Free Northman Reborn

Why did the Show discard Robb's will, only to arrive at the same outcome less credibly?

270 posts in this topic

So we saw this rather unbelievable scene where the Lords of the North proclaimed Jon Snow as King in the North - even without him being legitimized. In fact, they even call him Jon Snow while chanting "King in the North", instead of referring to him as Jon Stark. And this while Ned Stark's trueborn daughter is sitting right next to him. Added to which, according to their knowledge, he has just abandoned his oaths to the Night's Watch and let a bunch of wildlings into the North.

Frankly, all of this is rather unbelievable. And the perplexing thing is that without requiring any further budget, they could have included Robb's discussion with Catelyn regarding his heir, and shown him dispatching his will for safe keeping, thereby legitimizing Jon in his role as King in the North and giving a rock solid basis for Jon's crowning and making the entire scene of the Northern Lords swearing their allegiance to him entirely justifiable and believable.

So the question then becomes - why did Benioff and Weiss deliberately decide to cut Robb's will from the Show? It makes no sense.

Unless it was for the express purpose of giving Sansa and Littlefinger a stronger position of from which to challenge Jon's rule in Season 7. Something which we can then only assume is not intended as a plotline in Martin's books, where the will is intended to cement Jon's position as King in the North without any opposition.

Thoughts?

Edited by Free Northman Reborn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sansa is no longer a Stark. According to the laws, she is a Lannister and/or a Bolton. It can be argued that she isn't a Lannister since the marriage was never consumed, but the same can not be said with her and Ramsay.

 

Further more it seem like Jon has gotten a really good reputation. Even Ramsay commented on that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe they don't think people can even remember who Robb was

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually like it this way better.  Jon has "earned" the lords' trust and for them to declare him KitN, the will would just means he would have inherited the title.  I would rather it that Jon did something to become KitN rather than it just being given to him by Robb's decree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, RainBow said:

Sansa is no longer a Stark. According to the laws, she is a Lannister and/or a Bolton. It can be argued that she isn't a Lannister since the marriage was never consumed, but the same can not be said with her and Ramsay.

 

Further more it seem like Jon has gotten a really good reputation. Even Ramsay commented on that.

How could Sansa even marry Ramsay with Tyrion still alive? Seriously this has been an issue with me for a while now. I mean sure Sansa getting raped by her husband was sick and disturbing as hell, but it never made sense to me how she could marry that psycho in the first place.

Edited by sifth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a lot more credible than some flimsy piece of paper. 

The North needs a king.  They need a Stark who can lead them and whom they can rally around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, jrod said:

I actually like it this way better.  Jon has "earned" the lords' trust and for them to declare him KitN, the will would just means he would have inherited the title.  I would rather it that Jon did something to become KitN rather than it just being given to him by Robb's decree.

How'd he earn it though? He and his men would of been massacred if not for LF and the Vale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think your forgetting just how much happens off screen on the show.  Brienne alluded to knowing what happened to Jon, we should assume everyone else does to.  Also, as Sansa is legally a Lannister that has to be taken into consideration.  It is also not uncommon at all in Westeros for women to be passed over, and that is in times of peace let alone times of war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was the one part of the episode that didn't sit well with me. Sansa was right there, she saved the North by brokering an alliance with the Vale, unlike dumbass Jon who let himself be goaded into a trap. 

So what if she was forcefully (kinda?) married to Tyrion and Ramsay? She ditched those losers, didn't have any kid by them. She's still a Stark to the bone, more so than an oathbreaker/deserter bastard. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, jrod said:

I actually like it this way better.  Jon has "earned" the lords' trust and for them to declare him KitN, the will would just means he would have inherited the title.  I would rather it that Jon did something to become KitN rather than it just being given to him by Robb's decree.

But he didn't. In fact the battle should lead you to the conclusion that Jon shouldn't lead because he's a poor decision maker.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, aryagonnakill#2 said:

I think your forgetting just how much happens off screen on the show.  Brienne alluded to knowing what happened to Jon, we should assume everyone else does to.  Also, as Sansa is legally a Lannister that has to be taken into consideration.  It is also not uncommon at all in Westeros for women to be passed over, and that is in times of peace let alone times of war.

No she's not. She's a Bolton and people call her Lady Stark. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Lord_Ravenstone said:

No she's not. She's a Bolton and people call her Lady Stark. 

When did the High Septon grant her an annulment, as the only person who can?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Boarsbane said:

How'd he earn it though? He and his men would of been massacred if not for LF and the Vale.

He rallied the North and led what of the North would hold true to their oaths to bring to justice those who betrayed and killed their King Robb.  He screwed up by falling into Ramsay's trap, but he did it to try and save his brother, who the lords would have to believe is the last trueborn son of Ned Stark.

Obviously the Lords of the North felt he earned it and feel they should follow him, since they declared him KitN and all.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Lord_Ravenstone said:

But he didn't. In fact the battle should lead you to the conclusion that Jon shouldn't lead because he's a poor decision maker.

 

Yes he fell into Ramsay's trap, which was a horrible decision. But he did it to try and save his brother, and what the lords would have viewed as the true Lord of Winterfell.  He was the only one who had the guts to try and rally an army to get rid of the Boltons who were torturing and murdering their own people at will.  What other lords would stand up to them, none.  Jon rallied the north to rid them of the Boltons

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, aryagonnakill#2 said:

When did the High Septon grant her an annulment, as the only person who can?

He doesn’t need to. Tyrion is still married to Tysha; they never got divorced.

Therefore, he cannot have married Sansa.

Edited by CrypticWeirwood

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, jrod said:

He rallied the North and led what of the North would hold true to their oaths to bring to justice those who betrayed and killed their King Robb.  He screwed up by falling into Ramsay's trap, but he did it to try and save his brother, who the lords would have to believe is the last trueborn son of Ned Stark.

Obviously the Lords of the North felt he earned it and feel they should follow him, since they declared him KitN and all.

 

He didn't rally the North. He couldn't even convince a little girl to fight for him. Davos had to do it. 

In fact, Jon only rallied 300 men out of the North which 10 times less than Book Stannis.

The North had no sympathy for the Starks before Winterfell why would they have it afterwards. 

The Starks just slaughtered half the North trying to take back their home.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jrod said:

He rallied the North and led what of the North would hold true to their oaths to bring to justice those who betrayed and killed their King Robb.  He screwed up by falling into Ramsay's trap, but he did it to try and save his brother, who the lords would have to believe is the last trueborn son of Ned Stark.

Obviously the Lords of the North felt he earned it and feel they should follow him, since they declared him KitN and all.

 

He tried to save his doomed brother at the expense of his army. I guess we have different ideas of what should impress people. The lords declaring him king does not mean what he did was impressive, it was and felt contrived and required them giving him credit for things he didn't actually do (avenging the RW). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Boarsbane said:

He tried to save his doomed brother at the expense of his army. I guess we have different ideas of what should impress people. The lords declaring him king does not mean what he did was impressive, it was and felt contrived and required them giving him credit for things he didn't actually do (avenging the RW). 

What other lords were willing to risk it all to do what was right?  He tried to rally every Northern house to do what was right and up hold their oaths, but they were too scared.  He built the best army he could in the time they had and did his best to le\ad them to overthrow the house that had taken over the North through betraying their king, and would murder anyone who disagreed with them.  Obviously these other supposed honorable and true warriors were unwilling to do that and fight for their people against a liege lord who would torture and rape and kill his own people at will.  And he did this with no intention of glory for himself.  Through what he told Sansa, and I'm sure others as well, he had no plans to over throw the Boltons and become lord of Winterfell.  He did it because the Bolton betrayed his family, and it was the right thing to do.

Yes he put his army in a horrible spot on whether to follow him or let him die after Rickon was killed.  That was a horrible decision, but I think the Northern lords understand he did it to try and save his brother, and then let himself get caught up in the rage after that.  But the fat still remains he was the only one (well him and Sansa) trying to do what was honorable and right, in removing the Boltons

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because Bran's missing, Arya's missing, Sansa's not a Stark and willingly gave it to Jon, and Rickon is dead. The books have a bit of a different scenario so the will is more of an answer. Right now only two people could take Winterfell and it makes sense for Jon.

It's sort of redundant now. It's already sort of redundant anyways as Jon is clearly the person who should be King of the North.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now