The Latest News
Connect with Us

Notable Releases
From the Store
Game of Thrones House Stark Shot Glass
House Stark Shot Glass
HBO US
Featured Sites
License Holders

Jump to content


Photo

Is Robb's will void upon the reappearance of Rickon/Bran


  • Please log in to reply
58 replies to this topic

#1 Dave17

Dave17

    Sellsword

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 81 posts

Posted 20 September 2013 - 02:15 PM

Robb only made his will legitimising Jon because he though his other brothers were dead. When they reappear, or Rickon does atleast, would the lords that stood witness to it say it was made in 'bad faith' and proclaim it void?

I think Jon will himself void it and stand behind Bran/Rickon 100%, but we are yet to see how he responds to his recent attack, he could become power hungry and want the throne for himself. Would the lords back Jon or see Rickon as the rightful heir?

What if Rickon doesn't come back from Skagos, would Jon step down for Sansa (Tyrion-less), there wasn't much love between them, and in Westeros female rulers aren't generally perceived well. Would the northern lords back Sansa or legitimised Jon?

#2 Mladen

Mladen

    Lady's Ghost

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,229 posts

Posted 20 September 2013 - 02:22 PM

Hello, Dave17, welcome to the forum /cheers.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':cheers:' /> . May you have great time here...

Robb's will can't be set aside so easily. It will all depend on Jon, and since he already proved that he is not interested in titles, I actually see him doing the job until Rickon comes of age and then step back and return to NW. As for Sansa, Jon also proved that he is ready to step back for her. Whether Northern lords will be able to choose, I doubt it. Stark will never go against Stark. And Sansa could be beneficial ally to Northern cause by annexing the Vale into Kingdom of North and Riverlands...

#3 thewingedwolf

thewingedwolf

    Warden of Montreal

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,933 posts

Posted 20 September 2013 - 02:25 PM

The problem with wills, as it was pointed out in several threads, is that they are very difficult to enforce, given that the author is no longer around to make sure they are carried through. However, in the case of the North, I agree with Mladen the northerners are far too honourable and dedicated to the Starks (save the Boltons of course) to create strife at a time when, quite frankly, the North will need to be united more than ever (with the threat of the others and the need to rebuild from the war).

Welcome to the forums, I hope you enjoy yourself and looking forward to reading you!

#4 Arya kiddin'

Arya kiddin'

    Needle's Sheath

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,514 posts

Posted 20 September 2013 - 02:30 PM

Jon may take the Northern throne to stabilize the realm, but never in my eyes would he truly have deserved it. That is a seat of the wolves, and technichally he is a Dragon (Yes technicality matters here, half wolf on the mother's side, not father's).

As for Jon stepping down after Rickon comes off age, I'd like that. But it would be even better if Sansa rules till Rickon comes of age, but the chances of that are pretty thin, as she married a Lannister and the Northern Lords may not stand behind her.

#5 jenerationx

jenerationx

    Hedge Knight

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 363 posts

Posted 20 September 2013 - 02:38 PM

No. It won't.

Unless Robb specifically included language making the exceptions and caveats (and why would he, when he "knew" his brothers were dead? You don't make concessions for dead people), his will stands as written, with Jon as his heir.

Whether anyone will want to follow the letter of the will is another question, but it doesn't invalidate the will itself.

Agree that Jon will not take Winterfell over his trueborn brothers, but not by "voiding" the will. By your logic, this is contradictory anyway. If the will is "void" the second Bran and Rickon are discovered alive, Jon won't have the power to void it. He only has the power to do such a thing if he is in a position of power wrt Winterfell, and if he has that power, then obviously the will was NOT voided with the reappearance of Bran and Rickon. In any case, he can "abdicate" or whatever, or remove himself, the way Aemon did. Not by voiding Robb's will.

Jon may take the Northern throne to stabilize the realm, but never in my eyes would he truly have deserved it. That is a seat of the wolves, and technichally he is a Dragon (Yes technicality matters here, half wolf on the mother's side, not father's).


I don't understand this. A person is equally half their mother and half their father. Why is he "technically a dragon"? Fathers have more genetic ability in Westeros or something?

He was raised a Stark/wolf, looks more like a Stark than even some of his Stark siblings, and has a direwolf himself. If anything, he is "more wolf" than dragon. I believe he's equally both, but if you really had to make me pick, I'd definitely err on the side of wolf.

Edited by jenerationx, 20 September 2013 - 02:42 PM.


#6 The Broke Howard Hughes

The Broke Howard Hughes

    King of Winter's Hand

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,617 posts

Posted 20 September 2013 - 02:41 PM

I don't see anyone trying to set aside Robb's will unless they were looking to build up their own house by turning Stark against Stark. Jon would cleary make sure Rickon snd Bran are taken care of, but until they come of age he'd take care of business for the good of the north and house Stark. He's a northerner, he wouldn't need a will enforced or set aside to know what the right thing is.

Edited by The Broke Howard Hughes, 20 September 2013 - 02:44 PM.


#7 Arya kiddin'

Arya kiddin'

    Needle's Sheath

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,514 posts

Posted 20 September 2013 - 02:51 PM

I don't understand this. A person is equally half their mother and half their father. Why is he "technically a dragon"? Fathers have more genetic ability in Westeros or something?

He was raised a Stark/wolf, looks more like a Stark than even some of his Stark siblings, and has a direwolf himself. If anything, he is "more wolf" than dragon. I believe he's equally both, but if you really had to make me pick, I'd definitely err on the side of wolf.


I'm giving my opinion. There is nothing not to understand here. /smile.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':)' />

The laws of succession are pretty clear, after Bran and Rickon come Arya and Sansa, then Benjen given he is alive, and then you consider Jon Snow, who is Lyanna's son. Of course the knowledge R+L = J may not be there with the Northern Lords, and they may go ahead with robb's will, but if you read carefully, that's why I said "in my eyes" - that is me knowing he is so far down in the succession would weaken my respect for him as a character. Why does it matter if he looks like a Stark, the right matters. He is a Targ now, and has no right to the seat of House Stark.

#8 Rod123

Rod123

    Hedge Knight

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 276 posts

Posted 20 September 2013 - 02:51 PM

Jon may take the Northern throne to stabilize the realm, but never in my eyes would he truly have deserved it. That is a seat of the wolves, and technichally he is a Dragon (Yes technicality matters here, half wolf on the mother's side, not father's).

As for Jon stepping down after Rickon comes off age, I'd like that. But it would be even better if Sansa rules till Rickon comes of age, but the chances of that are pretty thin, as she married a Lannister and the Northern Lords may not stand behind her.


And the other Starks are half fish, so it really doesnt matters as much as the gender of the individual per se.

Both in real life and the books, sons of the mother have as much right, like during the dance of dragons.

#9 Arya kiddin'

Arya kiddin'

    Needle's Sheath

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,514 posts

Posted 20 September 2013 - 02:55 PM

And the other Starks are half fish, so it really doesnt matters as much as the gender of the individual per se.


They're wolves on the father's side, the laws of succession are pretty clear, can't believe I have to argue this point here.

Both in real life and the books, sons of the mother have as much right, like during the dance of dragons.


This comment is completely off. Aegon II and Rhaenyra were both the children of Viserys I.

#10 jenerationx

jenerationx

    Hedge Knight

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 363 posts

Posted 20 September 2013 - 02:56 PM

I'm giving my opinion. There is nothing not to understand here. /smile.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':)' />

The laws of succession are pretty clear, after Bran and Rickon come Arya and Sansa, then Benjen given he is alive, and then you consider Jon Snow, who is Lyanna's son. Of course the knowledge R+L = J may not be there with the Northern Lords, and they may go ahead with robb's will, but if you read carefully, that's why I said "in my eyes" - that is me knowing he is so far down in the succession would weaken my respect for him as a character. Why does it matter if he looks like a Stark, the right matters. He is a Targ now, and has no right to the seat of House Stark.


The fact that in your eyes he won't "truly deserve" Winterfell is not what I was responding to, actually. As I said, what I didn't understand is why he is "technically a dragon." By saying "technically," that is not an opinion; it is being presented as fact. And I was saying that I don't get why he would be technically a dragon, given that he is actually technically half his mother and half his father.

#11 Petyr Patter

Petyr Patter

    Council Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,128 posts

Posted 20 September 2013 - 02:58 PM

The real problem with the will is it unlawful to begin with. Jon, no matter who his father, no matter what any king may say, is a sworn brother of the Night's Watch. He promised to hold no lands, and wear no crowns, until his death. He can't be Robb's heir without being an oathbreaker/deserter.

If Bran or Rickon were revealed to be alive, it would quickly help clarify a very dubious legal position.

#12 jenerationx

jenerationx

    Hedge Knight

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 363 posts

Posted 20 September 2013 - 03:00 PM

They're wolves on the father's side, the laws of succession are pretty clear, can't believe I have to argue this point here.


You never really made it clear in your original post that you were talking specifically about laws of succession. If that's the case, then sure, I see where you're coming from. But it wasn't entirely obvious that that's what you meant, since their animal "familiars" (for lack of a better word) have quite a bit of impact beyond their use as mascots.

#13 Arya kiddin'

Arya kiddin'

    Needle's Sheath

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,514 posts

Posted 20 September 2013 - 03:01 PM

The fact that in your eyes he won't "truly deserve" Winterfell is not what I was responding to, actually. As I said, what I didn't understand is why he is "technically a dragon." By saying "technically," that is not an opinion; it is being presented as fact. And I was saying that I don't get why he would be technically a dragon, given that he is actually technically half his mother and half his father.


Ok, he has three heads Snow, Stark, Targ blah, agreed, I'm arguing the same point in two threads, whatever the case the man is neither entitled to both the second names nor both the inheritances. He'll get his father's surname and his father's inheritance (void now). In future he may choose to leave his Targ name, but that doesb't mean people will seat him on the Stark high seat.

#14 Arya kiddin'

Arya kiddin'

    Needle's Sheath

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,514 posts

Posted 20 September 2013 - 03:02 PM

You never really made it clear in your original post that you were talking specifically about laws of succession. If that's the case, then sure, I see where you're coming from. But it wasn't entirely obvious that that's what you meant, since their animal "familiars" (for lack of a better word) have quite a bit of impact beyond their use as mascots.


You quoted my post in which I was saying this earlier also, but that could be a mistake. Glad this misunderstanding is cleared up. /smile.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':)' />

#15 juanml82

juanml82

    Waiting for the Skagosi Unicorn Cavalry

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,915 posts

Posted 20 September 2013 - 03:12 PM

The real problem with the will is it unlawful to begin with. Jon, no matter who his father, no matter what any king may say, is a sworn brother of the Night's Watch. He promised to hold no lands, and wear no crowns, until his death. He can't be Robb's heir without being an oathbreaker/deserter.

Unless he dies before accepting the kingship /eek.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':eek:' />

I think there is no clear legal corpus so the will isn't voided but, at the same time, its lawful status becomes murky. At the end of the day, if (Lord?) Wylis Manderly retrieves Rickon and declares he considers the will null and will only stand behind Lord Rickard Stark, the military power of House Manderly is likely to enforce that "interpretation" of the law.
And there is the matter of how LF will react to Rickon and the Will. He will have no legal basis, but that's unlikely to stop him in claiming the North for Sansa.

#16 jenerationx

jenerationx

    Hedge Knight

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 363 posts

Posted 20 September 2013 - 03:14 PM

You quoted my post in which I was saying this earlier also, but that could be a mistake. Glad this misunderstanding is cleared up. /smile.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':)' />


This is what I quoted from you earlier in this thread, but still stand by that I didn't get that you meant laws of succession from it:

Jon may take the Northern throne to stabilize the realm, but never in my eyes would he truly have deserved it. That is a seat of the wolves, and technichally he is a Dragon (Yes technicality matters here, half wolf on the mother's side, not father's).


If you meant in another thread, you're talking about someone else. The only other thread I participated in today was the one about Rickon's future impact, and the only person I quoted was MotherMerciless.

Edited by jenerationx, 20 September 2013 - 03:16 PM.


#17 Arya kiddin'

Arya kiddin'

    Needle's Sheath

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,514 posts

Posted 20 September 2013 - 03:19 PM

I'm giving my opinion. There is nothing not to understand here. /smile.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':)' />

The laws of succession are pretty clear, after Bran and Rickon come Arya and Sansa, then Benjen given he is alive, and then you consider Jon Snow, who is Lyanna's son. Of course the knowledge R+L = J may not be there with the Northern Lords, and they may go ahead with robb's will, but if you read carefully, that's why I said "in my eyes" - that is me knowing he is so far down in the succession would weaken my respect for him as a character. Why does it matter if he looks like a Stark, the right matters. He is a Targ now, and has no right to the seat of House Stark.


This is my post.

The fact that in your eyes he won't "truly deserve" Winterfell is not what I was responding to, actually. As I said, what I didn't understand is why he is "technically a dragon." By saying "technically," that is not an opinion; it is being presented as fact. And I was saying that I don't get why he would be technically a dragon, given that he is actually technically half his mother and half his father.


This is what you replied. Post #10 on this thread. /rolleyes.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':rolleyes:' />

#18 jenerationx

jenerationx

    Hedge Knight

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 363 posts

Posted 20 September 2013 - 03:26 PM

This is my post.


This is what you replied. Post #10 on this thread. /rolleyes.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':rolleyes:' />


Aha thanks. Well with your reply, I had to clear up the fact that I wasn't referring to your opinion on whether or not Jon deserved Winterfell. The original misunderstanding was from the original post. Had I known you were talking about laws of succession in that first post, I wouldn't have responded in the first place that I didn't get what you meant. /smile.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':)' /> But once you replied, there was another misunderstanding I felt I had to clear up. The joys of the interwebs.

#19 Dave17

Dave17

    Sellsword

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 81 posts

Posted 20 September 2013 - 03:26 PM

The question i was trying to ask is who would the bannermen support if Jon didnt give up the throne/Winterfell. Since the WOT5Ks the Starks have lost all their individual strength, and there power only lies within the armies of there bannermen. Would the other Lords follow Jon or flock to Rickon.

This is assuming Jon doesnt giveup the crown (Possibly due to him becoming a pawn of Melisandre after being resurrected?)

#20 Arya kiddin'

Arya kiddin'

    Needle's Sheath

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,514 posts

Posted 20 September 2013 - 03:29 PM

Aha thanks. Well with your reply, I had to clear up the fact that I wasn't referring to your opinion on whether or not Jon deserved Winterfell. The original misunderstanding was from the original post. Had I known you were talking about laws of succession in that first post, I wouldn't have responded in the first place that I didn't get what you meant. /smile.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':)' /> But once you replied, there was another misunderstanding I felt I had to clear up. The joys of the interwebs.


The joy indeed, and the impertinence we both displayed. Half the posts in this thread so far are us clearing up which post belongs to whom, and when was it posted. /lol.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':lol:' />