purple-eyes Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 NW men should not have own land or build family, etc. But Robb named Jon as a stark as well as the heir to Winterfell. It seems like he ignored the oath of NW. Same thing with Stannis. He offered winterfell as well as a wife to Jon although he did know he is a NW man. So king's will can override these oaths, right?Like King joff dismissed Barri. (so Barri can marry a woman if he wants, am I right?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LiveFirstDieLater Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 We don't know who is in Robb's will...in theory a king can do whatever they want, it doesn't change the fact that an oath was made in front of Gods and Men, but Jon refused Stannis's offer of Winterfell, I don't think he'd accept it from a piece of paper. Seems more likely it'll be the whole dying thing that might get him out of that oath, if he gets out of it at all... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LiveFirstDieLater Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 Now if the will is more generic, like "if there are no true blooded Starks to be found, a bastard will do" it could have all sorts of unintended consequences...but if I had to bet on a Lord of Winterfell for the end of the series I'd say Rickon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RumHam Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 The second concerns the oaths of the Night Watch, Maesters, King's Guard, silent sisters, etc. Both Robb and Stannis, and presumably Robb's great lords, thought it was possible that Jon could be released form his oaths. Other than the precedent established by Joffrey with Ser Barristan, is there any other past precedent with any of the other organizations were the members swear poverty, celibacy, etc. to be honorably released from their vows? I ask because if the NW has been around for 8000 years, and many great lords and/or their families may have joined (not entirely willing in some cases), there seems to be a lot of potential for "exceptions" to develop as time went on.Yes, there have been a few other cases, but they have been very rare. Such vows are taken very seriously.http://www.westeros.org/Citadel/SSM/Entry/Nights_Watch_Oath Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPTWP Timett Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 I don't think a kings will overrides the oath however I do think if Robb had sent a hundred men they would have suddenly remembered a loophole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeeves Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 No. Robb's will cannot break the Night's Watch oath. At best, Robb was only king in the north. The Night Watch serves and protects the entire kingdom. Robb, even if he was king in the north, does not have this authority. The Watch is not a vassal of the north. Robb does not have the authority to decide for whole kingdom. His rebellion was stopped, so there is no reason to put any value on his will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Frasier of House Crane Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 No. Stannis couldn't force Jon to renege on his Night's Watch vows, and he was a claimant to the entirety of the Seven Kingdoms. Robb was just the King in the North. And Aemon removed himself to the Wall so there would be absolutely no chance of being in the discussion for succession. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Viserys Targaryen IV Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 The question that I have is why didn't Robb try to get Jon out as soon as he heard about Bran and Rickon?He is King, and he is now desperately out of heirs, plus Jon is his best friend and brother. As King he could have legitimized him (as a non-Stark) and made him a bannerman at the very least. You can never have too many people you trust by your side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Impbread Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 JOHN sNOW TOOK THE OATH. The brothers of the Night'a Watch killed him. When he rises again it will be as John Targaryen who never took the oath. When he is "dead" Bran will reveal to him who his real parents are just as the three eyed crow talked to him while he was "dead". He nay also open up his third eye. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Impbread Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 He will also rise stronger then ever. Just as Vitarion did when Maroqqo fixed his arm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thelittledragonthatcould Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 Of course he could. GRRM was asked about people being released from Maesters/Kingsguard/Nightswatch vows and he answered:Yes, there have been a few other cases, but they have been very rare. Such vows are taken very seriously. So yes, in theory, he could. The biggest stumbling for Robb was that he was still technically a pretender. Fighting his war for independence, he was not exactly on solid ground making such proclamations, especially as doing so may well alienate some of his own supporters.Had Robb secured his Kingdom it would have been a lot easier for him to do so, but his reign was transient and unlikely to be officially recognized. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Durran Durrandon Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 Rob's will can negate Jon's oath of the Northern lords believe it does. They respect the Night's Watch and their oaths, but they don't want to answer to Roose, especially if Ramsey is his heir, so they may just decide the will fees him. That's all that matters, not legal arguments. It won't matter if Jon refuses it anyway and ends up installing Rickon or Sansa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GuardstheRealmsofMen Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 There could be a loophole (as Impbread speculated above) but in theory a vow made to the gods cannot be broken by men. That's why it is made to whatever gods you happen to believe in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Universal Sword Donor Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 Well it really depends on if the Watch is willing to allow it or not? Would they prefer 100 men Robb would send or Jon Snow? Given the assassination attempt, I'd say there would be a healthy debate. As the laws of Westeros stop at the wall and Jon took those vows willingly (not convicted of anything), I'd imagine that it'd be open for discussion. A Great Council was willing to give Aemon the crown, yet he was a maester. If the IT, or the northern lords decided to take up the sword again for a new KiTN, thought it would be beneficial, I'd imagine they'd have to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonberry Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 I say nay. He did not have the legal authority to release Jon even as the King in the North. In our story, even Stannis, who styles himself as the rightful king of the Seven Kingdoms (a greater source of legal authority than King in the North), does not have legal power over Lord Commander Snow and must deal with Jon using negotiation and the threat of coercion.Also, in death, Robb's will will have no legal authority. Robb was a failed usurper and traitor to the crown. The acts of such rulers are usually discarded after their demises. I suppose a new King in the North who successfully wins independence from the Iron Throne could make a case to validate Robb's will, but wouldn't that king then be advocating for a rival claimant against his own power (dumb move)? Or if it's Jon himself, we get into a silly circular logic situation. "Since I'm the King in the North, I decree that Robb's will is valid, making me King in the North..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Fossoway Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 Robb is a northener, they hold in great esteem the NW, however decadent it may be. Jeor abdicated his seat and lordship and joined the Watch; Benjen, the youngest son of the Lord of Winterfell, joined the Watch (being a member of the Great House can still give any one of them some privileges so I don't think Benjen joined because he couldn't inherit anything). You have some southron there but most of them joined because of other reasons. My point is that Robb is not likely to name Jon his heir, if it means making him break the vows. Stannis did, but take into consideration he's southron. He sees his own interests first. As for Robb, I think he would think that first option is, when is no direct heir, to put it into the hands of his bannermen. I don't see him setting Jon up in that break-your-vows-or-else scenario. Being a king, he CAN override the NW vows, but would he? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Universal Sword Donor Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 I'd also like to point out, insofar as we know, Robb was never going to force the Watch to do anything. He was willing to negotiate:“So do the knights of the Kingsguard. That did not stop the Lannisters from stripping the white cloaks from Ser Barristan Selmy and Ser Boros Blount when they had no more use for them. If I send the Watch a hundred men in Jon’s place, I’ll wager they find some way to release him from his vows.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Three Whores Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 Yes, there is precedence fora man being released from their oaths. As thelittledragonthatcould said above. http://www.westeros.org/Citadel/SSM/Entry/Nights_Watch_Oath Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackfyre Bastard Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 No. Robb's will cannot break the Night's Watch oath. At best, Robb was only king in the north. The Night Watch serves and protects the entire kingdom. Robb, even if he was king in the north, does not have this authority. The Watch is not a vassal of the north. Robb does not have the authority to decide for whole kingdom. His rebellion was stopped, so there is no reason to put any value on his will. No. Stannis couldn't force Jon to renege on his Night's Watch vows, and he was a claimant to the entirety of the Seven Kingdoms. Robb was just the King in the North. And Aemon removed himself to the Wall so there would be absolutely no chance of being in the discussion for succession. I don't see why the authority of the IT should supersede that of the KitN. After all, during the 7700 years between the establishment of the Night's Watch and Aegon I's conquest of Westeros (sans Dorne) there were hundreds of small kingdoms that had the same authority the IT has over the NW (none,) which is an independent entity formed to guard the Realm of Men from its enemies beyond the Wall, modeled precisely to answer to no polity.It would be interesting to learn of those few exceptions GRRM mentions, in which the NW relinquished some of its members, but I'm guessing it had less to do with a royal decree (from any of those hundreds of kingdoms) and more with special circumstances around the members involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lidsa Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 No, not with trueborn Starks alive that take precedence over Jon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.