Stannis' offer to Jon

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

The king does have "nominal" dominium over all of westeros. Therefore he does have the right to strip winterfell from Bolton and award someone else.

The keyword here is "nominal." Meaning, he can bestow whatever he wants on whoever he wants, but without the actual, actionable authority, the nominal ability to do anything, to be blunt, is not worth shit.

[Arya kiddin']

This indeed is a very shaky ground to tread, as to what are the rights of the King on the subjects of a rebel region when the rebellion has not been subjugated. I remember this discussion popping in when someone was considering whether Sansa's marriage to Tyrion is invalid, since Joffrey can't really marry her off as the North is in open rebellion (ofc the marriage is invalid in many other ways)

There are no perfect undisputable laws for such a case. In Sansa's case, I think the marriage is valid , as she is still the crown's hostage, and she marries Tyrion in the sept willingly for all the world to see (whatever inner turmoil withstanding)

In case of the North however, Stannis is not king yet. Northern Lords are in no way honor bound to carry out his commands, they're so far allies, not his subjects.

[LordToo-Fat-to-Sit-a-Horse]

1. And how exactly is Stannis going to enforce his will when the northerners don't care what he might say? Governance goes both ways. You can't govern people who don't accept your authority to govern them.

2. Following #1, without the ability to enforce your decisions, what good are they?

3. You make an error in assuming the war ever actually ended. I'm sure the northerners and riverlords would be very interested to learn this.

1) A smart king in westeros wouldn´t. He could try. Ruling is after all solving conflicts of interests. But he would be wise to pick his battles. A king might try to impose his will, but always at a cost. In this case, the king is unusually weak. Even in the north, which is a region devastated; the king lacks hard power to enforce his authority. At the end of ADWD, his army was about 3/4 northerners. He would be really stupid if he thought he could impose anything (like a strange god from the east) on the northern nobility.

2) None.

3) It´s not an error. The war is formally over since the rebels lost, and the survivors bent the knee, which means they renewed fealty. Of course everything is a mummers farce. But formally the war is over and the north is back under the authority of a southern king.

[LordToo-Fat-to-Sit-a-Horse]

I don't agree with this the reason they were bound to the Iron Throne in the first place was out of choice not conquest. Torhen bent the knee to Aegon and I assume made oaths to him, but as we know Oaths are a two way agreement which Aerys broke and led to Ned rebelling and then Jofffrey broke. Robb is a Stark and as such a direct descendent of Torhen and once the oath was broken by Joffrey Robb was well within his rights to either support another claimant or decide to cut ties and become a king again. Of course the Iron Throne disputes this but it doesn't make Robbs actions any less legal in this society there is no independent adjudicator so each side have as much legal right as the other. Meaning Robb was a legitimate king in law so assuming the North openly goes for independence again their chosen king will also have a legitimate right to that independence as Robb's heir.

1) A bloodless conquest, in the case of the north. He bent the knee under threat of annihilation. That to me sounds more like conquest, than of voluntary submission. He did bring an army to face Aegon after all.

2) Joffrey didn´t (in the eyes of men) break the social contract, which one could argue to exist between lords and kings. Ned was after all a confessed traitor. Loyalty was therefore expected from robb.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

1) A smart king in westeros wouldn´t. He could try. Ruling is after all solving conflicts of interests. But he would be wise to pick his battles. A king might try to impose his will, but always at a cost. In this case, the king is unusually weak. Even in the north, which is a region devastated; the king lacks hard power to enforce his authority. At the end of ADWD, his army was about 3/4 northerners. He would be really stupid if he thought he could impose anything (like a strange god from the east) on the northern nobility.

2) None.

3) It´s not an error. The war is formally over since the rebels lost, and the survivors bent the knee, which means they renewed fealty. Of course everything is a mummers farce. But formally the war is over and the north is back under the authority of a southern king.

1. All the more reason to be highly skeptical of any suggestion that Stannis can make the northerners do anything they don't want to do.

2. Precisely.

3. The war is not over, it's just being continued through other means.

[LordToo-Fat-to-Sit-a-Horse]

Developments in the North.

Only GRRM knows for sure. I do belieive they will raise again, against the authority of every other king.

But it´s irrelevant for what i am saying.

[LordToo-Fat-to-Sit-a-Horse]

But it isn't over. And I'm kind of baffled that on the one hand you say the war for northern independence is over but on the other you say you believe the GNC. Pretty much the entire point of the GNC is that the war isn't over and is just being fought through different means.

Stannis can award on paper anything he wants, you're right. That doesn't mean it will actually happen, that it can actually be enforced or that the northerners have to support it or go along with it or honor it in any way.

1) It´s formally over. The northerners might (and probably are) conspiring to crown another king but it´s all shady business.

The war of independence that Robb started is over. They could try another war. But to the eyes of a random Westerosi observer, Robb was just a rebel lord trying to rise as king in the north, but that eventually lost.

2) I agree. He did say he was planning on awarding Karstark with WF. Also some of his knights are buggering him to get WF, if I remember correctly.

As of the northerner’s duty, they are bound to one king or the other. So they should be required to accept his decision. Most of the houses took Tommen as their king. He is awarding Bolton as warden of the north, so they are truly honor bound to accept that decision. The sigil of house baratheon of king´s landing was flying over the castle at the wedding.

I remember both houses Glover and mormont are marching with Stannis. I don’t remember if they took him as king in formal terms. If so, they would also be bound to accept any decision Stannis could make regarding winterfell.

[LordToo-Fat-to-Sit-a-Horse]

The keyword here is "nominal." Meaning, he can bestow whatever he wants on whoever he wants, but without the actual, actionable authority, the nominal ability to do anything, to be blunt, is not worth shit.

Yes, that is why i stressed the word.

He was the authority to bestow whatever he wants, just not the hard power to actually enforce said decision.

Like I said, I´m only discussing the first point in the original post i quoted.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Yes, that is why i stressed the word.

He was the authority to bestow whatever he wants, just not the hard power to actually enforce said decision.

Like I said, I´m only discussing the first point in the original post i quoted.

But the point, for like the fifth time, is that without hard power, nominal power is meaningless. To the point where arguing over Stannis's nominal power is downright useless.

[SirRunty]

Nobody in the North would've followed a bastard who got away from the NW by claiming the Old Gods aren't real and then burned Winterfell's weirwood grove. It was never an option at all.

What he said. The North at this point is basically a potato anyway - CHAOS.

[LordToo-Fat-to-Sit-a-Horse]

1. All the more reason to be highly skeptical of any suggestion that Stannis can make the northerners do anything they don't want to do.

2. Precisely.

3. The war is not over, it's just being continued through other means.

1) I never suggested that. Y only said, Winterfell is "his" to award (if you believe he is the rightful king)

2) ..

3) If the conspirators aborted their plans before actually taking them into practice, would historians remember that date as the end of the northerner’s war for independence, or they would say that the RW was the actual end of the war?

The war is over for the random observer of politics in westeros. One could even say the war is over for Manderly and Company, they just want to start a new one.

[LordToo-Fat-to-Sit-a-Horse]

But the point, for like the fifth time, is that without hard power, nominal power is meaningless. To the point where arguing over Stannis's nominal power is downright useless.

We are discussing Rights, and obligations. Not the capacity to enforce them. Since my first comment, I’ve been saying, contrary to your comment (the first one i quoted), that Winterfell is stannis dominium, and therefore he can give it to Jon. You later accepted. I am not disputing his lack of capacity to do as he pleases.. But he does have the rights to rule his kingdoms. And ruling includes giving castles to that, or this, lord. Even raising new lords.

If stannis buys from the free cities a 100k army, would you say his rights and obligations change?

No. he just has more power to take them into practice.

[Lord of Beyond the Wall]

The OP is assuming that Lord Stannis Baratheon is King, he is not and in consequence he has not right to give or offer any title to anyone. Stannis is a claimant that nobody wants in the IT and even if he'd have a right he hasn't being crown (neither was Renly) by the authority or the church. The situation with Balon Greyjoy and Robb Stark is different because those two lords proclaim the independence of their territories and didn't express any interest in the IT though in the case of Robb he was in direct war with the IT and sooner or later would have march to King Landing.

Lord Stannis Baratheon couldn't possible secure the North for Jon whom would have seen as an usurper of the Stark's boys, remember that Manderly and Ramsay know that Bran and Rickon are alive. Jon was right in refusing the offer because all of the reasons expressed by other posters and because at that moment he has not compelling reason to quit the NW.

[LordToo-Fat-to-Sit-a-Horse]

The OP is assuming that Lord Stannis Baratheon is King, he is not and in consequence he has not right to give or offer any title to anyone. Stannis is a claimant that nobody wants in the IT and even if he'd have a right he hasn't being crown (neither was Renly) by the authority or the church. The situation with Balon Greyjoy and Robb Stark is different because those two lords proclaim the independence of their territories and didn't express any interest in the IT though in the case of Robb he was in direct war with the IT and sooner or later would have march to King Landing.

Lord Stannis Baratheon couldn't possible secure the North for Jon whom would have seen as an usurper of the Stark's boys, remember that Manderly and Ramsay know that Bran and Rickon are alive. Jon was right in refusing the offer because all of the reasons expressed by other posters and because at that moment he has not compelling reason to quit the NW.

1) Stannis does have a right. As the readers know.

2) There is no upper authority to the king. He doesn´t need to be crowned by the church. Aegon was anointed by the high septon, as a way to gain soft power. But it´s not, a requirement for kings to seek the church´s approval.

3) i agree. Jon was smart to refuse the offer.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

We are discussing Rights, and obligations. Not the capacity to enforce them. Since my first comment, I’ve been saying, contrary to your comment (the first one i quoted), that Winterfell is stannis dominium, and therefore he can give it to Jon. You later accepted. I am not disputing his lack of capacity to do as he pleases.. But he does have the rights to rule his kingdoms. And ruling includes giving castles to that, or this, lord. Even raising new lords.

If stannis buys from the free cities a 100k army, would you say his rights and obligations change?

No. he just has more power to take them into practice.

And without the capacity to enforce them, those rights and obligations are meaningless. Call me when Stannis actually has this sellsword army. Until then, words are wind.

[LordToo-Fat-to-Sit-a-Horse]

And without the capacity to enforce them, those rights and obligations are meaningless. Call me when Stannis actually has this sellsword army. Until then, words are wind.

Yes, but he does have them. Which is the only thing I’ve been disputing.

But yes at the end, only honorable people like Ned stark would actually care for such things. Manderly and co, who are playing a treasonous game, if the GNC is true, will backstab both of the kings claiming dominium of the north.

[Winterfellian]

The lords he rules have no legitimacy whatsoever to steal half of the dominions of the rightful king. There are no self-determination rights in Westeros.

They try to do it (independence) by force. Which is totally cool, since conquest is a valid title to obtain territory. But till that conquest is not completed, (the conquest is consolidated when the enemy is subjugated) you can´t really talk about a change in sovereignty. In our history a formal agreement was usually reached, in form of peace treaties (that end the state of war), and formal recognition to the new sovereign.

The will should be enforceable to Robb´s bannermen, as long as they maintain the hostilities I guess. But most of them have already bent the knee. They do not view themselves as independent any longer, but bound to the authority of the IT.

From what I gather in your in your posts you're assuming that because the North has surrendered to the IT, then WF belongs to the King and he is within his rights to bestow upon any person of his choice.

Even if we accept this as true, in your efforts to inflate Stannis to more than he is, you are neglecting to see that even though the North has nominally bowed down to the IT by the time of the offer, they have done so but to Tommen, never to Stannis.

By the time of the offer the latter is nothing more than another doomed pretender.

eta-by your own logic Tommen had righttfully appointed Bolton as Warden and the North is nominally accepting it as such.

[LordToo-Fat-to-Sit-a-Horse]

From what I gather in your in your posts you're assuming that because the North has surrendered to the IT, then WF belongs to the King and he is within his rights to bestow upon any person of his choice.

Even if we accept this as true, in your efforts to inflate Stannis to more than he is, you are neglecting to see that even though the North has nominally bowed down to the IT by the time of the offer, they have done so but to Tommen, never to Stannis.

By the time of the offer the latter is nothing more than another doomed pretender.

eta-by your own logic Tommen had righttfully appointed Bolton as Warden and the North is nominally accepting it as such.

1) The north has surrendered formally. It´s not my assumption, it happened. The fact that Manderly and others are conspiring in the shadows to rebel again, does not change the fact that they are sworn again to the king of the 7k. If that is the case, then WF does belong to a southern king.

2) I am not trying to inflate Stannis to more than he is. Just stating the obvious thing to all readers. He is the rightful king. Tommen is a usurper.

3) True. The north (most of it) has declared for Tommen.

Others, like the karstark´s, half of umbers, Mountain clans, Mormont, Glover has declared for Stannis (these last ones i can´t recall if they have formally taken him as king, or just marching with him)

The point is that, either the north is independent, or they are not. Since they lost their war, in legal terms, they are bound with the rest of the 7k under one king.

whichever ends up with the IT, is another matter.

But we as readers know, who has the better claim. Again:

Is Stannis the righfull king? yes

If he is the rightful king, then he has all the rights and obligations of a king, including dominium of the north and winterfell.

[Lord of Beyond the Wall]

1) Stannis does have a right. As the readers know.

2) There is no upper authority to the king. He doesn´t need to be crowned by the church. Aegon was anointed by the high septon, as a way to gain soft power. But it´s not, a requirement for kings to seek the church´s approval.

3) i agree. Jon was smart to refuse the offer.

Stannis has a claim (a very weak claim but a claim anyway) and even if he "has a right" that right can be make actual power because: a) he has not real prove that the sons and daughter of Queen Cersei are not of (usurper) King Robert, until now Lord Stannis only has produce gossips again Cersei and her children; b) he doesn't have a strong army to conquest the Kingdom; and c)the people and lords of Westeros don't want Stannis as their King.

Every King need to be crowned either by the church of by the lords of the kingdom (see the Great Council). In Stannis case he has proclaim himself King but that doesn't make him one. The only King in Westeros, legitimate or not, is Tommen I of the House Baratheon.

[LordToo-Fat-to-Sit-a-Horse]

Stannis has a claim (a very weak claim but a claim anyway) and even if he "has a right" that right can be make actual power because: a) he has not real prove that the sons and daughter of Queen Cersei are not of (usurper) King Robert, until now Lord Stannis only has produce gossips again Cersei and her children; B) he doesn't have a strong army to conquest the Kingdom; and c)the people and lords of Westeros don't want Stannis as their King.

Every King need to be crowned either by the church of by the lords of the kingdom (see the Great Council). In Stannis case he has proclaim himself King but that doesn't make him one. The only King in Westeros, legitimate or not, is Tommen I of the House Baratheon.

1) To the random westerosi it might be weak claim. To the reader, it´s not. Joffrey and co are bastards product of incest, and the laws of succession are clear in ruling them out of inheritance. Stannis does have better claim than the sons of the queen born from infidelity. Of course proving this (beyond reasonable doubt) in a middle age-type society is almost impossible.

2) Charisma is not a prerequisite to be a king. Certainly helps while ruling. But the fact that no one wants him as king does not weaken his rights as legitimate successor of Robert Baratheon.

3) About the church. Can you provide a text quote about this? It´s the first time i hear that the faith has to approve a king before he crowns himself. The great council was a fancy way to break the succession line. It happened once, and due to special circumstances.

ETA:

the clossest thing i recall is the blessing (among the debt issue) that Cersei tries to buy from the high septon.