Author: stevenattewell

You’ve expressed before that Torrhen’s Square would be the best place for the North to raise a western navy and made some pretty compelling arguments. My question, could Bear Island be a good place to raise such a navy? Bear Island has timber for ships, fishermen who might be trained to become sailors, and the Ironborn have used it as a base for naval attacks before so it can be done. Assuming a good initial investment (from a rich dowry maybe?) couldn’t this work? Or am I missing something?

You make an excellent point.

There is one drawback to Bear Island tho: it’s really far to the north, which means response times against threats from the south are going to be really bad. And since the major naval threat to the Starks is the Ironborn to the south, it’s less than ideal…for a primary naval base.

As a secondary naval base, it’s excellent. All the advantages you speak of are absolutely relevant here: 

  • First and foremost, if Torrhen’s Square can just delay the enemy, Bear Island can provide crucial reinforcements, allowing the Starks to weather initial attacks and then decisively counter-attack. 
  • Second, because of Bear Island’s resources, ships from Torrhen’s Square that get damaged in a fight can quickly pull back to Bear Island, repair, refit, replace any dead crew, and then get back in the fight, making the Stark navy much more resilient. 
  • Third, it also would help to deter seaborn Wildling raiding parties. 

A holding multiple crowns question here. Do you think Jon’s true parentage and claim to the Iron Throne will invalidate his right to be King in the North in both the show, and potentially in the books if Robb’s will shows up, if and when said parentage is revealed? Curious because of the one hand he’d get the Northern Crown on false premises and on the other the crown of the Iron Throne is supposed to have abolished all other kingship’s except for the one Aegon the Conqueror created.

opinions-about-tiaras:

racefortheironthrone:

Stuff like this is why I’m actually kind of hoping Jon dies heroically in ADOS just to prevent the last book turning into the extended edition of Return of the King all over again. 

Something that may or may not be deliberately clever: in the situation Robb thought he was in when he made out his will, Robb’s actual parentage would… still have made him Robb’s closest male heir. With the other male Starks (supposedly) dead and the only known surviving woman politically unpalatable, the son of Robb’s father’s sister (his cousin) who has the Stark look and is a respected member of a venerable northern institution would absolutely be a top pick.

People focus on the Rhaegar connection a lot, but the Lyanna connection is just as important.

However, from a practical standpoint… Robb’s will is going to swing a big bat with the northern lords, but that will was written when it was thought the other Starklings were dead. If Jon doesn’t want to be Lord of Winterfell (and honestly I’ll think less of him if he does, because he swore an oath to the Night’s Watch) there’d be no problem at all passing that cup to Bran or Rickon.

That’s a good point.

A holding multiple crowns question here. Do you think Jon’s true parentage and claim to the Iron Throne will invalidate his right to be King in the North in both the show, and potentially in the books if Robb’s will shows up, if and when said parentage is revealed? Curious because of the one hand he’d get the Northern Crown on false premises and on the other the crown of the Iron Throne is supposed to have abolished all other kingship’s except for the one Aegon the Conqueror created.

Stuff like this is why I’m actually kind of hoping Jon dies heroically in ADOS just to prevent the last book turning into the extended edition of Return of the King all over again. 

Is the Royces’ status as a principal house of the Vale at odds with their seeming pride in their First Men heritage? In a country noted for the value placed on noble Andal blood, whose First Men were mostly dispossessed and driven to become barbarians in the mountains, you’d expect any remaining First Men noble houses to try to assimilate into the Andal order – but things like ancient runic bronze armor seem to suggest the maintenance of a strong, persistent and distinctive First Men identity.

Actually, no, I don’t think it does.

I see the Royces as something of the Vale’s Loyal Opposition. They’re one of the most powerful Houses in the Vale other than the Arryns, they’re older than the Arryns (and Valemen are super-snobby so this counts), and no one challenges the Arryns except for them. Hence why a Royce cadet branch ended up at the Gates of the Moon, why we see Royces as Lords Regent of the Vale, why Royces marry into House Arryn (and I would imagine vice versa), why it was the Royce of Runestone who besieged Jonos Arryn when he turned traitor, and why Bronze Yohn was one of the first to turn against Littlefinger.

I see them as somewhat assimilating and somewhat accomodating. On the one hand, the Royces have converted to the Seven and are definitely bang on side with the whole idea of knighthood and tourneys and the like. So they’ve done the big ticket things that matter. On the other hand, they’re very proud of their First Men heritage – the runic bronze armor, the marriages into House Stark, etc. – but I think in a way that works for the Vale. Being arch-traditionalists, the Vale are very into heritage, and the Royces being Seven-worshipping knights means that the First Men stuff is made “safe.” 

After he captures Griffin’s Roost, Jon Connington says he will obfuscate the matter by writing to the Iron Throne and claiming he is merely reclaiming his lands. Is that not also an offence likely to result in brutal retaliation?

This is historically grounded. Henry Bolingbrooke of Lancaster, Richard Duke of York, Edward of York, there was a long tradition of exiles making a landing and then claiming that they were only intent on reclaiming their family lands and bygones be bygones. 

While almost always a cover for a coup, it was a good bit of political cover, because feudalism being what it was, the nobility were generally in favor of lands staying in the family and looked with deep suspicion on the monarch taking people’s lands (indeed, in the case of Henry Bolingbrooke, one of the main reasons why his coup succeeded was that the nobility really did not like Richard II seizing the Duchy of Lancaster from Henry as a matter of precedent and principle).

Thus, it made it difficult for the monarch to go all-out against the invader, in part because their vassals might be quite slow to respond to the call.