Nihilist:

If you base it on the show, the Starks as a powerful family are done. The Stark name is done. The main pillars of the family have been either publicly executed or sent into exile. They have no political clout, and the King in the North is not a Stark either in name...or in blood.



What does this have to do with anything?

My argument was on whether the House name still holds power/means something, and i argue that it does, show or book. It was Jon's Stark blood that got him the support of the Northmen. Now about him being a Snow, a new King in the North may decide to keep the Stark name, or choose a different name, as he wishes.
It has to do with them dying in humiliating ways, but i say it does not taint the House's name. That was an example of a member of a still 'powerful' House dying in a humiliating way.

FrankNetter:
do you know?

the targaryeans only marry amongst themselves??

that way, they keep the dragon blood pure and unadulterated.


JonSnow is a targaryean.
Khalessi Daenarys StormBorn is a targaryean.

go figure

Targaryens do not only marry amongst themselves. Dany was born in a time not to know how the previous Targs did things, all she has is stories by Viserys. It is unclear if she supports incest. Well its fantasy. Can it happen ? Sure. Should it happen ? No !!

Gbola5:


My argument was on whether the House name still holds power/means something, and i argue that it does, show or book. It was Jon's Stark blood that got him the support of the Northmen.

Jon's Stark lineage was only a convenient excuse for the Nothern Lords to back the guy who had just conquered the Warden of the North and symbol of Lannister influence. Why didn't they crown Sansa instead? Or you think in Bran rocks up today, the northern houses will back him?

Lyanna points out at the beginning that neither Jon and Sansa are Starks. It is only after she's trying to drum up support for Jon that she plays the trump card. Lord Glover actually said "House Stark is dead". Isn't it convenient that now that the previous equivalent of the King in the north is dead, they remember that he is a half-a-Stark?

Forget that thing. The Starks are gone.

Now about him being a Snow, a new King in the North may decide to keep the Stark name, or choose a different name, as he wishes.

Obviously all his heirs will be Snows not Starks. He cannot keep a name he never had. And this does not even factor in to consideration the actual truth of his parentage. What happens when it comes out that actually, his last name cant even legally be Stark?

That was an example of a member of a still 'powerful' House dying in a humiliating way.

Please don't trivialise this discussion. Whilst the comparison is completely unnecessary, There's a massive difference between dying in private and being beheaded in public. The guy that died on the toilet was not killed with the intent to publicly humiliate, and he was given a full state burial. Compare to the guy who had his head chopped off in a public square, and then had said head left to rot openly on a spike. The last two Starks left have spent the last 2 seasons hiding their name from public knowledge. If that doesn't spell it out for you, then let's leave it there.

The show has different meanings to different people,and is open to interpretation.

Nihilist:


Jon isn't a Stark as you well know. The lords of Northern houses have declared to fight for Jon Snow not Jon Stark. If Bran Stark comes back tomorrow and declares an ambition to the Stark holdings, then theoretically Jon has very little Locus Standi.

That isn't even the point I was trying to raise sef. The Stark name is widely ridiculed or held in contempt outside the north if the show is anything to go by. Foreign invaders will often marry into the local aristocracy to blend in,and to gain acceptance and/or legitimacy for their rule from the conquered population. Jon currently has neither the required family name nor the political clout outside the north to make him an attractive marriage proposition. Even in the north, it remains to be seen how much loyalty he currently commands, and I have a strong suspicion that a power tussle between himself and Sansa could be in the offing.


That's actually not enough, and I think that relationships at play are far more complex than the enemy of my enemy is my friend. I really dont think the Tyrells for example, will be willing to commit to Danaerys's rule just for revenge. They have been married into royalty on 3 occasions so I wonder what they would want in return for their assistance.
If the conversation with Yara is anything to go by, we might be looking at a Balkanization of Westeros, and Danaerys may find her kingdom far smaller than she imagined.



The north actually have relatively few men left after Robb's disastrous expedition and only the Knights of the Vale appear to have a full strength army. With littlefinger harbouring title ambitions of his own, it remains to be seen what camps the Knights of the Vale will eventually declare for.
The Southern Armies by contrast seem to be largely intact by virtue of avoiding combat using the Red Wedding. Though it has to be said, those dragons provide a massive tactical advantage to Danaerys.



Lol You Too?
I would have thought that you would be more familiar with my writing style and thought processes.
Well this has nothing to do with that. I'm just saying.

bro d only part I disagree with is about the stark name they are like the oldest house in westeros, protect world of men from wildlings and white walkers,built d wall,the night watch, d major reason house targaryean ended I can keep telling you about them but house Tyrrell is a small & new house not even the Lord's of their end.

Nihilist:


Jon's Stark lineage was only a convenient excuse for the Nothern Lords to back the guy who had just conquered the Warden of the North and symbol of Lannister influence. Why didn't they crown Sansa instead? Or you think in Bran rocks up today, the northern houses will back him?

Lyanna points out at the beginning that neither Jon and Sansa are Starks. It is only after she's trying to drum up support for Jon that she plays the trump card. Lord Glover actually said "House Stark is dead". Isn't it convenient that now that the previous equivalent of the King in the north is dead, they remember that he is a half-a-Stark?

Forget that thing. The Starks are gone.



Obviously all his heirs will be Snows not Starks. He cannot keep a name he never had. And this does not even factor in to consideration the actual truth of his parentage. What happens when it comes out that actually, his last name cant even legally be Stark?



Please don't trivialise this discussion. Whilst the comparison is completely unnecessary, There's a massive difference between dying in private and being beheaded in public. The guy that died on the toilet was not killed with the intent to publicly humiliate, and he was given a full state burial. Compare to the guy who had his head chopped off in a public square, and then had said head left to rot openly on a spike. The last two Starks left have spent the last 2 seasons hiding their name from public knowledge. If that doesn't spell it out for you, then let's leave it there.

The show has different meanings to different people,and is open to interpretation.

A convenient excuse ? It was clearly because of the 'Ned''s blood flowing in him. They still have respect for the 'Ned'. I don't know what will happen if Bran shows up. He can adopt the Stark name, as he is now King in the North, this has happened so many times in the history of their world. It depends on if he wants to. Even if he's Targaryen, and if his parentage comes out(which i don't see happening), he could still adopt the Stark name, he is King in the North.
But don't you think that they hid their last name, as a result of what might happen to them or because of them, if they didn't ? And not because the name is humiliating ?. The 'Ned''s beheading didn't even have the effect you say it had, it didn't humiliate the Starks. There's still Arya, and Bran, and Benjen; for all the good, if not Jon and Sansa. Therefore how can you say, ' The Starks are gone' ? They just reclaimed the North.

Gbola5:


A convenient excuse ? It was clearly because of the 'Ned''s blood flowing in him. They still have respect for the 'Ned'. I don't know what will happen if Bran shows up. He can adopt the Stark name, as he is now King in the North, this has happened so many times in the history of their world. It depends on if he wants to. Even if he's Targaryen, and if his parentage comes out(which i don't see happening), he could still adopt the Stark name, he is King in the North.
But don't you think that they hid their last name, as a result of what might happen to them or because of them, if they didn't ? And not because the name is humiliating ?. The 'Ned''s beheading didn't even have the effect you say it had, it didn't humiliate the Starks. There's still Arya, and Bran, and Benjen; for all the good, if not Jon and Sansa. Therefore how can you say, ' The Starks are gone' ? They just reclaimed the North.

Jon is most definitely not a Stark.

The half-stark thing was just to give some legitimacy to the decision to back Jon. There was a full blooded Stark in the room that day, who was even more responsible for the toppling of the Bolton regime than Jon was and nobody even looked at her twice.

When the warden of the north was alive, Lord Glover actually said it - "The Starks are dead". Verbatim quote

For 5 series Jon has been 'the bastard'. Now that he's in power, is it a surprise that they hail him Stark?

There isn't a single character with the last name Stark that is politically relevant bro. Not a single one.

dreaizy:
bro d only part I disagree with is about the stark name they are like the oldest house in westeros, protect world of men from wildlings and white walkers,built d wall,the night watch, d major reason house targaryean ended I can keep telling you about them but house Tyrrell is a small &

new house not even the Lord's of their end.

Where are the Baratheons? Or the Tyrells? Or the Boltons? Or the Freys

Or even the targaryens? I would argue that the targaryen family line is completely dead otherwise Danaerys would be able to stroll into kings landing and just demand the throne by virtue of her name. But she can't because, really nobody reckons with that family anymore....hence the massive invading army, and her plan to marry some local nobility.

Forget story. Stark is dead. Snow rules now.

armadeo:


The theories we would hear before next year would be interesting.

Now it's a possibility since targaryan married themselves.

And Danny plans to marry in order to hold the seven kingdoms.

If john is established as the king in the north, the riverlands and the vale would give him their allegiance conditionally and that is three out of seven kingdoms making him the only viable option for darnerys to marry to rule the whole seven kingdoms with, besides the fact that he is actually a taegeryan and if rhaegar secretly married lyanna, the strongest claimant to the iron throne

Nihilist:


Jon is most definitely not a Stark.

The half-stark thing was just to give some legitimacy to the decision to back Jon. There was a full blooded Stark in the room that day, who was even more responsible for the toppling of the Bolton regime than Jon was and nobody even looked at her twice.

When the warden of the north was alive, Lord Glover actually said it - "The Starks are dead". Verbatim quote

For 5 series Jon has been 'the bastard'. Now that he's in power, is it a surprise that they hail him Stark?

There isn't a single character with the last name Stark that is politically relevant bro. Not a single one.

You make it sound as if the decision to prop up john to northern kingship was a purely political and strategic one! refusing to back him in the bastard bowl was mostly strategic and partly political hence their reference to him not being a stark, making him king of the north and acknowledging his blood ties to Ned was half strategic half emotional! Most northerners would follow a stark and by extension Neds blood to hell and beyond when their emotion is appealed to especially if that person exhibits all the traits they expect from a stark and a ward of ned, traits like dutifulness, loyalty, honour, courage, a strong sense of morals and justice, leadership in the battlefront, excellent swordsmanship albeit a little naivety is thrown into the mix but you'll agree these accurately describes ned, john and to a large extent robb

BraniacX:


You make it sound as if the decision to prop up john to northern kingship was a purely political and strategic one! refusing to back him in the bastard bowl was mostly strategic and partly political hence their reference to him not being a stark, making him king of the north and acknowledging his blood ties to Ned was half strategic half emotional! Most northerners would follow a stark and by extension Neds blood to hell and beyond when their emotion is appealed to especially if that person exhibits all the traits they expect from a stark and a ward of ned, traits like dutifulness, loyalty, honour, courage, a strong sense of morals and justice, leadership in the battlefront, excellent swordsmanship albeit a little naivety is thrown into the mix but you'll agree these accurately describes ned, john and to a large extent robb

Story.

Valour in battle is clearly irrelevant when assuming hereditary titles in Westeros.

I mean Lyanna was at that meeting, and Baelish was representing his yoing lord there too. Robb had little military experience and Bran has been lord for a day.

When you factor in Joffrey and Tommen, you realise that people will automatically follow you without challenge once you have the right name.

Jon doesn't have the right name and we've been repeatedly told that bastards cant lords. In any case, before Jon came to power most of those lords expressed little regard for the Stark name.

After Jon appears to defeat the royally appointed ruler of the North, these lords all suddenly remember that they are pledged to House Stark. Curiously enough, they pledge their loyalty to a guy whose name is actually not Stark, and who legally cannot assume office anyway....and all the while, there is an actual Stark sitting IN THE SAME ROOM.

Mehn these guys ain't send no Starks. Even if Jon wasn't a Stark bastard, they would have invented a connection to legitimise a very clear decision to sideline the Starks anyway.

Nihilist:


Story.

Valour in battle is clearly irrelevant when assuming hereditary titles in Westeros.

I mean Lyanna was at that meeting, and Baelish was representing his yoing lord there too. Robb had little military experience and Bran has been lord for a day.

When you factor in Joffrey and Tommen, you realise that people will automatically follow you without challenge once you have the right name.

Jon doesn't have the right name and we've been repeatedly told that bastards cant lords. In any case, before Jon came to power most of those lords expressed little regard for the Stark name.

After Jon appears to defeat the royally appointed ruler of the North, these lords all suddenly remember that they are pledged to House Stark. Curiously enough, they pledge their loyalty to a guy whose name is actually not Stark, and who legally cannot assume office anyway....and all the while, there is an actual Stark sitting IN THE SAME ROOM.

Mehn these guys ain't send no Starks. Even if Jon wasn't a Stark bastard, they would have invented a connection to legitimise a very clear decision to sideline the Starks anyway.

Are you saying that the fact that he had stark blood had nothing to do with his crowning? That it may have even hindered it?

Gbola5

why do you think Jon's true parentage will never be revealed to all of the other character.?

BraniacX:


If john is established as the king in the north, the riverlands and the vale would give him their allegiance conditionally and that is three out of seven kingdoms making him the only viable option for darnerys to marry to rule the whole seven kingdoms with, besides the fact that he is actually a taegeryan and if rhaegar secretly married lyanna, the strongest claimant to the iron throne

the riverland is still been controlled by the lannisters and Frey's,
edmure brief release was just to capture the castle.
hey,maybe Arya helps us out there.

the Vale really depends on how littlefinger and sansa manipulates that young lord.
the Vale knights where summoned by Tully blood,I doubt stark has anything to do with.

still,my guess is the marriage will happen.

SIRcumalot:
Gbola5

why do you think Jon's true parentage will never be revealed to all of the other character.?

By whom ? And how exactly is it relevant ? No could be less bothered really, except the viewers/readers. Revealing his true parentage doesn't automatically give him an access to the throne.

SIRcumalot:

the riverland is still been controlled by the lannisters and Frey's,
edmure brief release was just to capture the castle.
hey,maybe Arya helps us out there.

the Vale really depends on how littlefinger and sansa manipulates that young lord.
the Vale knights where summoned by Tully blood,I doubt stark has anything to do with.

still,my guess is the marriage will happen.

The Vale Knights were summoned by Baelish blood, he called the banners, to aid the Starks.

Nihilist:


Where are the Baratheons? Or the Tyrells? Or the Boltons? Or the Freys

Or even the targaryens? I would argue that the targaryen family line is completely dead otherwise Danaerys would be able to stroll into kings landing and just demand the throne by virtue of her name. But she can't because, really nobody reckons with that family anymore....hence the massive invading army, and her plan to marry some local nobility.

Forget story. Stark is dead. Snow rules now.

Why would she able to stroll into King's Landing otherwise ?

Gbola5:



Targaryens do not only marry amongst themselves. Dany was born in a time not to know how the previous Targs did things, all she has is stories by Viserys. It is unclear if she supports incest. Well its fantasy. Can it happen ? Sure. Should it happen ? No !!

Have you read the novels?

Gbola5:



Targaryens do not only marry amongst themselves. Dany was born in a time not to know how the previous Targs did things, all she has is stories by Viserys. It is unclear if she supports incest. Well its fantasy. Can it happen ? Sure. Should it happen ? No !!

see this one is here forming GRRM.

Gbola5:


Why would she able to stroll into King's Landing otherwise ?

I'm pretty sure the answer to your question was in the post you quoted

JonSnow:

Have you read the novels?

Yes i have.

FrankNetter:


see this one is here forming GRRM.

Please do not refer to someone you never met on the forum as 'this one'.

Nihilist:

I'm pretty sure the answer to your question was in the post you quoted

Not really, no.

Gbola5:


Not really, no.

Read again

Nihilist:

Where are the Baratheons? Or the Tyrells? Or the Boltons? Or the Freys
Or even the targaryens? I would argue that the targaryen family line is completely dead otherwise Danaerys would be able to stroll into kings landing and just demand the throne by virtue of her name. But she can't because, really nobody reckons with that family anymore....hence the massive invading army, and her plan to marry some local nobility.
Forget story. Stark is dead. Snow rules now.

Gbola5:



The Vale Knights were summoned by Baelish blood, he called the banners, to aid the Starks.

If Sansa doesn't possess Tully blood the vale knights really have no reason to fight for the starks.
She withdraws her support from Jon today and Jon loses them.
Also she is related by blood to Lysa's child who is the real lord of the vale.
Littlefinger hold on lysa child is unpredictable and can't go on forever.
His just a caretaker.

Concerning Jon. It is relevant
Because of the two prophecies about the promised prince.
It also makes for a good story.

By whom ? Howland Reed must be good for sometime after all This while.
He probably has something to show proof.

Gbola5:



Please do not refer to someone you never met on the forum as 'this one'.

and if i do? what will you do?

hack my system?

SIRcumalot:


If Sansa doesn't possess Tully blood the vale knights really have no reason to fight for the starks.
She withdraws her support from Jon today and Jon loses them.
Also she is related by blood to Lysa's child who is the real lord of the vale.
Littlefinger hold on lysa child is unpredictable and can't go on forever.
His just a caretaker.

Concerning Jon. It is relevant
Because of the two prophecies about the promised prince.
It also makes for a good story.

By whom ? Howland Reed must be good for sometime after all This while.
He probably has something to show proof.

The Knights of the Vale where following their Lord Protector's commands, their Lord Protector wanted them on the Starks' side, it didn't matter about Sansa's Tully blood.
As to Jon, i think (if the PtwP prophecy is all true) if Jon is tPtwP, he will play the role not because of his birth status, but because he feels a need to do something about the Walkers' threat; and that it just so happens that he is from the line of Jaeherys II, whose descendants the prophecy was to emerge from.
TL;DR: It's not his birth status as a Targaryen that makes him the PtwP, but the PtwP just happened to be a Targaryen.

Nihilist:


Story.

Valour in battle is clearly irrelevant when assuming hereditary titles in Westeros.

I mean Lyanna was at that meeting, and Baelish was representing his yoing lord there too. Robb had little military experience and Bran has been lord for a day.

When you factor in Joffrey and Tommen, you realise that people will automatically follow you without challenge once you have the right name.

Jon doesn't have the right name and we've been repeatedly told that bastards cant lords. In any case, before Jon came to power most of those lords expressed little regard for the Stark name.

After Jon appears to defeat the royally appointed ruler of the North, these lords all suddenly remember that they are pledged to House Stark. Curiously enough, they pledge their loyalty to a guy whose name is actually not Stark, and who legally cannot assume office anyway....and all the while, there is an actual Stark sitting IN THE SAME ROOM.

Mehn these guys ain't send no Starks. Even if Jon wasn't a Stark bastard, they would have invented a connection to legitimise a very clear decision to sideline the Starks anyway.

I disagree with you, starks individually might not be held in the highest regards but when push comes to shove the name "stark" is worth gold across westeros and anybody with that name or affiliation gets audience from lords and commoners, has castle gates and halls open to them, gets men to rally behind their banners so scoff at this assertion all you want, the starks are stuff of legends and by comparism in westeros, only the arryns and the lannisters come close, the baratheons, tullys, tyrells, martells and greyjoys have their elevation to high lordship as a recent phenomenom and a quirk of fortune associated to targayrean conquest and rhoynar sojourn, the gadeners of the reach, the casterlys of the west, the mudd of the riverlands, the durrandions of the stormlands, maybe the harren of the iron islands, the royce of the vale were all ancient houses comparable to the starks but among these lot the starks were the longest lasting so saying that the stark name doesn't carry weight politically is simply laughable! The lannisters tried to wed sansa (a stark) to tyrion in order to beget an heir acceptable to the north, the boltons wed ramsey to sansa (a stark) in order to produce an heir legitimately acceptable to the north, the whole of westeros know the north can only be held by a stark hence they want a stark that can be manipulated (for that is what sansa represents). The boltons didn't hold the north, they held winterfell and the dreadfort and were oppressing the smaller houses within reach but the greatest houses gave them no allegiance except when they felt there was mutual interest involved and i'm talking about the umbers, karstarks, manderlys and a few others, these could field enough men against the boltons anytime anyday, the ones being suppressed by the boltons were the ones whose levies had been decimated by the war of the five kings like the cerwyns, hornwoods, glovers, mormonts, so even if they could not field the army required against the boltons, they still held the boltons in little regard and contempt except coerced to do otherwise (e.g the flaying of lords cerwyn and his son) other northern houses were largely untouched by the wars but not large enough to field armies against the boltons single handedly includes the barrows, flints, wulls amongst others, my point is in normal climes the name "stark" was sufficient to assemble all these houses without threats, coercion or bribes, the name "stark" is the name they'll all answer to no matter how powerful they are individually so that says much for your assertion that house stark and the name stark is politically irrelevant

Gbola5:


The Knights of the Vale where following their Lord Protector's commands, their Lord Protector wanted them on the Starks' side, it didn't matter about Sansa's Tully blood.
As to Jon, i think (if the PtwP prophecy is all true) if Jon is tPtwP, he will play the role not because of his birth status, but because he feels a need to do something about the Walkers' threat; and that it just so happens that he is from the line of Jaeherys II, whose descendants the prophecy was to emerge from.
TL;DR: It's not his birth status as a Targaryen that makes him the PtwP, but the PtwP just happened to be a Targaryen.

Watch the fourth episode again and see that littlefinger doesn't command anything in the vale.
He suggested to Robin they should go rescue his "cousin"(Tully blood) and he agreed.

as to Jon.
that is too much coincidence.
the two leading candidates for the promised one are both connected to the line above.
this season he resigned his post as lord commander and to all,looks like he has giving up on everything then sansa appeared.
he didn't asked to be resurrected,nor did he asked to be made a king.
non of his actions should put him in such position of power.
but,he remains one of the last candidate for the prophecy.

SIRcumalot:

the riverland is still been controlled by the lannisters and Frey's,
edmure brief release was just to capture the castle.
hey,maybe Arya helps us out there.

the Vale really depends on how littlefinger and sansa manipulates that young lord.
the Vale knights where summoned by Tully blood,I doubt stark has anything to do with.

still,my guess is the marriage will happen.

The lannisters, (I discount the freys) have a lot to contend with now that the reach is no longer their ally, they wouldn't have the time, men nor resources to prop up the frey regime in the riverlands to the freys are all but done for now that walder, black walder and lothar are dead, first will be the internal battle for succession as the murders of three of their foremost lords will create an atmosphere of suspicion that would destroy them, there is no one frey whom all freys would willingly rally around, secondly they are being continuously harassed by the BWB and unless in numbers, frey troops can't march across the riverlands! So with internal and external conflict freys as a force to reckon with is simply laughable, thirdly, the freys like the boltons are not the strongest house in their region, many powerful houses like the mallisters, the blackwoods, brackens and even the tullys would rally behind the king in the north or individually decimate house freys waning power.

Yes the vale is little fingers to manipulate! That being said, he has openly declared for house stark against houses lannister and bolton during the bastard bowl and what is done can't be undone! So unless he sticks to his not too palatable role as ally to the north, he would find himself alone and stranded when jamie comes calling on cercei's orders and when daenerys comes swooping down on varys recommendation so no, he is not abandoning the north nor his hope of having sansa by his side on the iron throne anytime soon

BraniacX:


I disagree with you, starks individually might not be held in the highest regards but when push comes to shove the name "stark" is worth gold across westeros and anybody with that name or affiliation gets audience from lords and commoners, has castle gates and halls open to them, gets men to rally behind their banners so scoff at this assertion all you want, the starks are stuff of legends and by comparism in westeros, only the arryns and the lannisters come close, the baratheons, tullys, tyrells, martells and greyjoys have their elevation to high lordship as a recent phenomenom and a quirk of fortune associated to targayrean conquest and rhoynar sojourn, the gadeners of the reach, the casterlys of the west, the mudd of the riverlands, the durrandions of the stormlands, maybe the harren of the iron islands, the royce of the vale were all ancient houses comparable to the starks but among these lot the starks were the longest lasting so saying that the stark name doesn't carry weight politically is simply laughable! The lannisters tried to wed sansa (a stark) to tyrion in order to beget an heir acceptable to the north, the boltons wed ramsey to sansa (a stark) in order to produce an heir legitimately acceptable to the north, the whole of westeros know the north can only be held by a stark hence they want a stark that can be manipulated (for that is what sansa represents). The boltons didn't hold the north, they held winterfell and the dreadfort and were oppressing the smaller houses within reach but the greatest houses gave them no allegiance except when they felt there was mutual interest involved and i'm talking about the umbers, karstarks, manderlys and a few others, these could field enough men against the boltons anytime anyday, the ones being suppressed by the boltons were the ones whose levies had been decimated by the war of the five kings like the cerwyns, hornwoods, glovers, mormonts, so even if they could not field the army required against the boltons, they still held the boltons in little regard and contempt except coerced to do otherwise (e.g the flaying of lords cerwyn and his son) other northern houses were largely untouched by the wars but not large enough to field armies against the boltons single handedly includes the barrows, flints, wulls amongst others, my point is in normal climes the name "stark" was sufficient to assemble all these houses without threats, coercion or bribes, the name "stark" is the name they'll all answer to no matter how powerful they are individually so that says much for your assertion that house stark and the name stark is politically irrelevant

I couldn't have said it any better. Even beyond the Wall, the Wildlings had respect for the name 'Stark'.

BraniacX:


Yes the vale is little fingers to manipulate! That being said, he has openly declared for house stark against houses lannister and bolton during the bastard bowl and what is done can't be undone! So unless he sticks to his not too palatable role as ally to the north, he would find himself alone and stranded when jamie comes calling on cercei's orders and when daenerys comes swooping down on varys recommendation so no, he is not abandoning the north nor his hope of having sansa by his side on the iron throne anytime soon

I think Larry is done following Carol's orders. Carol's crowning will be more than Larry can take.

SIRcumalot:

Watch the fourth episode again and see that littlefinger doesn't command anything in the vale.
He suggested to Robin they should go rescue his "cousin"(Tully blood) and he agreed.

as to Jon.
that is too much coincidence.
the two leading candidates for the promised one are both connected to the line above.
this season he resigned his post as lord commander and to all,looks like he has giving up on everything then sansa appeared.
he didn't asked to be resurrected,nor did he asked to be made a king.
non of his actions should put him in such position of power.
but,he remains one of the last candidate for the prophecy.

That was Sweet Robin's Jus Ad Bellum, imposed on him by Littlefinger. All Littlefinger wanted was the Knights of the Vale mobilised and in his command.
Also, Jon's parentage reveal by some character is enough for us viewers/ readers, because then we would know that, "He is the Prince that was promised, and his is the Song of Ice and fire". An in-universe reveal where everyone in the ASOIAF universe gets to know about it, wouldn't make sense, they would ask for proof, and if they get it, they would pay it no mind. Having Jon fulfill a role he doesn't even know he's playing seems better writing. That's why i think his parentage doesn't need to be revealed to the other characters, but only the viewers will be aware of who he really is.