Board Thread:TV Show Discussion/@comment-1399600-20160629121258/@comment-5308269-20160809121306

Tinnic wrote: Why do you keep ignoring Jon's extensive history? He was the goddamn commander of the goddamn Night's Watch! Jon's history did not start with the Battle of Bastards. Also, incompetent general in the field? You think those Northern lords, almost all of whom did not join the Stark's this time around because they lost family under Robb Stark are going to hold it against Jon that he lost it after watching Rickon get butchered? I don't think you understand the North if you think THAT is a problem with the Northern bannermen. If anything, it shows Jon's character because despite Rickon being the Trueborn, Jon did everything he could to try and save his brother. This showed them that Jon wasn't trying to seize power. He really, truly just wanted to save his family and free the people of Winterfell from the tyranny of the Boltons.

Jon fell for a psychological trap that involved his brother. Most of the Northern lords sitting there would fall for it too and they know it! It's easy being an armchair general and going "You idiot!" but people wouldn't wage psychological warfare unless they were effective. Let's also be clear here. Even Tywin Lannister would have fallen for that trap had it been Jamie who had been made to run while a psycho tried to shoot him down. Hell, Cersei would have fallen for that too for any of her children or Jamie! Jamie himself would do that for Tyrion and the rest of his family! Book Stannis, Renley, The Martells, The Tyrells, pretty much everybody in those houses has someone they loved enough to try and rescue at all costs.

Ramsay's trick wouldn't have worked on Daenerys. But that's because she literally has no one she loves enough to cause a reaction like that. But honestly, remember that Brandon Stark strangled himself trying to save his father from the Mad King! True Starks are expected to act how Jon did. The fact that Sansa is now cold blooded enough to sacrifice both Jon and Rickon is a good sign she has completely sacrificed her identity as a Stark in ordered to survive. You might admire that. But that's something that would turn the stomach of most Northmen.

Bad&#039;Wolf wrote: Jon Snow was acclaimed as King in the North, not as Lord of Winterfell. This is just like hat happened to Robb Stark in season 1, election by acclamation was a common practice in history until the kings started associating sons to their thrones while they were alive (i.e. having them elected king along with them so that they could succeed them). And, although they ere king and obtained the loyalties of their subjects, they didn't inherit any lands or titles along with their election.

Therefore, Jon may be the King in the North, but he is still a bastard of House Stark. Until Bran returns, Sansa is officially the Lady of Winterfell and the head of House Stark. This! So much this! Of course, at this point, Jon can claim the land of the Boltons, Karstaks and Umbers as his own. But that's not here or there! Jon's goal at the moment is to forge alliances and bring people together to stand against the Night King. Assuming he survives and only if he survives that any issue of his "seat of power", who inherits his title or anything like that even becomes an issue! I don't care if Jon was in the Night's Watch, charging at the enemy army BY YOURSELF, with no planning is an act of INCOMPETENCE! Call me an "armchair general" all you like, but it's true! As a former commander of the Night's Watch, Jon should have known better. He did fall into a psychological trap set by Ramsay, but Sansa warned him about that the night before. And since his act cost him the lives of most of his own cavalry, which were loaned to him by the few Northern lords whom supported him, they're not going to be so easy to replace! Even Davos Seaworth and Tormund Giantsbane thought he was being foolish.

Sansa knows Ramsay enough to realize what he'll do with Rickon. Her coldness on the matter does not mean she "sacrificed her identity as a Stark. This No True Scotsman fallacy you're applying to the Starks is just dumb! And don't presume to tell me I admire that that when I don't!

Robb Stark was acclaimed King in the North because he was already their feudal superior to begin with. Belonging to the same dynasty which has ruled the North for thousands of years, it was more of a confirmation of his status than an election.

The inheritance of Winterfell and the Kingship of the North are not "tiny issues"! Just because such things don't matter to you as an outsider, doesn't mean it should be irrelevant to the characters as well! Stannis and Renly waged war with the Lannisters over who the true king is. Daenerys is leading an armada to Westeros for the purpose of placing HERSELF on the Iron Throne! The North is not a democracy, and they don't choose their kings for their generalship (or lack thereof in Jon's case). Jon is a false king both due to his supposed bastardy, and because he's a Targeryan on his fathers side.

There's a fan theory out there stating that Tyrion is the secret lovechild of King Aerys and Joanna Lannister. I personally don't believe it, but if this is true then he has no claim to Casterly Rock. As a paternal Targaryen, Jon has as much right to Winterfell as Joffrey and Tommen (both Jaime's natural sons) had to the Iron Throne. I don't care if Jon takes after Ned more than his other children. I don't give a shit if people think that Jon is the most Starkiest Stark whom ever Starked! Okay? Total irrelevance, and not a reason to make someone your king. The Northerners did not choose Jon for his "character"! Being the "son" of Ned Stark was the real clincher here. And if Jon really did take after his (step)father, he wouldn't have jeopardized his entire army in a moment of rage!

In a feudal society like Westeros, kings need their own lands and holdings apart from that of their vassals. Many vassals might be lords because they owe their estates to their rulers whom granted them those lands. But some vassals had already ruled their lands independently before they submitted to the authority of a more powerful king. The Starks have always ruled Winterfell. They may have given their allegiance to House Targaryen once, but Winterfell was ALWAYS theirs. They even built the castle and settled its lands. Winterfell is to the kings in the North what Paris and the surrounding "Ile-de-France" region was to the Medieval French kings: the royal demesne! King's Landing and the surrounding province of the Crownlands is the "Ile-de-France" of Westeros, because they're the personal holdings of the king. Without which he would be at the mercy of his landholding vassals. If Jon is King in the North, that should also make him the official Lord of Winterfell. If he has no holdings, no capital, then his office as king has no meaning.