Jump to content

Can Robb's will override the oath of NW?


purple-eyes

Recommended Posts

Yes, but not for the reason you think.

Half of the reason that the Night Watch can keep it's members is because Westeros will execute and run away member they catch.

Now, if the Lords of the North (the territory that completely borders the Watch) decide that Jon is their King and they allow him passage to Winterfell with out executing him, what is the Watch going to do? Are they going to attack the North?

If the Lords of the North have no qualms about Jon being their King, and the North is the number 1 supporter of the Watch (as well as it's only border) then the Watch would be stupid to even try to say no, otherwise the North might decide that they can handle watching the Wall and dont need the less than 1000 men that are standing in the way of their King.

Once again, Robb was never planning on forcing anyone. He was planning on offering something (eg 100 men) to the watch to get them to release Jon from his vows.

Roose even lectured Ramsay on that:

Ramsay: You are the Warden of the North. Command them."

Roose: "An invitation will accomplish the same thing. Power tastes best when sweetened by courtesy. You had best learn that if you ever hope to rule."
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Question: why is so bad that Jon decides to walk away from his vows? Would that make him a bad person? Why we need so much mental gymnastics to have Jon give up the Night's Watch without him being an "oathbreaker".

because, personally, I think Jon would be a much of an idiot if he decides to stick up to his vows despite he can be way more useful being King and ruler of the North.

Well like others have said these things are taken seriously in Westeros, so it doesn't seem to happen very often. On the other hand both Robb and Stannis feel that they can free Jon from his vows. Robb planned on offering the Watch a hundred men, Stannis didn't mention any sort of compensation to the Watch for releasing Jon but he did expect Jon to marry, take R'hollor as his god and that he burn the godswood in Winterfell. 

So the Stannis legal theory is that if Jon repudiates the Gods he swore hia oath to he can get out of his oath. Robb on the other hand believed that the Watch had the legal authority to release him from his oath if they so desired.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Robb's will wording doesn't matter,

Of course it matters. A legal document based on false assumptions is itself false, and can't legally be upheld. Therefore if there is anything about Arya, Bran, or Rickon being dead in it, then the Will is void because they are alive.

the core of it is that he's legitimizing Jon

We don't know that, since we've never seen the Will. We've seen Robb discuss it, but we don't hear what actually made it into his Will in the end.

Any son of Ned Stark would trump all of his daughters.

Legitimised bastards come after all trueborn heirs.

until Davos appears with Rickon and his Direwolf (so there's no doubt of his identity,) the Northmen will rally to Robb's designated heir, Jon Stark.

Except the Northmen already had lots of time to rally around Jon...but they didn't. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Legitimised bastards come after all trueborn heirs.

While I'm sure a lot of people in Westeros feel this way, it is not as certain as you make it sound.

 

Well, the short answer is that the laws of inheritance in the Seven Kingdoms are modelled on those in real medieval history... which is to say, they were vague, uncodified, subject to varying interpertations, and often contradictory.

A man's eldest son was his heir. After that the next eldest son. Then the next, etc. Daughters were not considered while there was a living son, except in Dorne, where females had equal right of inheritance according to age.

After the sons, most would say that the eldest daughter is next in line. But there might be an argument from the dead man's brothers, say. Does a male sibling or a female child take precedence? Each side has a "claim."

What if there are no childen, only grandchildren and great grandchildren. Is precedence or proximity the more important principle? Do bastards have any rights? What about bastards who have been legitimized, do they go in at the end after the trueborn kids, or according to birth order? What about widows? And what about the will of the deceased? Can a lord disinherit one son, and name a younger son as heir? Or even a bastard?

There are no clear cut answers, either in Westeros or in real medieval history. Things were often decided on a case by case basis. A case might set a precedent for later cases... but as often as not, the precedents conflicted as much as the claims.

http://www.westeros.org/Citadel/SSM/Entry/The_Hornwood_Inheritance_and_the_Whents 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once again, Robb was never planning on forcing anyone. He was planning on offering something (eg 100 men) to the watch to get them to release Jon from his vows.

Roose even lectured Ramsay on that:

Ramsay: You are the Warden of the North. Command them."

Roose: "An invitation will accomplish the same thing. Power tastes best when sweetened by courtesy. You had best learn that if you ever hope to rule."

I know that Robb was not planning on forcing the Watch, but this would be something that the Watch would need to think about.

As well as this is AFTER Robb has died. Now it is up to a group of Northern Lords and how bad they want Robb's heir to be their King.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Question: why is so bad that Jon decides to walk away from his vows? Would that make him a bad person? Why we need so much mental gymnastics to have Jon give up the Night's Watch without him being an "oathbreaker".

because, personally, I think Jon would be a much of an idiot if he decides to stick up to his vows despite he can be way more useful being King and ruler of the North.

have you no honor!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A combination of Robb's will and the Nights Watch betrayal along with Jon's death will do it. I think this is a forum only discussion,  I doubt the characters in story care. I couldn't imagine they'd expect him to stay after being betrayed and stabbed. My guess a few people mention it but nobody makes a fuss.  It wouldn't surprise me if it becomes a permanent solution when someone wants out and has good cause to leave.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

I wouldn't call Robb a pretender. Joffrey was a pretender.  Robb was more a rebel usurper. But his bannermen declared him king, he didn't declare himself.  That's the difference in my eyes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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?)

 

 

dude what

Robb ignored the oath he never took got it, not proper contextual usage of the word ignored.

Sure same thing with stannis (not really at all) it was offered and Jon refused, comparative relevance is what exactly?

So kings will can override these oaths? like if it oes it does if it doesnt it doesnt lol these questions are nothing like there isnt some divine force keeping Jons arse planted on the wall until the words of a "king" magically dispell this force. He leaves if he leaves, he stays if he stays, Barristan doesnt get married because hes old af and he's in Dany's queensguard, all questions are entirely irrelevant and disconnected from one another 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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?)

 

 

Robb's will can't override anything, and Robb never expected it to. He tells Cat that he expects that if he (or rather, his will) would offer the NW 100 men in trade for Jon, the NW would figure a way to let him off the hook. Stannis made Jon an offer if Jon can find it in himself to leave the NW. There were two things stopping Jon from breaking his oath. The first thing holding him was the secular law against oathbreakers, which Stannis can give Jon a get-out-of-jail-free card for because Stannis is king of Westeros. All Jon needs to do is to bend his knee to Stannis and he is washed of breaking his oath, in a reverse to the usual where criminals are washed of thier crimes in Westeros once they take the black. It's a specific deal, so if Jon was to leave without taking Stannis as king, he is a regualr oathbreaker.* The other was Jon's own faith, something that Stannis has no control over, and even when Mel offered Jon a loophole, Jon did not take it because, and this is news for some fans for some reason, Jon is far more religious than Robb. He was offered everything he wanted, but it meant going against a vow to the gods he worshiped. 

Regarding Barristan - The guy can do whatever he wants. Had Joffrey been the legal king, and his actions were legal, Barristan could have married and go one being a regular knight, free from any feudal contract aside from the generic obligation of a knight to the realm and to his king. The oath is a contract, and Joffrey had ended the contract as he deemed Barristan unable to fill his part of it. Barristan is currently in service to an Essosi warlord, he can do as he likes if Dany would think it would make him happy.

Regarding kings and overriding oaths. Joffrey had to have the whole scen with the High Septon freeing him of an oath he had made in light of the Seven to marry Sansa. He can override a decision by the High Septon, as the king is above the faith legally speaking, but a vow is something personal for the individual and depends on his faith. 

* There is a rather odd bit about the NW and execution for deserters. If one came willingly, and decided to go back, why kill him? He is merely a man who lacks honor, not a danger to society. If a poacher was offered losing a hand or the Wall, and he deserts, why does he not simply get his hand cut off? The NW and death for all desertions is very black and white for some reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's remember the whole point of the will was to make sure the Lannisters didn't have a claim on Winterfell if Robb died given Sansa married Tyrion. So it's a fair guess to make that Robb either disinherited Sansa, or named a legitimized Jon his formal heir, if not both.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robb tells Catelyn that it would be the Night's Watch that frees Jon if he can give them enough incentive too, not that Robb can free Jon himself.

“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.”

All Robb can do is legitimize Jon Snow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have we all forgotten that this story is a fantasy. There's been very little cultural progress in 8000 years. There are dead people at the command of White Walkers. There are Dragons, Direworlves, Mammoths and Giants in this world. How does anyone consider the laws of succession absolute within the story that's being presented.  Many of the characters in this story follow the lOld Gods. Those that swear to the Old Gods swear before a Heart Tree.  There is a character that is developing abilities to communicate through Heart Trees, either by bending branches to shape some form or having leaves create the sound of words when the wind is blowing through them. What if a Heart Tree reshapes itself and communicates Jon's identity or destiny through leaves rustling as Jon is layed to rest.  If Jon were to come back to life, would the KW still hold him to his oath?  Would the Wildlngs also ignore this event? Would Melisandre deny it? Would't Jon's resurrection under a Heart Tree that told of his destiny become legend.

To me, this fan fiction synopsis would fit the storyline more than the laws of succession.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who cares about Robb's will-- he is the true born son of Rhaegar Targaryen, forged from his legitimate Union of love and prophecy with Lyanna of House Stark. He is the rightful king of the 7 kingdoms. This is the point of the entire saga.

dont yall pay attention???? B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who cares about Robb's will-- he is the true born son of Rhaegar Targaryen, forged from his legitimate Union of love and prophecy with Lyanna of House Stark. He is the rightful king of the 7 kingdoms. This is the point of the entire saga.

dont yall pay attention???? B)

Well they're really two separate issues. Jon finding out he was a Targaryen wouldn't somehow release him from his vow's either.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...