King in the North vesus King of Winter

[Ludd]

This is my very first new thread

I was wondering what might be the real difference between these two titles and are they ALWAYS the same person.

Now we know that originally the Stark in Winterfell was also King of Winter, but at some point this all changed and the Starks styled themselves just King in the North.

Obviously as magic grows and the Others return the King of Winter becomes important but we do not know who this person is.

My tentative theory is that at some point these two titles diverged so that the Stark at Winterfell was not the KoW.

There are two ways in which the two positions could change because of DIFFERENT inheritance patterns.

Firstly if inheritance is father to son, while monogamy is critical for the title King of the North it may NOT be critical for the more magical King of Winter. It might pass automatically from oldest son to next oldest son. After all there is no evidence that the Old Gods are monogamous.

Certainly the wildings seem flexible ie Craster and I rather think Tormand. I think the key in the North is to ACKNOWLEDGE a child, and then it matters not if they are bastards or not.

So in this first case IF Jon turned out to in fact be Ned's son then he may ALREADY be King of Winter, once Robb died. Bran and Rickon would be bypassed because of age.

The second possibility is that the title is somehow inherited through the MOTHER not the father. In other words the inheritor of the title King of Winter may pass from to eldest son followed by brothers and THEN by maternal nephews ie eldest sister's sons. Now before you say ridiculous this is EXACTLY the pattern of inheritance in early Medieval Scotland.

Supporting evidence for this idea is the Bael the Bard story.

In this case Jon may be King of Winter through Lyanna, regardless of who his father was. This might have been what the Raven was saying.

Now we know NOTHING of the Stark women, so just maybe Starks have not been Kings of Winter because they were not descendents of the original Stark daughters.

Somehow though Ned's mother (or grandmother) the title King of Winter has returned to Winterfell so the two are together again. Lyanna's son Jon is therefore King of Winter. Jon came of age (ie 16) roughly the same time the Raven started calling him King.

A related idea concerns the known rebellions and especially the role of the Boltons. Perhaps the King of Winter title has rested there at times and has been the CAUSE of rebellions.

Perhaps (horror of horror) with all the Starks dead the Boltons are KoW.

[Barty]

The Starks styled themselves as both King in the North and King of Winter. I dont think the title King of Winter was replaced by King in the North. The KiTN title was probably added when the Starks became the only Kings in the North(after eliminating the other Kings like Boltons, reeds, Umbers etc), the KoW title was never displaced.

When Robb is crowned he is named both KiTN and KoW - meaning that both the titles were held by one Stark simultaneously.

[sansa's sworn sword]

The Starks styled themselves as both King in the North and King of Winter. I dont think the title King of Winter was replaced by King in the North. The KiTN title was probably added when the Starks became the only Kings in the North(after eliminating the other Kings like Boltons, reeds, Umbers etc), the KoW title was never displaced.

When Robb is crowned he is named both KiTN and KoW - meaning that both the titles were held by one Stark simultaneously.

[Ludd]

Perhaps the REASON the Starks got direwoves again is that the King of Winter title had returned to Winterfell, although why Ned and the others did not have them is unclear.

Mind you I rather suspect Benjen finds a wolf and who would know about Lyanna and Brandon. They may well have had hidden wolves, somewhere out at Borrowton.

Ned is the Stark who spent little of his childhood in the North so he could NOT have encountered direwolves high up in the eyrie but the other three - well it is possible.

[Ludd]

Only the EARLY Starks were called Kings of Winter. The title seems to have gone out of use.

ONLY one Lord (I forget who) yelled out King of Winter to Robb.

[Ghost's Shadow]

Maybe 'King of Winter' refers to a completely different thing than 'King in the North'.

The latter refers to having lands, the former doesn't. (Or that's what it feels like to me.)

Maybe KoW started during/after the Long Night when Winter was just defeated and TLH became a Stark king?

Since Robb wasn't fighting Winter (Others), steered his army away from it against warnings, he didn't exactly 'deserve' that title. KitN was for him, not KoW.

[Minstral]

I also believe that they are both titles that can and have been held at the same time. Really, the thing I find interesting about the title of "king of winter" is that the Starks have seemingly made sure to offer help for others to survive the long winters. The glass gardens, Winter town, and how houses like the Mormonts and the Manderly have risen shows that the Starks took great efforts to ensure the survival of their people. Its probably why the Starks have survived so long in that Stability for the kingdom/region meant that a Stark must rule.

[King of Winters]

In Heresy we discussed that Kings of Winter was a title taken up by the Kings in the North when they made a deal with the old races (COTF, Giants, white walkers) that they'd honour the Pact they made, and that they'd have a Stark on the Wall to make sure people honoured the Pact. And because they made a deal with the ice (white walkers) they took the title King of Winter.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

Personally, I assume both titles to be southron titles, fixed on these icy guys from above the Neck. For the Northmen (and Wildlings), "the Stark of Winterfell" was always good enough.

If we look closely at who uses what titles, the more old-fashioned, northern, first-men-y or detached from the southron courts they are, the more they tend to use "the Stark of Winterfell". Ygritte, Old Nan, the Norrey, Old Flint are just some examples.

[RKOpanther]

I just thought they were pretty much the same thing. The last King of Winter was Torhen Stark who bent the knee to Aegon the Conquerer. Robb was proclaimed King in the North to signify to the Northern Lords that they were once again an independent kingdom like they were before the King who bent the knee.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Personally, I assume both titles to be southron titles, fixed on these icy guys from above the Neck. For the Northmen (and Wildlings), "the Stark of Winterfell" was always good enough.

If we look closely at who uses what titles, the more old-fashioned, northern, first-men-y or detached from the southron courts they are, the more they tend to use "the Stark of Winterfell". Ygritte, Old Nan, the Norrey, Old Flint are just some examples.

This makes sense to me. It also suggests some sort of inherent power, for lack of a better word, within the family (and the castle) itself. A person being "a Stark of Winterfell" or people being "the Starks of Winterfell" is a turn of phrase that turns up a lot. I can't think of other houses who are referred to repeatedly as such. I think "Lannisters of Casterly Rock" turns up a few times, but this seems more like a way to differentiate between the main line and the Lannisport line that bears the same name. Ditto for the Eyrie Arryns vs. the Gulltown Arryns. There are no other same-named Starks in another castle somewhere, which makes the repeated link of the family to the castle, used in respect and deference, that much more impactful. Someone being "a Stark of Winterfell" implied enough gravitas that the kingly titles are superfluous.

Beyond that I always found them to be interchangeable. I believe Robb, at least, is referred to as both when he's crowned.

[King of Winters]

Beyond that I always found them to be interchangeable. I believe Robb, at least, is referred to as both when he's crowned.

Yes, Maege Mormont declares Robb "The King of Winter!", after Greatjon has declared Robb King.

[Raining Blood Magic]

Interesting.

[franbatista123]

I think those two titles are not the same, but the difference between them has been forgotten. To be honest, i can't explain why. I believe that Jon will be the King of Winter while someone else like Rickon will be the King in the North.

[Ludd]

I think that the titles King of Winter and King in the North are NOT the same, which is why I posted the idea.

Ned talked of the old Kings of winter as hard for hard times, whereas the Kings in the North seemed much more like ordinary Lords.

The stark of Winterfell is a third possibly confusing title, but this may be a title that moves around, depending ojn who is the senior Stark at home. After all, for a year or so Bran was "the Stark of Winterfell"

[Tywin Manderly]

The Starks styled themselves as both King in the North and King of Winter. I dont think the title King of Winter was replaced by King in the North. The KiTN title was probably added when the Starks became the only Kings in the North(after eliminating the other Kings like Boltons, reeds, Umbers etc), the KoW title was never displaced.

When Robb is crowned he is named both KiTN and KoW - meaning that both the titles were held by one Stark simultaneously.

I also believe that they are both titles that can and have been held at the same time. Really, the thing I find interesting about the title of "king of winter" is that the Starks have seemingly made sure to offer help for others to survive the long winters. The glass gardens, Winter town, and how houses like the Mormonts and the Manderly have risen shows that the Starks took great efforts to ensure the survival of their people. Its probably why the Starks have survived so long in that Stability for the kingdom/region meant that a Stark must rule.

This! :agree:

[joe42m1]

It always seemed to me that the titles were interchangeable references to the King of the Northlands (kinda like how the ruler of the seven kingdoms is styled as king of the andals and the first men and the rhoynar etc.). Before the Seven Kingdoms were united, the Kings of Winter makes sense, given the climate. After dealing with the Southern Kingdoms more frequently and Post-Conquest, King in the North makes more sense politically and geographically. Is there any textual evidence showing that the two titles have different connotations?

As to "the Stark in Winterfell", that isn't so much a title as just referring to having an authority figure present.

[Ludd]

I do not think GRRM uses ANY title aimlessly, therefore I think it likely KitN and KoW are NOT the same thing, although they may often (not always) be the same person.

Hence Jon may be KoW ALREADY, even if not Lord of Winterfell.

As

[Dicer]

Before the Seven Kingdoms were united, the Kings of Winter makes sense, given the climate. After dealing with the Southern Kingdoms more frequently and Post-Conquest, King in the North makes more sense politically and geographically.

I agree. I think the KITN came about because of the emergence of the various southern kingdoms and it stuck when the Targs conquered Westeros and took KL as their capital.

I think the Kings of Winter would have been Kings over a larger area because of weather conditions during and soon after The Long Night. Taking into account the amount of land beyond the Wall and the fact that Winter may have extended to the neck and beyond for quite some time, the Kings of Winter would have truly been Kings of Winter.

After the threat of the Others has been taken care of and weather conditions return to normal, I wonder if Winterfell would make more sense as the capital of Westeros compared to KL. Assuming the wall falls permanently and taking into consideration the huge swathes of territory beyond the wall, Winterfell would be more central to Westeros than KL.