Title distinction

Roose Bolton is only mentioned as being made Warden of the North and not Lord Paramount. being names Warden  is a military title that is not necessarily hereditary. With this in mind he is is not actually named to the highest position in the North (that be LP) until otherwise stated by some source within the show. With my opinion now stated on this issue, I'll refrain from making further edits to the page until the matter has been discussed. Balitant (talk) 01:13, October 19, 2013 (UTC)

The titles are not synonymous but it is splitting hairs to suspect that he isn't Lord Paramount, when it's strongly implied and we know from the books that he is. The Lord Paramount thing will play out as it must - I'm not quite sure what the third novel said Tywin's plans for Bolton are, exactly.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 04:53, October 19, 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately I'm away from home at the moment, and so, don't have access to my copy of ASOS. I do remember, though, when "Mhysa" was first aired, feeling that they did a very poor job of explaining this.
It also raises a question regarding how this plays out in the books: As we know, the crown can simply strip ancestral properties from rebellious lords, and give them to a new house, as happened with Riverrun and the Freys. That being said, why didn't Tywin just give Winterfell to Tyrion, allowing him to create his own, cadet branch of House Lannister? The Starks had been utterly crushed at this point; the only (supposedly) surviving member being a girl. No, the northern lords wouldn't gladly accept Tyrion as their liege lord, but surely this would be the case anyway, married to Sansa or not? It's not like they wouldn't know that she'd been forced into it!
This also raises a further question: Knowing Tywin's intentions for Tyrion to father a child with Sansa through which he could rule the North, why the heck did he arrange the whole JP/FA + Ramsay thing? Tywin completely defeats his own plans here... Roose, on the other hand, is much easier to understand. He knows full well that he's being played by Tywin, and he couldn't care less. He's simply biding his time, consolidating his power, and waiting for Stannis and the Lannisters to destroy each other so he can declare himself King in the North (or so Lady Ryswell seems to think).
Anyway, sorry for going off-topic. This discussion has just reminded me how much this bothered me!--The-Boy 08:21, October 19, 2013 (UTC)
I checked ASOS (translated version) and Tywin states that Bolton is Warden of the North. There's no mention of Lord Paramount when Tywin brings it up. Tywin also states that Dreadfort will wage war against the Ironborn for few years and see if Stark bannermen will fall in line. After that the North will "end up" to Tyrion's and Sansa's son.
If I understood it correctly, Tywin belives that Bolton and his new, highly dubious bannermen will deplete their resources in a bloody war against the Ironborn during the winter time, making the North far more receptive for Lannister rule, especially when the new ruler is half a Stark. Kinda makes sense to me. --Martell (talk) 14:41, October 19, 2013 (UTC)
As for why he didn't immediately give Winterfell to Tyrion - the Northmen would never have accepted an outsider on the strength of a marriage alliance alone. As he says in the TV show, they're waiting until if/when he has a child with Sansa. Up until then, the Boltons run the North. At least...everyone laughed when the Starks were hemmed in on all sides by their enemies: Lannisters to the south, ironborn to the west, Boltons to the east, but now it's a matter of "you break it you buy it". Without the Starks between them the ironborn will have to actually deal with the Lannisters/Boltons. Up until now it's been "going for the low hanging fruit" - "haha, Robb and his army are away, the ironborn come out to play" - the flayed corpses of Theon's crew are a prelude of what's to come.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 15:48, October 19, 2013 (UTC)
So was Ramsay's marriage to JP nothing to do with Winterfell, then, but purely so that Roose could gain the acceptance of the Northern lords by having a "Stark" grandchild? Maybe someone could check ADWD for me, because this is the bit the really puzzles me. Why did Tywin help orchestrate this deception when it works directly against his own plans for Sansa and Tyrion?--The-Boy 16:22, October 19, 2013 (UTC)
Remember that by the time the girl is sent North a certain event has happened that affects both Sansa and Tyrion....--Gonzalo84 (talk) 17:40, October 19, 2013 (UTC)
Well, guys, I was trying to avoid discussion of heavy spoilers. The same reason that we can't give an easy answer to people who keep asking to name her "Sansa Lannister". As we saw even on the TV show, though, the marriage wasn't even consummated, and I doubt that Tyrion or Sansa seriously consider themselves to be married afterwards.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 18:24, October 19, 2013 (UTC)
The issue that I have is two fold: (1) Is that at this point we have been shown in the show (and to the books, not truly a spoiler) is that he is always referenced as the Warden in the North. It means that that is his title and to call him the "Lord Paramount" is premature before a confirmation.  (2) Of course he would wish to move beyond the Wardenship and take steps to secure his position (which some people have shown through spoilers) but he has not been granted De-Jure control of the North. He may have the De facto power, but he cannot derive the required legitimacy to make his power and title hereditary yet. Balitant (talk) 01:11, October 20, 2013 (UTC)

They never even stated that Ned Stark was a "Lord Paramount" actually - but rather than pursue an absurd and strictly legalistic letter-of-the-law interpretation that Ned Stark isn't a Lord Paramount, we're supplementing with what we know from the books. If Season 4 explains the exact situation vis a vis Tyrion and the Boltons, we will update, but until then there is nothing else that can be changed: we'll go along with referring to the Boltons as the new (albeit temporary) Lords Paramount until proven otherwise.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 01:24, October 20, 2013 (UTC)

That is untrue, in both the show and the books. An example being the Arynn's who held both titles traditionally yet the Warden title was briefly given to Jaime. Even while Jaime held this title, the rest of the Vale lords still owed fealty to house Arynn which they continued to give. This distinction shows that they are not one and the same, and possessing the title of a Warden does not  give Bolton the fealty of the Stark bannermen automatically. I will say there is an ambiguity regarding the two and that is all. Either way, I will not go any further than sating my opposition to your opinion/decision on this. You have decided that it will remain this way then so be it,and while I may disagree with your opinion/decision on the matter I will not make any further edits to the page. Balitant (talk) 02:00, October 20, 2013 (UTC)

You've given your transient opinion. And given that it will in no way affect the information given in the actual article...of what value is it? Jaime being named a Warden was seen as controversial. No, no one is saying Warden and Lord Paramount are synonymous - but it is being treated as synonymous. Theoretically, what would happen if Bolton is the Warden but indeed not the Lord Paramount? Are you arguing that Tyrion is Lord Paramount in absentia? This was never referred to.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 02:35, October 20, 2013 (UTC)

I responded to the message that you left on my talk page via your own talk page. So I was not continuing a talk page discussion on a personal page, but responding to the comment you left on mine. And  I don't consider myself special for anything. I have already said my piece, and I am done. Thats all. Balitant (talk) 03:12, October 20, 2013 (UTC)