Talk: King in the North

From A Wiki of Ice and Fire
Jump to: navigation, search

Is there anything we can do to make the entry more informative? --Mor 09:40, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I've added the info in the AWOIAF app, regarding Jon's legitimisation. Currently I'm unable to reference the app's Robb Stark entry using the current system. Another issue arises due to Jon's surname. I've left it as Snow. --Philo-Sofa 09:40, 23 Feb 2014 (GMT)

For app referencing, I use the format <ref>"Robb Stark" entry in ''[[A World of Ice and Fire]]''</ref>. Nittanian 17:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Why thank you Nittanian, much appreciated, have edited accordingly :) Philo-Sofa 12:09, 25 Feb 2014 (GMT)
Just noticed your edit. If that's the case, then shouldn't the Jon Snow entry also be edited accordingly? -- La Víbora Roja 19:25, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


Shouldn't Bran be named the first in line, not the second? Jon was named heir on the condition that Bran and Rickon were dead. They aren't, so while Jon is officially now first in line, wouldn't Bran actually be first in line? And Rickon second?--Rhaenys_Targaryen 19:41, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

That's probably not the case Rhaenys; the act of ligitimisation as a Stark would presumably cause Jon to take his place in the line of succession. As the eldest Stark, that would put him before Bran. Even if legitimsation works differently - for example were legimised bastards to come behind other calimants - it is likely (although admittedly not certain) that Rob specifically named him as Heir. --Philo-Sofa 02:54, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
It would depend on the wording. Jon was only named heir because Robb believed his two younger brothers were dead. Should the wording state that Jon is heir only because Bran and Rickon are dead, than Jon wouldn't be the heir anymore. I'm also not sure that legitimatization automatically means that you are in front of those children born in wedllock. I highly doubt that. So I agree with what the hairy bear said below, that the line of succession should be removed entirely.--Rhaenys_Targaryen 18:53, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Another thing to consider is what the laws governing the Night's Watch would say about that since Jon's officially renounced all lands and titles. We know that deserting the Watch is a capital offense. Although I suppose that sentence could be commuted, as evidenced by Stannis' offer to legitimise Jon. Or perhaps the Watch can also choose to release a Sworn Brother from his vows. But still, it's something that needs to be considered. -- La Víbora Roja 20:31, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
I would remove the "lineof succession" entirely, as as far as we know the Kingdom of the Nort is over. Also, without knowing the exact wording of Robb's will, we can't say which legal effects would have: does Jon comes before Bran? is Sansa excluded from the succession? Is there any mention to the cousins in the Vale? We just can't know.--The hairy bear (Send me a raven) 13:12, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Made an edit, hopefully it helps address the various concerns mentioned. Hopefully it's not going too far into the realm of speculation (I realise we're probably more lax about that sort of thing here than in Wikiepdia, but I don't know how lax)? If it's too much, feel free to revert (but I hope not ;) Thanks -- La Víbora Roja 06:23, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
I think that's an excellent edit which covers everything well La Víbora :) --Philo-Sofa 02:54, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Split King in the North and King of Winter

"Kings of Winter" denotes a much earlier time period than "Kings in the North", being the title held by the rulers of the lands surrounding Winterfell before the north was unified under undisputed Stark rule. With that in mind, I believe these should both have their own articles. --Potsk (talk) 03:54, 7 March 2022 (UTC)