Jump to content

The Great Northern Conspiracy, Reexamined


Recommended Posts

That's fair but Manderley doesn't strike me as the guy to say, "Haha, gotcha! I never actually said Rickon. Sucks to be you!", especially after he is doing all this supposedly for the sake of honor. I don't know, we will see, there are fair points pro- and against.

Hehe, we're talking about the guy who was a gracious host, even gave a parting gift to his guests and then killed them, baked them in a pie and served it up to their relatives while having someone sing about the Rat Cook. Is it really that hard to believe that he'd use a sleight of language in another circumstance?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, as I understand it, there are some seemingly contradictory goals:

  • Stannis believes that HE and only HE is King of a united Westeros
  • Portions of the North may be conspiring to put a Stark (Jon/Rickon?) back on the Throne/in Winterfell

Isn't the simple way to resolve any tension that may eventually erupt be to give each side what they want?

If you marry Shireen to Rickon, then there is a Stark in Winterfell that's also a King. It unites the North and the Baratheons (like Robert/Ned wanted) and it solves any soldier/food shortage problems in the North since the Iron Bank is letting Stannis/Jon spend on its credit card. It would solve some outstanding problems (like settling the Wildlings on "The Gift") by giving it a Stark seal of approval in Rickon, and it leaves Jon Snow out of the political realm and free to do his work as LC of the NW/AAR/PtwP/whatever, and it leaves Bran to chill with BR beyond the Wall.

Rickon is young enough to be fostered, so Stannis can ensure he grows up to be loyal - and it also solves the problem of having a female Baratheon in line to the throne, since Shireen would have a good army behind her to protect her claim - something that would be necessary anyway since no female has ever inherited the throne. It would also help hedge Stannis' bets - with Shireen both a Baratheon and a Stark, his political position would be strengthened no matter what happens in the South since he'd have The Wall, the North (Rickon), the Stormlands, the heirs to Pyke (Asha, Theon), and his own claim to the throne. If Stannis was feeling generous, he could also very easily do a package deal with Arya/Edric Strom and make him the Baratheon heir to the Stormlands. Lastly, the whole Sansa/Harry the Heir thing is going to become public soon enough and the army that Littlefinger dangled in front of Sansa could be used by Stannis/Rickon to fight elsewhere (Riverrun? The Wall? South?)

The reason I like this solution though, is because its time to start tying up the political loose ends.

Marrying Rickon to Shireen pretty much ends the political problems in the North so it can focus on Winter/The Others

Stannis/Shireen cannot make Edric the Baratheon heir to the Stormlands. If he is legitimatized, he gets the Throne. He would be Robert's legitimate heir. If Edric and Arya marry, he'd take the name Stark as he is a bastard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stannis/Shireen cannot make Edric the Baratheon heir to the Stormlands. If he is legitimatized, he gets the Throne. He would be Robert's legitimate heir. If Edric and Arya marry, he'd take the name Stark as he is a bastard.

Bastards who are legitimated enter the succession at the very end, after all other rightful heirs unless otherwise stated. If Stannis is the King he can legitimate Edric without any immediate problem, since Edric would merely fall at the end of the succession (or not at all, if Stannis chose). This point was brought up to Robb by Cat about Jon Snow; while Jon being legitimate doesn't hurt Robb immediately, it sets up a possible confrontation later which makes it dangerous. IIRC, the line was something like "Once its done, it can't be undone." Edric can't "jump" the man who made him legitimate since the terms of succession are governed by the King, which is why there was so much confusion, for instance, over what the Blackfyre sword really meant and, more currently, its why Robb was able to disinherit Sansa.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bastards who are legitimated enter the succession at the very end, after all other rightful heirs unless otherwise stated. If Stannis is the King he can legitimate Edric without any immediate problem, since Edric would merely fall at the end of the succession (or not at all, if Stannis chose). This point was brought up to Robb by Cat about Jon Snow; while Jon being legitimate doesn't hurt Robb immediately, it sets up a possible confrontation later which makes it dangerous. IIRC, the line was something like "Once its done, it can't be undone." Edric can't "jump" the man who made him legitimate since the terms of succession are governed by the King, which is why there was so much confusion, for instance, over what the Blackfyre sword really meant and, more currently, its why Robb was able to disinherit Sansa.

I don't remember anything like that ever being said. Jon* is younger than Robb. Thus, legitimatizing him does nothing to harm his own claim. I did reread that section. Nothing mentioned about him coming last line. In fact, it is important that he doesn't to cut Tyrion out of inheriting it through Sansa.

*Jon may be older than Robb if R+L=J, but Robb doesn't know that. Cat was pregnant before Ned left and brought back Jon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't remember anything like that ever being said. Jon* is younger than Robb. Thus, legitimatizing him does nothing to harm his own claim. I did reread that section. Nothing mentioned about him coming last line. In fact, it is important that he doesn't to cut Tyrion out of inheriting it through Sansa.

*Jon may be older than Robb if R+L=J, but Robb doesn't know that. Cat was pregnant before Ned left and brought back Jon.

Age doesn't matter. Bastards that are legitimated cannot inherit before true-born heirs. We know this because Roose Bolton acknowledges as much when describing how any children born to his Fat Frey wife would probably be killed by Ramsey Snow-turned-Bolton, which is probably a good thing since having a young lord is the bane of any house. Even though Ramsey was legitimate and could technically inherit from his father, he would still be preceded by any other children his father might have. If Robb had only legitimated Jon Snow instead of naming him heir, Jon would have entered the Stark succession behind Rickon (assuming only male Starks can inherit Winterfell). If Stannis legitimated Edric Storm, he would not suddenly jump Stannis - he would just enter the line of succession either before (if women can't be Stormladies/inherit the Iron Throne) or after Shireen if they can.

Edit: On the point about Robb technically being younger than Jon, assuming R+L=J, if Jon's parentage ever comes to light then Robb legitimating Jon would have severe repercussions. Robb legitimating Jon not only puts him back into the Stark line of succession (usually at the end, but because of the will he'd be #1) but it legitimates him in all households in Westeros - including, presumably, the Targaryans. Since the first Dance of the Dragons settled the issue that Targaryan women can't inherit the Iron Throne, Jon being legitimated means he is also #2 in line (after fAegon) to the Targaryan Pretendership - regardless of whether or not R+L=J was "legitimate" or not - meaning that Howland Reed is probably the most important political player in Westeros and we've never even met him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Age doesn't matter. Bastards that are legitimated cannot inherit before true-born heirs. We know this because Roose Bolton acknowledges as much when describing how any children born to his Fat Frey wife would probably be killed by Ramsey Snow-turned-Bolton, which is probably a good thing since having a young lord is the bane of any house. Even though Ramsey was legitimate and could technically inherit from his father, he would still be preceded by any other children his father might have. If Robb had only legitimated Jon Snow instead of naming him heir, Jon would have entered the Stark succession behind Rickon (assuming only male Starks can inherit Winterfell). If Stannis legitimated Edric Storm, he would not suddenly jump Stannis - he would just enter the line of succession either before (if women can't be Stormladies/inherit the Iron Throne) or after Shireen if they can.

Edit: On the point about Robb technically being younger than Jon, assuming R+L=J, if Jon's parentage ever comes to light then Robb legitimating Jon would have severe repercussions. Robb legitimating Jon not only puts him back into the Stark line of succession (usually at the end, but because of the will he'd be #1) but it legitimates him in all households in Westeros - including, presumably, the Targaryans. Since the first Dance of the Dragons settled the issue that Targaryan women can't inherit the Iron Throne, Jon being legitimated means he is also #2 in line (after fAegon) to the Targaryan Pretendership - regardless of whether or not R+L=J was "legitimate" or not - meaning that Howland Reed is probably the most important political player in Westeros and we've never even met him.

I get what your saying, but I am not convinced and won't be until we see something point blank stating this. Honestly, I get the feelings bastards are a big iffy thing, so there is no hard fast rule about them. Ramsay doesn't need a lot of reasons to kill, so that's not that big of proof. Regardless, can't prove it either way, so I'm dropping it.

Though I'm not sure how much of an impact Robb's legitimization would affect the Iron Throne.

1. He can only legitimatize Jon if the North stays independent. If does not, he was a traitor, not a king and had no right to legitimatize anyone. The only exception would be is if part of the agreement to rejoin the Iron Throne acknowledges Robb as King of the North.

2. Robb, as King of the North, cannot go around legitimatizing southern bastards. They are different countries. Even if he legitimatizes him in the North, the Iron Throne is not in anyway forced to uphold Robb's decree where it concerns them. In short, Jon may be a Stark, but Robb does not have the authority to make him a Targeryon.

3. The holder of the Iron Throne could use Robb's decree to cut-off Jon from the Throne. "See. He's a Stark, not a Targeryon. Now go back North. The Throne is mine."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hehe, we're talking about the guy who was a gracious host, even gave a parting gift to his guests and then killed them, baked them in a pie and served it up to their relatives while having someone sing about the Rat Cook. Is it really that hard to believe that he'd use a sleight of language in another circumstance?

Manderly is the most underrated character in this series. I think he is absolutely great. He's absolutely loyal to the North, brave and ruthless when needed, yet everyone thinks he's a fat craven with no willpower. He plays the game very well.

Without the Manderlys, the North as we know it would have fallen completely with the Red Wedding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Age doesn't matter. Bastards that are legitimated cannot inherit before true-born heirs. We know this because Roose Bolton acknowledges as much when describing how any children born to his Fat Frey wife would probably be killed by Ramsey Snow-turned-Bolton, which is probably a good thing since having a young lord is the bane of any house. Even though Ramsey was legitimate and could technically inherit from his father, he would still be preceded by any other children his father might have. If Robb had only legitimated Jon Snow instead of naming him heir, Jon would have entered the Stark succession behind Rickon (assuming only male Starks can inherit Winterfell). If Stannis legitimated Edric Storm, he would not suddenly jump Stannis - he would just enter the line of succession either before (if women can't be Stormladies/inherit the Iron Throne) or after Shireen if they can.

There is no written law that says legitimized bastards cannot inherit before true-borns. I think it is not clear, giving the lords a chance to decide on their own where to put that bastard in the line. Age may matter, or he comes after the male heir, but before the female ones. Or after the females as well.

If Robbs will says "Jon is legitimized, and he is my heir", then he is the heir, even, if Bran and Rickon are alive. He is older than the boys, Robb wanted him to inherit. Even if Robb didn't know about Bran and Rickon, the North is now in a desperate state, and if the Lords would gather to decide who should be the king now, given Robb's will and the fact that the boys are alive, I think they would choose Jon, becoause he is exactly who they need right now.

(Ramsey may be afraid that Roose's children will come before him, because Roose may say so. So better get rid of them, so Roose won't have a choice.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...