Jump to content


Photo

Bran, the King in the North?


126 replies to this topic

#21 juanml82

juanml82

    Waiting for the Skagosi Unicorn Cavalry

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,722 posts

Posted 25 January 2013 - 07:01 PM

Well, rules might be different for kings than for lords. Also, Robb can claim he's relying in the old customs the old Kingdom of the North instead of plainly inheriting the Seven Kingdoms laws (offtopic: It would have been great to have him called something like 'Robb, the thirty second of his name' or something like that, referring to the previous kings in the north)

The thing with Willas is, the Reach isn't touched by war until late in the books. The Reach lords probably didn't care as much for Willas' condition in peace time. But the North, ravaged by war, will probably look differently at a crippled ten years old boy. Then again, it's not like Rickon can account for anything in an army either.

#22 aryagonnakill

aryagonnakill

    Council Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,092 posts

Posted 26 January 2013 - 02:12 AM

I don't agree. Sam's father did what he did because he didn't want Sam's mother to find out. The options were : you go to the wall, or we go hunting, I have you killed, and tell your mother how sad it was when you were killed buy whatever. IMO he could have written such a will, but he hated his son so much for not being a soldier and being too girly that he wanted him out of the picture for good.

I agree, and also add that he did not want sam to "rub off" on his younger brother. A point about Jon inheriting, it has been mentioned in the books and is completely true that children inheriting crowns or lands or whatever is often the bane of that house. This can be for many reasons but when it comes down to Jon naming an heir in a time or war with a lot on the line, naming Jon makes perfect sense. Naming Bran or Rickon, or rather leaving it untouched/ bypassing Bran so there was no controversy about people not wanting a cripple, would have meant that one of his lords or Jon would have to be named Hand and would have been the one leading the Kingdom anyway.

#23 ross1983

ross1983

    Commoner

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 18 posts

Posted 26 January 2013 - 09:45 AM

Blood raven got to live a life as a man before going into the trees, and he's a targ, that's something worth noting.

Bran is a child, he's hasn't even lived yet and he's stuck down in the earth, maybe for years. That concerns me with his ability to not become something other than human as his abilities grow stronger. He's affectivly a god, or at the least one of te most powerful beings currently alive. That kind of power can and has corrupted people with more life experience.
I don't think Bran can be KITN but he MAY he rebuild winterfell and storms end...and the wall....


I like this theory! Like bran the builder! And remember in agot when arya asked Ned if bran would still become a knight? And Ned mentioned that he may raise castles one day. They put that conversation in the show to, which may mean there is some significance to Ned's response. Possible foreshadowing??!

#24 Apple the Great

Apple the Great

    Sellsword

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 114 posts

Posted 26 January 2013 - 09:46 AM

I've got to say I think people are holding it against Bran too much that he's a cripple. I've mentioned that Willas Tyrell is well regarded and people seem to accept that he will inherit the Reach. Prince Doran is effectively a cripple thanks to his severe gout and he doesn't leave the running of Dorne to a hand, so there is no reason why Bran should/would have to.

I agree that in war, the Northern Lords would perhaps be less supportive of a cripple king than at other times, but then Bran has a lot of other strengths; obviously he is a powerful greenseer and a skinchanger (which most people don't know about yet), but he is also the eldest trueborrn Stark son, and various Northern Lords, including Wyman Manderly know him from when he was Prince of Winterfell dispensing justice when Robb was fighting (my implication here being that the Northern Lords know that Bran was just and capable, even while a cripple). Rickon, by contrast, is a younger brother whose only qualities over Bran is that he has two working legs and is likely able to father children later on in life. He is a wild, unruly child without ever having had responsibility and is thus more unproven than Bran.

Supposing Jon Snow(Stark by this point?) hears of Robb's 'will' (does a spoken will still have authority?) legitimising him and naming him King in the North and of Bran's survival, do people think Jon would ride roughshod over his brother's claim and foresake his vows to the NW? Jon has a strong sense of duty and even fairness - I don't see him breaking his vows to actually abandon the NW at the expense of his brother's claim, since there are other Starks that could sit in Winterfell. Like Maester Aemon passing over the Iron Throne.

#25 Blackfyre Bob

Blackfyre Bob

    Freerider

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 69 posts

Posted 26 January 2013 - 10:19 AM

Does anybody else think that Rickon will end up being the KITN in the long term? I mean, besides Bran most likely replacing BR as the almighty greenseer, Jon's arc seems to be heading in a different direction, especially if the rumours about his parentage are true ... AND, Sansa's claim would be after Rickon's anyway, since she's a female, n'est ce pas?

#26 drigoly

drigoly

    Hedge Knight

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 318 posts

Posted 26 January 2013 - 11:07 AM

I'm not an expert on trees but i doubt that they can inherit anything, but ofc. Rickon will end up either beeing TKITN or lord of winterfell and warden of the north, that's the whole point of the character.

#27 BTR-90

BTR-90

    Freerider

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 40 posts

Posted 26 January 2013 - 11:38 AM

For all those saying why didn't Sam's dad make a similar will, May be he couldn't!

Robb was a king and King's can legitimze bastards and make any other changes they want , Lords can't.


Also once legitimised Jon will be the oldest STark child left as a result he is the heir to the North!

#28 Ser Ennepe

Ser Ennepe

    Knight of the Stannisguard

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 717 posts

Posted 26 January 2013 - 11:58 AM

I think Rickon will end up as the Lord of Winterfell, but Jon still can be the King in the North. He just takes another seat and there are instantly no problems. He could take Castle Black as his seat. After a few generations both lines could be merged through marriage alliances.

#29 Nelapsi

Nelapsi

    Squire

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 185 posts

Posted 26 January 2013 - 12:24 PM

I have no idea what will be going down with Rickon. The thing is, I can imagine possible endings for virtually EVERY character in ASOIAF except him. Maybe that's because we don't know much about him. Anyway, whatever GRRM comes up with, I will be suprised for sure.

EDIT : and I bet it'll be something great, since we kinda know he's a greenseer as well.

Edited by Nelapsi, 26 January 2013 - 12:25 PM.


#30 Eddward Stark

Eddward Stark

    Sellsword

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 116 posts

Posted 26 January 2013 - 01:34 PM

I think this thread is deviating a little from the OP's focus on Bran.

I agree with the Apple the Great. Most people seem to be dismissing the idea that Bran can still travel, assuming (1) he's fused with a tree, and/or (2) that being crippled prevents him from traveling.

As far as we know, Bran has not fused with a weirtree yet; he can access the weir-network by consuming their crushed nuts. Maybe he's even already learned to access the 'network' without consuming the nuts. Either way, there is no reason to believe that Bran is part tree. BR fused with tree roots to keep him alive far beyond the normal duration of human life, right? Thus Bran need only do this when he is a very old man.

Let's also not forget how Bran has cleverly found ways to travel already (using Hodor, using his wolf as a scout, etc.). Many able-bodied adults wouldn't have survived the journeys a crippled Bran already accomplished. How does being crippled prevent him from traveling again? So who is to say that Bran cannot live out his life until old age, like Bloodraven did?

Taking a step back and looking at the larger picture, GRRM seemingly used ADWD to put many young/inexperienced/POV characters in learning & training mode: Arya, Bran, and Sam are learning specific arts, while Jon, Dany, and Sansa are learning to be a leader or political player.

I think Bran is just as stationary as Sam is, i.e. when training is complete, he can go elsewhere.

Personally, I believe Bran would make an excellent Hand of the King (or Queen), whether it's for the King of the North or of the Seven Kingdoms. He would probably make the best Hand possible: brilliant, kind, superior knowledge of what goes on in realm, superior knowledge of history, ability to see glimpses of the future, high born, yet no ability to produce heirs (no threat to throne), trained by another very successful former Hand (BR).

Just a few other points:
  • We don't know much about Bloodraven's life (for example, did he go North of the Wall to get trained by the previous Greenseer, then go back out into the world, or did he just go there when he was already old?)
  • If Jon is legitimized one way or the other, he can always refuse a position, as Maester Aemon did, and as Jon already did once before. Bran would then inherit the position. If Jon's not legitimized.
  • There is a ton of time left in this series (Dany isn't even in Westeros yet!). For all we know, Bran could take the black and ultimately become Commander of the NW!


#31 Apple the Great

Apple the Great

    Sellsword

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 114 posts

Posted 26 January 2013 - 03:17 PM

Let's also not forget how Bran has cleverly found ways to travel already (using Hodor, using his wolf as a scout, etc.). Many able-bodied adults wouldn't have survived the journeys a crippled Bran already accomplished. How does being crippled prevent him from traveling again? So who is to say that Bran cannot live out his life until old age, like Bloodraven did?


Given the scale of Bran's powers, I think there is nothing stopping Bran controlling dragons. If Bran can controls dragons, then he can fly on them (perhaps with Hodor), which is far more mobile than most able-bodied characters.

On a different note, if Rickon was going to be introduced as a character of importance, I think he would have had more of a part in the last 5 books, though admittedly this doesn't rule out anything.

#32 Eddward Stark

Eddward Stark

    Sellsword

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 116 posts

Posted 26 January 2013 - 04:30 PM

Given the scale of Bran's powers, I think there is nothing stopping Bran controlling dragons. If Bran can controls dragons, then he can fly on them (perhaps with Hodor), which is far more mobile than most able-bodied characters.


I do think there's more to the Three-Eyed Crow's cryptic "[You will never walk again], but you will fly" line than just warging into ravens. If not, it wouldn't really be that special (countless wargs have done it before). I think we've yet to discover the way in which Bran will fly.

On a different note, if Rickon was going to be introduced as a character of importance, I think he would have had more of a part in the last 5 books, though admittedly this doesn't rule out anything.


I agree. People often point out that GRRM has no problem building up a character, only to have that character killed off. However, my theory is that the original characters in GoT are the important characters - the ones who'll make it to the end, save Ned and Cat (because the story is not about them after all - it's about their kids' generation). That leaves: Jon, Bran, Arya, Tyrion, Dany, Sansa. Note how Robb and Rickon never had POV's in GoT. Neither did any of the POV's who've died in later books. These later POV's were mainly added to tell the story more completely, not because those characters are the ones important in the end. Certainly I'd love a Rickon POV, but I doubt his character will become too developed.

#33 Anima

Anima

    Freerider

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 73 posts

Posted 26 January 2013 - 05:56 PM

The way I understand it Jon is not going to try to be the lord of Winterfell unless Ned Stark comes back from the grave and tells him that he can. Jon's just too complexed with his bastardy, even if he learns that Robb made him his heir he would at the most act as regent until a "true" Stark comes in.

Bran now has new obligations, the greenseers are like the high priests of the old gods religion. It is my understanding that priests rarely become kings or even lords in Westeros. I though am not convinced he will stay in the home of the children forever. In several books now GRRM as been speaking about a network of caves under the Wall and beyond. I just can't imagine someone not using those caves before the end of the story and in my opinion that someone may very well be Bran.

It may be misogynistic but I just can't picture the girls taking up the rule. They weren't trained for it. Arya is too wild and Sansa doesn't have the right qualities. She's (Sansa) smart and is learning to play the game of thrones but ruling isn't all about power games especially in the North where such practices are scarcer than in the South. And in the North sons pass before daughters

Thus my bet is on Rickon

#34 Stark Outlook

Stark Outlook

    Freerider

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 36 posts

Posted 27 January 2013 - 02:02 AM

It doesn't matter on what prefix Robb decided, Jon is still the--on a purely lawful point of view--heir to the North. A king, in Westerosi custom, can annul a man's vows, legitimize him from bastardom and make him his heir over his other sons or sibilings or anyone else. That was all done by Robb as he sent Maege Mormont, Jason Mallister and Galbart Glover up to the Neck with his letter saying Jon was his rightful heir. Now that Robb is dead, even if he didn't know Bran and Rickon were alive, Jon is his heir and will always be unless he hears of it and decides not to take the crown. Wyman Manderly doesn't know about the letter, which is mostly why he decides to get Rickon. Being a trueborn son of Eddard is also a major reason, but you catch the gist of it. :]


a legitimized bastard is last in the succession vs actual children so even if robb said jon is his heir when and if bran or rickon come back jon would be behind them as his claim is weakest. robb only considered naming him as he thought all his siblings were dead and that there was no time to wait for his son (if he ever had one) to grow up if he was killed. king or not he cant just make a rule to skip the line of succession.. and even if he could there would be no need, if he thinks every1 is dead all he would need do is legitimize him which would make him king in the north by default.

#35 summer_stark

summer_stark

    Hedge Knight

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 263 posts

Posted 27 January 2013 - 02:19 AM

I don't agree. Sam's father did what he did because he didn't want Sam's mother to find out. The options were : you go to the wall, or we go hunting, I have you killed, and tell your mother how sad it was when you were killed buy whatever. IMO he could have written such a will, but he hated his son so much for not being a soldier and being too girly that he wanted him out of the picture for good.


Disagree. Winter Warden is right insofar as we are talking about lords. The line of succession stays with that family--it's the king who determines who holds what lands--which is why kings can disinherit other families. So, because Robb was king, as king he can name his heir and disinherit whomever he wants.

HOWEVER: there was and is a legal rule called omitted heirs, or pretermitted heirs in current legal terms--the idea is that if a potential heir was left out unintentionally, usually because he wasn't born at the time of writing the will, or if he was thought dead, then the presumption is that the omitted heir should inherit as if he were in the will. The way this is disproved is if the will bequeaths something nominal, showing that the "omitted heir" was intentionally disinherited, or if the will specifically disinherits an heir.

Therefore, Bran still has a claim to Winterfell and possibly KotN. The question is, where does legitimacy put Jon in the line of succession? I personally don't think Jon would take Bran's place (assuming he's back by then--I do think he will leave). Same thing applies to Rickon of course, if he's there first. My guess is that the will specifically disinherits Sansa, throwing a wrench in Littlefinger's plan (bran, Rickon and Jon notwithstanding).

Edited by summer_stark, 27 January 2013 - 02:25 AM.


#36 Razha

Razha

    Hedge Knight

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 279 posts

Posted 27 January 2013 - 03:15 AM

I don't see Bran becoming King of the North for the simple reason - I don't think there will a Kingdom of North by the end of the series(I known there are many fans of this idea but sorry - it will not happen). Westeros will unite again around one king/or queen. This leaves possibility for someone (like Bran) to become a King in the North temporarily, untill he bows down to Daenerys the bloody queen or whoever will sit on the Iron thrones at the end. Therefore this long term plans of Kingship for Bran would be irrelevant. Bran was already an "acting" Lord of Winterfell - I dont't think there is a need to bring him back to do basicly the same functions again, especially when you still have Rikon and when "Bran - new Blood Raven" concept looks cool (and scary) enough.

Look at it form this point as well - Bran has been looking for three eyed crow from the very first book - this was his big mistery, big question, purpose if you want. So after 5 books he finaly has found the one. So how do you think with only 2 books left - is he gonna just hang around wityh Blood Raven during TWOW and travel back and become King of the North in ADOS? (Keeping in mind that just travelling from Winterfell to Bloodraven took a book and a half (entire ASOS and part of ADWD)

Not only it does not quite fit time wise, I find it also quite illogical - 5 books of "who is the three-eyed crow, what does it mean, let's find him" and then " well, it was nice to see you Mr. Blood Raven - but now I am gonna run back home to resolve some inheritance issues" /smile.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':)' />)) ... It simply does not work for me this way.

Edited by Razha, 27 January 2013 - 03:18 AM.


#37 juanml82

juanml82

    Waiting for the Skagosi Unicorn Cavalry

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,722 posts

Posted 27 January 2013 - 09:59 AM

Disagree. Winter Warden is right insofar as we are talking about lords. The line of succession stays with that family--it's the king who determines who holds what lands--which is why kings can disinherit other families. So, because Robb was king, as king he can name his heir and disinherit whomever he wants.

HOWEVER: there was and is a legal rule called omitted heirs, or pretermitted heirs in current legal terms--the idea is that if a potential heir was left out unintentionally, usually because he wasn't born at the time of writing the will, or if he was thought dead, then the presumption is that the omitted heir should inherit as if he were in the will. The way this is disproved is if the will bequeaths something nominal, showing that the "omitted heir" was intentionally disinherited, or if the will specifically disinherits an heir.

Therefore, Bran still has a claim to Winterfell and possibly KotN. The question is, where does legitimacy put Jon in the line of succession? I personally don't think Jon would take Bran's place (assuming he's back by then--I do think he will leave). Same thing applies to Rickon of course, if he's there first. My guess is that the will specifically disinherits Sansa, throwing a wrench in Littlefinger's plan (bran, Rickon and Jon notwithstanding).

Well, we don't know if such a law applies to Westeros, though. Question, Jon being a legitimized bastard man, still puts him behind Sansa and Arya in the line of succession or, as a man, he's in front of them? Because if he's behind, Robb had to write something in the will to the effects of putting Jon ahead of Sansa in the line of sucession, which might apply to Rickon and Bran if it's broad enough.
That said, neither Jon nor Bran arcs seem to be aiming at KoTN/LoW.... but who knows.
As Eddward Stark said, Bran could made a great hand of the king and he can always ask to be rescued, or maybe, warg a dragon and let the cave behind.

#38 Jovem Corvo

Jovem Corvo

    Sellsword

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 125 posts

Posted 27 January 2013 - 10:26 AM

Personally, I believe Bran would make an excellent Hand of the King (or Queen), whether it's for the King of the North or of the Seven Kingdoms. He would probably make the best Hand possible: brilliant, kind, superior knowledge of what goes on in realm, superior knowledge of history, ability to see glimpses of the future, high born, yet no ability to produce heirs (no threat to throne), trained by another very successful former Hand (BR).



Agree. Bran has this personality that suits best second-in-command positions if he wants a high position at all.

#39 summer_stark

summer_stark

    Hedge Knight

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 263 posts

Posted 27 January 2013 - 03:32 PM

Well, we don't know if such a law applies to Westeros, though. Question, Jon being a legitimized bastard man, still puts him behind Sansa and Arya in the line of succession or, as a man, he's in front of them? Because if he's behind, Robb had to write something in the will to the effects of putting Jon ahead of Sansa in the line of sucession, which might apply to Rickon and Bran if it's broad enough.
That said, neither Jon nor Bran arcs seem to be aiming at KoTN/LoW.... but who knows.
As Eddward Stark said, Bran could made a great hand of the king and he can always ask to be rescued, or maybe, warg a dragon and let the cave behind.


You're totally right re the omitted heirs law. No indication that it exists in Westeros. In fact, I highly doubt anyone will bring it up as law. If anything,I think it will be brought by Jon bc he would know that Robb thought the boys were dead and Jon would think it was the right thing to do. I just brought it up to clarify that intent matters in a will--and I think the question of Jona intent will arise. Granted power always wins out over law in Westeros so it wouldn't make a diff to most ppl except Jon.

Also, no idea where Jon sits in the line of succession, bc of course the act of legitimizing him changes everything. I do think the will specifically disinherits Sansa, since in Robb's mind at the time, she/her heirs would otherwise inherit if Jon died without heirs, which I'm sure Robb considered.

And totally agree that Bran would be a great Hand.

#40 Anima

Anima

    Freerider

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 73 posts

Posted 27 January 2013 - 04:35 PM

I really don't see why you people expect Bran to have a major major political role in the whole seven kingdoms or even just in the North in the future?

He's far too young. And if you start talking about his huge weirwood knowledge database I want to remind you that we have no idea how fast he can look through that database. So there's no reason to believe he'll grow to be a mature individual who'll play a major political role in the next two books.

Bran is a boy, and the way I've always seen it is that his new greenseer occupation was introduced for the sole purpose of revealing things that couldn't be revealed otherwise such as the best way to fight the others or Jon's parentage and maybe to use some old forgotten Singers (Those who sing the songs of the earth) magic against the others.