Jump to content

**ADWD Spoilers** Assuming R+L=J, Jon did not renounce the Iron Throne by taking the Black.


autarkh

Recommended Posts

For reference, the vow of the Night's Watch reads:



Night gathers, and now my watch begins. It shall not end until my death. I shall take no wife, hold no lands, father no children. I shall wear no crowns and win no glory. I shall live and die at my post. I am the sword in the darkness. I am the watcher on the walls. I am the fire that burns against the cold, the light that brings the dawn, the horn that wakes the sleepers, the shield that guards the realms of men. I pledge my life and honor to the Night's Watch, for this night and all the nights to come. (Emphasis added)



I tend to agree with the view that Jon’s murder at the end of ADWD—even if ultimately reversed by some magical means—literally constitutes his “death.” Therefore, arguably, Jon’s watch is now ended with Jon having literally discharged the obligations to which he committed by taking the Black. Of course, there’s also a decent argument to be made for the contrary view—particularly in light of that last bit of the vow, all the nights to come.



For purposes of this discussion, though, let’s put the whole issue of whether Jon has fulfilled his vows aside. I’m interested in debating another topic: whether Jon’s vows are voidable (or void) from the very outset.



I make the following assumptions up front:


  1. Jon's death at the end of ADWD has not released him from his vows, to the extent those vows are otherwise valid and enforceable.
  2. R+L=J is true, and can somehow be established publicly in a credible way.
  3. Jon did not know of his true parentage when he took the Black.
  4. Westerosi law roughly parallels the common law of contracts as it has developed in England and the United States over the last few centuries.
  5. By taking the Black, a recruit to the Night’s Watch assumes binding contractual obligations to the Watch and to his brothers; those obligations are defined by the oath itself as well as orders duly issued through the Watch’s command structure.
  6. Citizens of the Seven Kingdoms intended third-party beneficiaries of a Night Watchman’s obligations.


“I shall … hold no lands [and] wear no crowns”



This language is broad enough to operate as an irrevocable and binding renunciation of all current titles of nobility and land holdings; an abdication of any royal right to rulership; as well as a prospective waiver of any later-arising claims to such rights or privileges.



In Jon’s specific case, it bears noting that he took the Black freely. He was not compelled to do so in lieu of some punishment (which could alter the analysis to follow). This doesn’t make the oath any less binding for Jon. Indeed, the voluntary nature of the oath is the very thing that makes it binding. There’s no question that Jon would be violating the oath if, upon being legitimized (for instance, by Robb’s posthumous decree), he were to then make a claim to the Lordship of Winterfell. Jon could have various excellent reasons for doing so, but ultimately, he’d still be an oathbreaker. From a purely legal standpoint, another claimant to Winterfell—even one with an otherwise inferior claim—should be able to point to Jon’s oath in order to invalidate his claim.



With all of that said, I still think there’s a strong case against Jon having renounced the Iron Throne. At first glance, this may seem to contradict my previous statements. Yet, generally speaking, one cannot relinquish an unknown right unless one specifically intends to do so. It isn't clear that the Black accomplishes this. Let’s assume, however, that in addition to abdicating any crown that is currently held, and any known claim to such a crown, taking the Black is also generally understood as a promise never to seek any crown and never to accept one if offered on some basis that was unknown to a person when they took the Black.



Even in this scenario, if the original decision to take the Black was based on a material mistake of fact, then that mistake would tend to undermine the freely-given consent to be bound by the Black. Here, we know that Jon’s decision to take the Black was grounded, largely, on his mistaken belief that he is Ned Stark’s bastard. He holds this belief through no fault of his own. Ned affirmatively misrepresented to Jon and others (such as Catelyn) that he was Jon’s father. Moreover, Ned actively concealed Jon’s true parentage through his conduct and omissions of critical information that would have needed to be disclosed in order to make his statements and conduct not misleading. We know that these falsehoods greatly troubled Ned. We can infer that Ned’s consternation stemmed, at least in part, from his knowledge that the truth would have had a tremendous impact on Jon’s life and circumstances—including possibly on his decision to take the Black. Jon had a right to know who his parents were and no reason whatsoever to believe his “father,” the person he most trusted, would lie to him. So, ultimately, Jon’s “consent” is inextricably bound up with and induced by Ned’s fraudulent misrepresentations.



In abstract terms, the question presented is simply this:



When someone chooses to enter into a contract "voluntarily" based on lies concerning basic facts existing at the time of that choice, is the person still bound by that contract upon subsequently learning of the lies—where: (1) knowing the truth would almost certainly have led to making a different choice; and (2) the truth was not knowable at the time? What if, as here, the person who told the lies is also third-party beneficiary of the contract and has serious personal conflicts of interest? I’d argue "no" in both scenarios. I look forward to elaborating and debating any of the finer points justifying my reasoning. But the gist of my position is that, upon learning and publicly disclosing R+L=J, Jon would not be bound by the Black unless he recommitted to it with full knowledge of his actual parentage. To conclude otherwise is basically to permit someone to be tricked into joining the Watch and then be held to it. There's no honor or justice in that.



Not convinced? Here’s a plausible variation that makes this result even clearer: assume—as many have speculated—that Benjen Stark (who held the key leadership position of First Ranger at the time of Jon's training), actually knew of Ned’s deception. If so, then you have a direct party to the contract (since Benjen’s knowledge would be imputed to the Night’s Watch itself under normal agency principles) concealing that material fact from Jon. I’d take that case any day, pro bono, for the realm.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yet, generally speaking, one cannot relinquish an unknown right unless one specifically intends to do so.

I challenge this as a matter of law.

It's not for the promisee to assess or establish what the promisor knew at the time of making the promise. In a settlement agreement, where a party waives any claim or potential claim, that will generally pick up potential claims that the waiving party knew nothing about. Otherwise the settlement or promise is pretty much meaningless - you reach an agreement under which the counterparty waives all claims, only for them to come back 15 mins later with a huge claim.... Oh, but I didn't know about the circumstances giving rise to this claim at the time of the settlement.

It's different if the contract was entered into based upon a misrepresentation by the counterparty, I fully admit. But in this scenario the whole of Westeros is the beneficiary and not everyone in Westeros was a party to the misrepresentation.

Interesting theory though. If someone was duped into making the vows based upon a false premise, are the vows binding? Possibly not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not for the promisee to assess or establish what the promisor knew at the time of making the promise. In a settlement agreement, where a party waives any claim or potential claim, that will generally pick up potential claims that the waiving party knew nothing about. Otherwise the settlement or promise is pretty much meaningless - you reach an agreement under which the counterparty waives all claims, only for them to come back 15 mins later with a huge claim.... Oh, but I didn't know about the circumstances giving rise to this claim at the time of the settlement.

Agreed. But don't forget that most settlement agreements contain provisions expressly waiving unknown claims and allocating the risk of a mistake of fact to the party making the waiver. These provisions exist not only to meet statutory requirements (see, e.g., Cal. Civ. Code § 1542), but because not having them invites precisely the kinds of arguments you contemplate. The Black has nothing comparable.

It's different if the contract was entered into based upon a misrepresentation by the counterparty, I fully admit. But in this scenario the whole of Westeros is the beneficiary and not everyone in Westeros was a party to the misrepresentation.

Agreed. What’s interesting here is that Ned’s misrepresentation is material to Jon, but not necessarily to the Night’s Watch (kings have abdicated before, and Jon being Ned’s son isn’t particularly significant one way or the other—they just need recruits). So, although the misrepresentation is believed by basically everyone, including the parties (except possibly Benjen), it’s probably better characterized as a unilateral mistake than a mutual mistake.

Sections 153 and 154 of the Restatement (Second) of Contracts provide the potentially applicable rule.

153. When Mistake of One Party Makes a Contract Voidable

Where a mistake of one party at the time a contract was made as to a basic assumption on which he made the contract has a material effect on the agreed exchange of performances that is adverse to him, the contract is voidable by him if he does not bear the risk of the mistake under the rule stated in 154, and

a. the effect of the mistake is such that enforcement of the contract would be unconscionable, or

b. the other party had reason to know of the mistake or his fault caused the mistake

154. When a Party Bears the Risk of a Mistake

A party bears the risk of mistake when

a. the risk is allocated to him by agreement of the parties, or

b. he is aware, at the time the contract is made, that he has only limited knowledge with respect to the facts to which the mistake relates but treats his limited knowledge as sufficient, or

c. the risk is allocated to him by the court on the ground that it is reasonable in the circumstances to do so.

If Benjen knew, then we’re under Sec. 153.b. and it’s seems more clear cut.

If not, it’s Sec. 153.a., and it's less somewhat less so.

Alternatively, we can look to Sec. 164.

164. When a Misrepresentation Makes a Contract Voidable

(1) If a party's manifestation of assent is induced by either a fraudulent or a material misrepresentation by the other party upon which the recipient is justified in relying, the contract is voidable by the recipient.

(2) If a party's manifestation of assent is induced by either a fraudulent or a material misrepresentation by one who is not a party to the transaction upon whom the recipient is justified in relying, the contract is voidable by the recipient, unless the other party to the transaction in good faith and without reason to know of the misrepresentation either gives value or relies materially on the transaction.

Interesting theory though. If someone was duped into making the vows based upon a false premise, are the vows binding? Possibly not.

Thanks. It was fun to think about.

I agree that there are certainly some potential bases to find the vow binding, but it’s far from obvious—particularly if you start getting into equitable balancing. On the other hand, if it’s established that Benjen knew, then I think it does become fairly obvious that it’s not binding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How can he renounce something he never had?

This is an issue. But it's not impossible to solve.

He could have said something like "I shall wear no crown under any circumstance, even if I later learn that my parentage is different from what I believe when taking this vow; and by making this vow, I hereby assume the risk of any such mistaken belief."

Keep in mind, though, that this is a separate issue from whether the belief was not just mistaken, but induced by someone else's fraud.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry but Jon would never resort to such technicalities. He is a man of the NW. Even if he finds out that he is God-on-Earth, it does not change a damn thing.



Jon will not chase a crown or the IT. The only condition he could accept being the king in the end is that if he sees it as the only way to do his primary duty (protect the Realm of men) and even then, a Great Council will give him the crown.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry but Jon would never resort to such technicalities. He is a man of the NW. Even if he finds out that he is God-on-Earth, it does not change a damn thing.

Jon will not chase a crown or the IT. The only condition he could accept being the king in the end is that if he sees it as the only way to do his primary duty (protect the Realm of men) and even then, a Great Council will give him the crown.

You make a fair point in the sense that this discussion potentially implicates some complicated rules and requires parsing the language of Jon's vow.

But I disagree that it's a technicality. The issue at the heart of it all is fairly intuitive and speaks to basic fairness:

is Jon bound by a promise that he was deceived into making?

He can certainly re-commit to the promise after learning that R+L=J, but does he have to do so to not be an oathbreaker? I'd say no.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I Think that "I shall wear no crowns" is pretty straightforward: He shall never crown himself king. Whether he had legal claims to the throne that he did not know of is slightly irrelevant. After all a claim is only something that makes you accencion legal, in the end claim or not you always become king because you or someone else crowned you as such. You say that as the oath does not say "I shall wear no crowns under any circumstance, even if I later learn that my parentage is different from what I belive when I was taking the vow, and by taking this vow I hereby assume the risk of any such mistaken belief" and thereofre is not binding. I say that as he did not say "I shall renounce all known claims but not those who I did not know of" it is still binding. Again "I shall wear no crowns", it pretty much means "I shall never, under no circumstances crown myself king", case closed.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

  1. R+L=J is true, and can somehow be established publicly in a credible way.

Westerosi law roughly parallels the common law of contracts as it has developed in England and the United States over the last few centuries.

I don't think either of these are really in the cards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if we assume that Westerosi law has similar basis to our own in its particulars which is unlikely to be honest for a feudal environment Jon would still not be able to claim the Iron Throne for the simple reason of legitimacy..by which I do not mean his bastardy, but rather his legitimate right to rule after having broken his NIghts Watch vow.



Let us not forget that whatever legal niceties you make in the eyes of the majority these are irrelevant. Jon would not be able to rule or command the loyalty of his vassals.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless Jon is a Baratheon he has no right to the IT... if R+L=J (and legitimate) AT MOST he has a claim from a deposed dynasty that will only gain the throne back through Dany, and she would not give that to Jon under any circumstances...



The moment the 7 kingdoms pledged fielty to the Baratheon Dynasty in the eyes of the seven... any targ restoration will only be through conquest, and it won't be Jon nor it will be offered to him by any Targaryen



Besides, even if the people give it to him out of some fetish hero deed, Jon would not be a happy man on the IT... he is of the North and he loves it


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why are we assessing this based on American(think this is what the OP uses?) law? The legal system of Westeros is much less rigid, and very basic.

ETA: Also, its a unilateral contract here, unless i am very mistaken. Jon makes a promise to do something, but the other party (The NW, though you kind of have to strain to count them as a party) is not promising to do anything in return.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always wonder why people assume some huge trick when it would be just as easy to assume (if you want to make him king) the nightwatch is desolved... that would free him, especially if the wall falls.



Heck they could do with some re configuring of the guarding anyway.



I would almost revese the oath... maybe Ill start a thread on that later.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Night's Watch oath is not a contract. Contracts are not enforceable by the death penalty, but breaking your Night's Watch oath by desertion is. That is why Ned executes the deserters at the beginning of AGOT, and why he does it in the name of the King. And it is why Marsh executes, or tries to execute, Jon when Jon deserts at the end of ADWD. If Jon tries to take the throne, he will be committing a crime, not breaking a contract.

Also, if Jon dies, his claim to the Iron Throne dies, too. Ned stopped being Lord of Winterfell and his claim passed to Robb the moment Ned was executed. If Jon's death gets him out of the Watch, it ends his claim to the Iron Throne, too. (Incidentally, it also ends his claim to be King in the North under Robb's will).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jon will be a King. But not the "promising" one many expected of him. The prophesy never specified what he was promised to do. Humanity forgot and misinterpreted this prophesy years later.

"There must be anOther" -Rhaegar Targaryen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the Baratheon line is extinguished (i.e. Stannis and Shireen die or are somehow out of the picture in some other way) what happens next? Who has the next best claim?

To the majority of the realm Tommen and Myrcella are still Baratheons, if a dynasty ceases to have legitimate heirs, then a Council will likely legitimize the bastards or call for a decision that will not involve Dany (the faith doesn't like Dragons much) and surely not Ned Stark's bastard...

Dany will most likely get the IT by force, but even then, she will not give it to Jon, even if R+L=J was real and legitimate... she would not believe it or she would simply say "here are my dragons...so, what's that equation again?"...

For the IT to go to Jon in the end A LOT has to happen... and imo, it wouldn't be the best finale for his story, 90% of it spent in the far North...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jon's not going to try to take the IT......he seems to me like a guy who simply doesn't want the duty and/or responsibility of the crown.



I do believe the NW will eventually crumble...there is a reason why Jon is the 998th commander of the NW...that's no coincidence IMO. Something is going to happen to the 1000th....and somehow that's going to be tyed into the NW ending.



He may be forced to take it at the end, however, "For the good of the realm".


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...