Rickon would be doing. He would have a Regent, just like Tommen and SweetRobin.You can argue against it as long as you make a cohesive argument that refutes suggestions that Jon is GNC-centric. Why did the clan leaders come to meet him at the Wall? How do you explain the GNC already being in operation before Manderly's efforts to find Rickon? What were Bolton's comments about boy lords being the bane of houses if not foreshadowing the North needing a strong adult leader? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sertravisredbeard Posted November 10, 2013 Share Posted November 10, 2013 I really don't think any of the lords will refuse to let Rickon rule with a regent because "Bran is the true heir." Rickon's the one they will have. Manderly or Davos can just say "We know Bran is the heir, but no one knows where the hell he is. if you find him, let us know. Then we'll have him be lord. For now here's Rickon." And if Jon makes his way down to Winterfell and Rickon is there as well I doubt he'll automatically accept any kingship or lordship. He'll take a leadership role, but he wouldn't assume to steal one of his trueborn brothers' places. Either he will be a regent, or let one of the trustworthy northern lords help Rickon start out his rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkaggCannibal Posted November 10, 2013 Share Posted November 10, 2013 You can argue against it as long as you make a cohesive argument that refutes suggestions that Jon is GNC-centric. Why did the clan leaders come to meet him at the Wall? How do you explain the GNC already being in operation before Manderly's efforts to find Rickon? What were Bolton's comments about boy lords being the bane of houses if not foreshadowing the North needing a strong adult leader? These are some of the worst pro-Jon arguments I've heared. Clan leaders have no ravens to communicate, it's very unlikely they have anything to do with the GNC. They came for a marriage, because they were following Stannis and the court of Stannis was at the Wall. There is not the slightest hint in the text that they came to judge Jon's leadership abilities. They are sworn to Stannis, going to his court for a free wedding feast is not unusual. It's natural. Why do you think the GNC was already in operation? Maybe, but not everything moving in the North is part of the GNC. It's very likely some Northeners already wanted Roose and/or Ramsay Bolton to die, because they are big traitors and reasons for many Northern losses. But that's still not a shred of evidence of anyone wanting a King Jon. For your last statement: not every line in the book is foreshadowing. It is possible to overthink things. I've read a pretty good line of thinking explaining why Roose says this. It goes that Roose is intentionaly saying this in the presence of Theon, because he wants Theon to tell it to Ramsay (he knows Ramsay forces Theon to tell him everything Roose tells him), to assure Ramsay of his inheritance and preventing him from feeling threatened by (and taking action against) Walda Frey, his wife. For me that's a far more likely explanation than GRRM putting it in there as foreshadowing for King Jon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pingslayer Posted November 10, 2013 Share Posted November 10, 2013 I don't see why he can't be both. Sansa is old enough to be a regent since she is a "maiden flowered". She is closer to Rickon than Jon is to Rickon in terms of blood, so it makes her the rightful regent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pingslayer Posted November 10, 2013 Share Posted November 10, 2013 Also Jon will not be supported as a regent of Rickon, because the riverlords will not support him. They basically take his existence as an insult to Tullys. They will only be under the Starks because of Rickon, but I hardly doubt they will listen to him if he becomes a regent. The northern lords may be slightly pro-Jon, but in their minds, it is Stark > Snow. Better claim for Sansa than Jon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Petite Psycophant Posted November 11, 2013 Share Posted November 11, 2013 My question here is do we have any slightest of hints that Robb's will got out? I honestly thought that the entire idea died with Robb especially since he needs to be King to be able to pass anything to Jon since only a king can strip the bastard off someone and legitimize them as a member of the family. I'm sure that even some people will have a problem with this. It's too risky since Jon's legitimacy can and most likely will be disputed. I think Bran and Rickon are a safer bet. Since Bran can't be reached they'd probably go with Rickon, in his name they can fight or gather up forces etc. Rickon himself won't be expected to lead or make decisions but the simple the fact that he's alive and the fact that most of the North love and respect the Starks, is a big enough of a catalyst to gather a force that supports and fights for him. I think Jon's journey in life is a different one and he won't be able to have anything to do with the North even if he wanted to for a long time. Same thing goes for Sansa, imho. She's lost to the world and so she will be until Little Finger decides to reveal her. I'm sure that soon enough word will get out that Jeyne Poole is pretending to be Arya so once again they'll presume Arya is dead. Catelyn the Wight is hellbent on revenge and from her interaction with Brienne I doubt she has an ear for the voice of reason and/or tactics. So she's definitely out as well and probably would only bring any plans the North have in jeopardy if they would involve her. Manderly is a lot more clever than I thought and a brilliant sneaky little bastard! He's also very cautious though. I doubt he would bring any of the other Northman into his own little rebellion. My guess is that Ramsey was bluffing when he sent the letter to Jon. My guess is that when Manderly's men rode out with the Freys to meet Stannis, they turned cloak and joined them instead. Probably learning the truth about Jeyne Poole after the battle. Nobody in the North would support the Boltens after they hear about this news. So my guess is they will urge Stannis to send word about this to Winterfell. In this case the Boltons would stand alone with the remaining Freys and that wretched woman who was in love with Brandon Stark. The treason of the Karstarks must've been known to Stannis before the battle since The Braavosi banker reached them well in time to warn him. I'm sure Stannis would have taken hostages and executed and or imprisoned many of them. I don't think there's a huge northern conspiracy per se but I do think that most of the Northmen despise the Freys and Boltons and are only going along because of fake Arya, and the fact the Freys and Boltons are backed by the crown. But Tywin's dead, Cersei got humiliated at King's Landing, the Tyrells are plagued by both Aegon and the Ironmen, Kevan has been assassinated etc. The Boltons and Freys would stand alone, all the Northermen need is a little push and I think Jeyne Poole will do just that when they find out she's been pretending to be Arya. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ahura Mazda Posted November 11, 2013 Share Posted November 11, 2013 Also Jon will not be supported as a regent of Rickon, because the riverlords will not support him. They basically take his existence as an insult to Tullys. They will only be under the Starks because of Rickon, but I hardly doubt they will listen to him if he becomes a regent. The northern lords may be slightly pro-Jon, but in their minds, it is Stark > Snow. Better claim for Sansa than Jon.Call me crazy but imho that would be for the better.. way easier to defend the northern kingdom at moat caylin than with the riverlands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pingslayer Posted November 11, 2013 Share Posted November 11, 2013 Call me crazy but imho that would be for the better.. way easier to defend the northern kingdom at moat caylin than with the riverlands. Defending the northern kingdom at moat cailin > defending the northern kingdom at moat cailin with the riverlands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.