Big question about the GNC?

[butterbumps!]

ETA: Never mind, I'm an idiot.

lol, no you're not. Miscommunication. I know we've debated the specific permutations, but wanted to clarify the core principles, because I think the whole theory was being discarded due to specifics in some of the posts.

So that was my way of saying that the GNC is simply the idea that everyone in the North is seeking to replace the Boltons with one of the Starks, but not necessarily all working together or for the same Stark. At its core, I think this is actually very airtight.

[SkaggCannibal]

All right I can subscribe to this version of the GNC where everyone is working towards roughly the same goal, separataly without being in contact. I very much like the 3-split division of Bran, Rickon, and Jon-supporters you made there Butterbumps. I do think the Rickon-fraction stands strongest, although that may not be what ultimatly matters. Any ideas how and when these three parties will meet? In Winterfell while Stannis is there too? That would be a very interesting situation.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

It's also occurred to me that they might be waiting to see if Jon is willing to "play ball," so to speak. They know he's a Night's Watch brother, obviously, and perhaps they're concerned that he would turn it down or feel compelled to inform on them to Stannis. Jon is the one who sent Stannis to the clans and to Deepwood. If Stannis says, "Jon Snow told me to come here," maybe that perks the ears up on the clan leaders, and maybe that is what finally compels them to go to the Wall to scope Jon out (either to see if Bran showed up or to get the measure of Jon as a leader or both). I sort of touched on this in the Alys Karstark thread, that that is one of the things, along with Jon sending Stannis to the clans, that tells the northerners that Jon can handle himself politically and might be open to taking up Robb's mantle. In which case, Manderly getting Rickon could be one of three things: 1. Rickon is the focus (at least Manderly's focus), not Jon, 2. Rickon is meant to be Jon's heir, 3. Rickon is the backup in case Jon turns out not to be viable.

lol, no you're not. Miscommunication. I know we've debated the specific permutations, but wanted to clarify the core principles, because I think the whole theory was being discarded due to specifics in some of the posts.

So that was my way of saying that the GNC is simply the idea that everyone in the North is seeking to replace the Boltons with one of the Starks, but not necessarily all working together or for the same Stark. At its core, I think this is actually very airtight.

I think that's a fair assessment. And the "G" is ultimately in there because at the end of the day, I think the discrete factions will converge toward the same goal.

ETA: And this may be weak sauce but I have to mention it ... One of the big things that makes me think Wyman is really in the Jon camp, despite sending Davos after Rickon, is the songs list at the wedding. Brave Danny Flint, the Rat Cook, the Night That Ended. All Night's Watch-related songs and all separately pertinent to what's going on at the time (girl in disguise, cannibalism, victory). It just makes me wonder, that's all. :P

[BitsOfBrains]

I just assumed that they didn't even want Jon in on it until they had Rickon in hand.

Jon is a cog in the machine of the GNC (assuming it exists) and not the park plug.

As far as I can tell, Jons biggest role would to be one of the voices saying, "Yup, thats Rickon, and no, thats Jeyne Poole, not Arya." He would pretty much fill the role Reek did at the Ramsay/Jeyne wedding.

Robbs will was written under false pretense, that all of his true born siblings were dead or dead to him (Sansa) so Rickon being alive and potentially capable of reproduction someday (unlike Bran) changes all.

The only reason they would bring Jon in on it would be if they found out Rickon was dead for realsies.

[Baelor Swyft]

I strongly believe the GNC doesn't exist.

That being said, I could imagine some reasons why they wouldn't tell Jon. For starters, Jon's all the way at the Wall, and I'm sure as few people as possible would be in on this hypothetical Northern insurrection. Sending word would be both difficult and dangerous. Plus whatever Howland Reed is cooking up seems as of yet not entirely ready, and they may want to have all the pieces in place before they come to Jon (so it will be harder for him to say no).

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

I just assumed that they didn't even want Jon in on it until they had Rickon in hand.

Jon is a cog in the machine of the GNC (assuming it exists) and not the park plug.

As far as I can tell, Jons biggest role would to be one of the voices saying, "Yup, thats Rickon, and no, thats Jeyne Poole, not Arya." He would pretty much fill the role Reek did at the Ramsay/Jeyne wedding.

Robbs will was written under false pretense, that all of his true born siblings were dead or dead to him (Sansa) so Rickon being alive and potentially capable of reproduction someday (unlike Bran) changes all.

The only reason they would bring Jon in on it would be if they found out Rickon was dead for realsies.

I actually think it's probably the opposite -- Jon is the focus and it's Rickon who's the cog. In any case, they don't need (or don't think they need) Jon to corroborate Rickon's identity. That's why Manderly tells Davos to make sure he brings the wolf back with Rickon.

I also think it's a stretch to throw the will out. To be honest it depends on how the northerners choose to interpret it. Does it stand, or is it void because Bran and Rickon are alive? It's their call to make. I can see it going in either direction (Rickon being trueborn vs. Jon being older and the designated heir), but I still think it will ultimately fall on the side of Jon.

[Dead Wolf]

The reason they didn't tell Jon is because he doesn't come into their plans at all. They want Rickon and Jon wouldn't even be necessary to prove Rickon's legitimacy. The whole North knows the Stark kids all had a direwolf, and Rickon still has Shaggydog.

[Dr. Pepper]

I strongly believe the GNC doesn't exist.

So, what does exist then? All of them are just rolling over for Stannis or the Boltons? How does it explain all of the conflicting intel? Manderly sending Davos on a secret mission before heading off to Winterfell, Lyanna sending a letter about maintaining support for King in the North while Alysane joins Stannis, Alys fleeing to Jon instead of to the Boltons or Stannis, the Umbers lining up on both sides while also stating Umbers will not fight Umbers. It's just hard to look at all of this and say, "Yeah, ok, collectively the north has decided they are totally cool with a Bolton or Stannis leadership."

Wouldn't you agree that something other than what is explicitly stated is going on especially since what is explicitly stated doesn't add up?

[kissdbyfire]

What doesn't make sense to me is, why make a whole new thread about it instead of keeping the discussion focused on the one well-known thread. I'm only saying this because I think your post would add to an intersting discussion instead of dispersing it.

:dunno:

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

The reason they didn't tell Jon is because he doesn't come into their plans at all. They want Rickon and Jon wouldn't even be necessary to prove Rickon's legitimacy. The whole North knows the Stark kids all had a direwolf, and Rickon still has Shaggydog.

The basic fact that we know Jon was named heir without the will ever being explicitly revealed or anything coming of it yet should be enough to demonstrate that it's a Chekhov's device of some sort, keeping in line with GRRM's pretty well-established patterns. If Jon being named the heir was ultimately meaningless, 1. Robb never would have done it at all or 2. the will would have been revealed and discarded by now. Keeping it in play this long means something is going to come of it.

[David Selig]

I'm sure this has been discussed a lot of times, but for me there's a massive flaw in the grand northern conspiracy - why wouldn't they tell Jon about it?

It makes absolutely no sense not to tell Jon. Firstly, because you need to find out whether he's willing to forsake his vows or not (if not the whole things pointless). Secondly, because the longer you leave him at the wall the more likely it is that he's going to get killed by wildlings or others.

If Jon was a vital part of a massive plan to reclaim the North, the first thing you'd do would be go and find him, talk to him and take him somewhere safe. It's completely unrealistic that nobody would tell him.

It's because the GNC in its "Make Jon the KIng in the North" version is wishful thinking and not much more.

[Northernmonkey]

What doesn't make sense to me is, why make a whole new thread about it instead of keeping the discussion focused on the one well-known thread. I'm only saying this because I think your post would add to an intersting discussion instead of dispersing it.

:dunno:

I thought about that but I decided to make a new thread because

1. It's a specific question about the GNC that I thought needed discussing, not necessarily the whole thing.

2. Last time I looked at the GNC thread it was all a bit too intense, with two posters having having an argument with very long and detailed posts. I didn't really want to get involved in that.

[Arya kiddin']

GNC has become very incoherent for me. I agree with the core claims, as Butterbumps outlined upthread. But everyone in the North conspiring to make Jon the King is to me no more than fan fiction. Anyhow, Lyanna says about the King whose name is Stark. Jon's is not. It is either Snow or Targaryen. Robb's will will be moot once it is ousted that Bran and Rickon are alive. The Northmen aren't fools.

[jarl the climber]

It's because the GNC in its "Make Jon the KIng in the North" version is wishful thinking and not much more.

After what ended happening with Robb I think the bannermen are going to be very leery of pushing the heir, whoever it is, into another Kingship. Declaring for Stannis does give Winterfell some protection just as Davos pointed out to Manderly.

[Addam of Hull]

GNC has become very incoherent for me. I agree with the core claims, as Butterbumps outlined upthread. But everyone in the North conspiring to make Jon the King is to me no more than fan fiction. Anyhow, Lyanna says about the King whose name is Stark. Jon's is not. It is either Snow or Targaryen. Robb's will will be moot once it is ousted that Bran and Rickon are alive. The Northmen aren't fools.

But it is Stark. That's what Robb's legitimization of him does. Cat even makes the point that once he decrees it to be so, it can't be undone. Sure, he can be a Stark and not be king or lord, because succession is a tricky subject especially when it involves legitimized bastards, but even if we believe that the Northmen would take Rickon over Jon, for whatever reason, there is no reason to believe that they wouldn't respect Robb's decree that Jon is now a Stark.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

GNC has become very incoherent for me. I agree with the core claims, as Butterbumps outlined upthread. But everyone in the North conspiring to make Jon the King is to me no more than fan fiction. Anyhow, Lyanna says about the King whose name is Stark. Jon's is not. It is either Snow or Targaryen. Robb's will will be moot once it is ousted that Bran and Rickon are alive. The Northmen aren't fools.

Even if the succession portion Robb's will is thrown out in favor of Bran and Rickon (which I don't think is at all a given), that has no bearing on Jon being legitimized. So yes, at this point, by Robb's will, he is a Stark.

[ductastic]

GNC has become very incoherent for me. I agree with the core claims, as Butterbumps outlined upthread. But everyone in the North conspiring to make Jon the King is to me no more than fan fiction.

The problem with the GNC is that there isn't a version of it we all agree on like we do wrt R+L=J. The basic version of it, that the northern are up to something, is definitely the case, as pointed out by Dr. Pepper. The question is how much they work to together and what their ultimate goal is. It also depends how Robb's will is worded and will play out.

[Arya kiddin']

But it is Stark. That's what Robb's legitimization of him does. Cat even makes the point that once he decrees it to be so, it can't be undone. Sure, he can be a Stark and not be king or lord, because succession is a tricky subject especially when it involves legitimized bastards, but even if we believe that the Northmen would take Rickon over Jon, for whatever reason, there is no reason to believe that they wouldn't respect Robb's decree that Jon is now a Stark.

Cat gives the example of Aegon the Unworthy. The whole realm didn't just accept the Blackfyres as Targs. Legitimizing bastards has its consequences. I just don't expect all the Lords to just go along with Jon's legitimization, it would be lousy.

Even if the succession portion Robb's will is thrown out in favor of Bran and Rickon (which I don't think is at all a given), that has no bearing on Jon being legitimized. So yes, at this point, by Robb's will, he is a Stark.

At this point, maybe. Even if Bran is not coming back again (for the sake of argument), Davos coming with Rickon alone poses enough problems. Jon is more Stark than Targ is what we debate philosophically. In practice, he can't just claim to have both the names. So at that time, what do you believe will happen Apple, the reveal of R+L = J or the northern conspiracy to seat Jon on the throne; seeing that one prospect likely excludes the other. Jon may indeed command the armies in Rickon's name, but many a northmen will have problems seating a bastard (even a legitimized one) on the Stark high seat when a Stark is at hand; even more so seating a Targaryen on it.

The problem with the GNC is that there isn't a version of it we all agree on like we do wrt R+L=J. The basic version of it, that the northern are up to something, is definitely the case, as pointed out by Dr. Pepper. The question is how much they work to together and what their ultimate goal is. It also depends how Robb's will is worded and will play out.

Yes, I agree with this.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Cat gives the example of Aegon the Unworthy. The whole realm didn't just accept the Blackfyres as Targs. Legitimizing bastards has its consequences. I just don't expect all the Lords to just go along with Jon's legitimization, it would be lousy.

It wasn't so much that the Blackfyres were legitimized bastards so much as the fact that Daemon tried to usurp his older brother. It could have easily also played out between trueborn brothers.

At this point, maybe. Even if Bran is not coming back again (for the sake of argument), Davos coming with Rickon alone poses enough problems. Jon is more Stark than Targ is what we debate philosophically. In practice, he can't just claim to have both the names. So at that time, what do you believe will happen Apple, the reveal of R+L = J or the northern conspiracy to seat Jon on the throne; seeing that one prospect likely excludes the other. Jon may indeed command the armies in Rickon's name, but many a northmen will have problems seating a bastard (even a legitimized one) on the Stark high seat when a Stark is at hand; even more so seating a Targaryen on it.

I think that Robb's will is what will matter politically and that R+L=J is what will matter prophetically.

[Addam of Hull]

Cat gives the example of Aegon the Unworthy. The whole realm didn't just accept the Blackfyres as Targs. Legitimizing bastards has its consequences. I just don't expect all the Lords to just go along with Jon's legitimization, it would be lousy.

At this point, maybe. Even if Bran is not coming back again (for the sake of argument), Davos coming with Rickon alone poses enough problems. Jon is more Stark than Targ is what we debate philosophically. In practice, he can't just claim to have both the names. So at that time, what do you believe will happen Apple, the reveal of R+L = J or the northern conspiracy to seat Jon on the throne; seeing that one prospect likely excludes the other. Jon may indeed command the armies in Rickon's name, but many a northmen will have problems seating a bastard (even a legitimized one) on the Stark high seat when a Stark is at hand; even more so seating a Targaryen on it.

Yes, I agree with this.

It does and I'm not saying that everyone ever will accept that Jon is now a Stark, but that we have no real indication that anyone is against it. You could make a case for Manderly, I suppose, since he denounces Ramsay as being a Snow, but I haven't really seen anything that suggests that the rest of the Northern Lords wouldn't accept him as a Stark. I'm not sure it would be politically expedient for them not to, either, since Rickon won't be capable of having an heir for another 10 years or so. Realistically, they need Jon in some capacity if they really want to put a Stark back in Winterfell. The only feasible options from their perspectives at the moment are him and Rickon and if either of them dies, then the other is needed to take their place.