Jon's Queen Consort

The Stark family. Not you Robb.

116 posts in this topic

6 hours ago, Horse of Kent said:

Edric Dayne is named after Ned, yet his name is not Eddard. There are lots of Walda's named after Walder Frey. There are probably many more examples like that, I don't think copying the precise spelling is overly important.

A lot of people who's names start with "Ed" are called "Ned" for short

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would assume Cat just named Robb whilst Ned was away on campaign. It would be strange if she gave him a Northern or Stark name, unless Luwin advised her to do so which we can assume he did not. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Horse of Kent said:

Do we know how name-day customs work in Westeros? I've always thought of it being the exact same thing as one's birthday, and for the most part it is - as, unlike the wildlings, those south of the wall name children immediately after birth. But if for whatever reason the naming of a child was delayed, would the name-day be celebrated when they finally got round to it or on the birthday? Because that could explain why Jon having an earlier name day than Robb is not frowned upon - because irrespective of when they were born, Jon was categorically named earlier than Robb if his name was only decided when Ned and Cat reunited after the Rebellion.

That is a fine question my friend. I do not have the answer to it but if there is an answer I will find it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Livesundersink said:

A lot of people who's names start with "Ed" are called "Ned" for short

I do not believe it to be coincidental RE Edric Dayne. I believe he was named for Eddard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Blackfyre Bastard said:

To me it is in line with Ned's personality that he would name his two sons born during the Rebellion after his two most beloved people and brothers in arms: Jon Arryn and Robert Baratheon. Note that he names his youngest Rickon and not Rickard (Bran is probably Brandon but not called that way in order to avoid confusion).

Red Robb Rivers was a bastard of House Blackwood, which has a Northern origin and is still very strongly tied to Northern religion and custom. So maybe Robb is a Northern variety of Robert, albeit very rare.

^^

Or Robb is perhaps a Riverlands' version of Robert, honoring Robert but paying tribute to his mother's heritage, in a way. 

Imagine someone has a relative named Margaret.  This person marries someone French.  They name one of their daughters Marguerite.  See what I mean? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, YOVMO said:

That is a fine question my friend. I do not have the answer to it but if there is an answer I will find it

I didn't mean to aim those questions at you in particular, it was just off the back of your comment on Jon and Robb's ages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The OP asked this: Could this be because after thousands of years of Starks being the Northern overlords Robb was the one who lost the North while the other children will claim it back?

But I think to some degree what many are saying here seems to be that Robb being "different" and starting out with a non-Stark/Northerner identity for his namesake is probably foreshadowing that he was going to lose the north, and in turn it will take another historical linked Stark to save it and get it back. 

 

...I think :cheers:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, shizett said:

I also thought that Jon and Robb were named after Jon Arryn and Robert B respectively. I find it interesting that Ned (and Cat by proxy) put Ned's foster family ahead of his own, even though Ned's father and brother were killed by the time the kids were born. While I agree that Cat probably was the one naming Robb, I cannot imagine she would name Ned's first son and heir without some form of communication and consent on Ned's part. They might have already decided on the name before he left. Names seem to be a big deal in that world.

Also, Jon might be dead too as result of stabbing, so if he was named after Jon Arryn, both sons bearing southern namesakes are already dead.

Jon is a common name in the north as well "Greatjon" and "Smalljon" Umber for example as well as there was a Stark king name Jon in ages past

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, YOVMO said:

Just as a point of fact that might be interesting. Robb (2 b's) is a fairly common Scottish surname. The reason it is common dates back to a late 13th early 14th century Scots king named Robert the Bruce who went by Robb. It has been some time so my memory is a bit hazy but, I am fairly sure, that after the King of England installed a puppet government by giving the crown of the Scotland to some lapdog Robb who was a lord at the time rose in defiance and became king. My history is hazy though and I can't really look up detains right now.

While a lot of Ned's loyalty, if not the vast majority of it, towards Robert comes from the type of guy Ned is, the early friendship of growing up with him as wards of John Arryn and an honest admiration and liking of the man, I think there is a lot of guilt that Ned feels about the situation with Lyanna and hiding the truth from Robert which also plays a role.

 

TBH what is more interesting to me is why on planetos Balon named two of his sons, including the eldest, after Stark Kings of Winter

As said its tongue to cheek.

On a serious note, I think that the reason Eddard treated Robert the way he did because the wolf was brought up as a second born. Second sons may have the same training the first son does and he might be brighter, stronger and a better leader then his older brother. He's supposed to be his brother's closest ally, a prestigious pawn to marry off to somebody and build alliances with. However they are ultimately, programmed, to fit in their own place. Its an undeniable fact that unless tragedy strikes, the older brother will inherit everything and the younger brother's life will depend on the good will of his own brother (unless of course he decides to become priest, or in the NW). 

Its not just a Stark thing. Stannis obeyed his brother blindy despite despising him, while more rebellious creatures like Tyrion and Brynden, fell in line when shit hit fan.

Eddard was brought up to respect Lord Paramounts and their heirs, because failure in doing so, would put the family in bad light and jeopardise future alliances in the process. When half the family was wiped out, he was brought into a situation which took him completely out of surprise and placed him in a situation which he shouldn't be in the first place (ie becoming Lord Paramount, lead the traditionally loyal North to a rebellion, marry his brother's girlfriend etc). Its only fair that he saw Brandon (ie his destined Lord and brother) in Robert. FFS they have identical characters.

I doubt Brandon would have done the same though. He would struggle bending the knee to a fellow Lord Paramount who couldn't even persuade all his bannermen to rise to fight and he'll certainly would have issues in lying about Jon's birthright especially since (or if) he probably got as much of a call to the throne as Robert does. As first son, Brandon would probably know a bit about politics more than Ned did. Brandon had a much bigger army than Robert. He was married to Cat Tully which brings the Riverlands at his side and Cat was also Jon Arryn's wife sister. There's plenty of leverage there. I am not saying that he'll push Jon claim to the crown (although he'll probably consider it, as much as he would probably consider the King in the North thing). All I am saying is that he will not hide him behind a wall of lies as Ned did to avoid hurting Robert's feelings. If Robert wanted Lyanna's boy dead, well, he'll only have to come up North and get him. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It could be that Robb was named after Robert.

Also remember, Robb was born at Riverrun while Ned was away fighting the war. Catelyn was alone and I would not think it unlikely that she gave him a southernish name because she wasn't too familiar with names from the North or Ned's closest ancestors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

I have said it numberless times but I would like to talk more about it. Ever since TWOIAF we have a small part of the Stark family tree. Now what I find very curious and interesting even a foreshadowing is that while in Stark family there were Kings named Jon and Brandon Stark, two other named Rickon and there are even a Sansa and an Arya. Yet what isn’t there is a Robb. From what we know so far when the majority of Ned’s children and his bastard were named after a Stark but his firstborn heir and later the King doesn’t have a family name. However we see a Robb in the Riverlands, Red Robb Rivers, a Blackwood bastard and a famed archer.

 

Could this be because after thousands of years of Starks being the Northern overlords Robb was the one who lost the North while the other children will claim it back?

The in-universe reason is obviously that Robb was named for Robert, but this could well be the reason GRRM did not put in a historical Robb Stark. On a different note, is there a historical Eddard Stark? We have Edrick Snowbeard, but no Eddard if I'm correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Vaedys Targaryen said:

It could be that Robb was named after Robert.

Also remember, Robb was born at Riverrun while Ned was away fighting the war. Catelyn was alone and I would not think it unlikely that she gave him a southernish name because she wasn't too familiar with names from the North or Ned's closest ancestors.

I can remember the scene

Cat: My dear husband, we had a healthy little boy. I called him Robb

Ned: Woman, you don't call a child without his father's consent. We do think so differently in the North

Cat: Whose that boy Reed's carrying? 

Ned: Robb it is then

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Isobel Harper said:

^^

Or Robb is perhaps a Riverlands' version of Robert, honoring Robert but paying tribute to his mother's heritage, in a way. 

Imagine someone has a relative named Margaret.  This person marries someone French.  They name one of their daughters Marguerite.  See what I mean? 


While it is possible that Robb is a Riverlands abbreviation of the name Robert, the name Robert itself is shown to be used in the Riverlands, including Blackwoods who are mentioned nearly a century apart from one another.

* Robert Blackwood, attended the Tourney at Ashford Meadow (209 AC)
* Robert Blackwood, died during the siege of Raventree (300 AC)
* Robert Paege, knight, friend and companion of Edmure Tully (300 AC)
* Robert Vance, rose up as a River King of King of the Trident when Storm's End ruled the riverlands

And from the Westerlands there was a Robb Reyne during the reign of Daeron II (184-209 AC) and a Lord Robert Reyne who died during the Peake Uprising (233 AC).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ser Scott Malkinson said:

The in-universe reason is obviously that Robb was named for Robert, but this could well be the reason GRRM did not put in a historical Robb Stark. On a different note, is there a historical Eddard Stark? We have Edrick Snowbeard, but no Eddard if I'm correct.

As far as I can tell, the only Eddard (Stark or otherwise) who has been mentioned in any of the books (including Dunk and Egg, The World of Ice and Fire, etc) is our Eddard Stark.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, devilish said:

 All I am saying is that he will not hide him behind a wall of lies as Ned did to avoid hurting Robert's feelings. If Robert wanted Lyanna's boy dead, well, he'll only have to come up North and get him.

I think Ned kept Jon's identity a secret to avoid getting Jon's head dashed against a wall. Not to avoid hurting Robert's feelings. And probably because his sister made him promise, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, WSmith84 said:

I think Ned kept Jon's identity a secret to avoid getting Jon's head dashed against a wall. Not to avoid hurting Robert's feelings. And probably because his sister made him promise, too.

And how exactly Robert planned to do that exactly? He couldn't even convince all the bannermen of his own region (which is as big as Winterfell's garden). How will he convince them to go North and invade the North?

We all know that the North can't be conquered and surely if Robert planned to invade the North then the Tullys will step in. They would probably be joined by Jon Arryn whose married to a Tully and who'll find it hard to convince his bannermen to turn the blind eye on this innocent boy considering that they had just kicked the true king because they defended two innocent young men. With the Arryn-Tully-Stark-Baratheon alliance in chaos, the royalists will raise their head again, with many siding towards Rhaegar's son and against the usurper. Sure, the Lannisters will take Robert side. However I doubt the Tyrells would do the same considering that the king's own brother happens to be married to a Florent, whose got equal claim to their lands.They'll probably sit for that war (or even join the Starks), letting the Lannisters and the Baratheons freeze their arse off in the North.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, devilish said:

And how exactly Robert planned to do that exactly? He couldn't even convince all the bannermen of his own region (which is as big as Winterfell's garden). How will he convince them to go North and invade the North?

We all know that the North can't be conquered and surely if Robert planned to invade the North then the Tullys will step in. They would probably be joined by Jon Arryn whose married to a Tully and who'll find it hard to convince his bannermen to turn the blind eye on this innocent boy considering that they had just kicked the true king because they defended two innocent young men. With the Arryn-Tully-Stark-Baratheon alliance in chaos, the royalists will raise their head again, with many siding towards Rhaegar's son and against the usurper. Sure, the Lannisters will take Robert side. However I doubt the Tyrells would do the same considering that the king's own brother happens to be married to a Florent, whose got equal claim to their lands.They'll probably sit for that war (or even join the Starks), letting the Lannisters and the Baratheons freeze their arse off in the North.

The idea that Jon Arryn would turn on a man he had already refused to kill once strikes me as false. I think, at best, he'd sit out the war, or try to lead negotiations. But since he'd already sworn himself to Robert post-Trident, he might have even turned on the North. Hoster would likely side with Brandon, I agree. Stannis had not married Selyse by this point (that was well post-war), so that wouldn't factor into the Tyrells' decision. They'd already surrended and accepted Robert as King by the time Ned found Jon, so while they might side with the baby with near-impossible-to-prove Targaryen heritage who may or may not be a bastard I'd hardly say it was a sure deal. Dorne had already lost 10000 men, but might side with the North if pushed. Doubtful, but possible. Neither the Reach or Dorne declared for Viserys and he had unquestionable heritage and wasn't born of the woman who Rhaegar humiliated Elia for.

So we've got another civil war with half of the men who fought alongside and later declared for Robert turning on him, including (potentially) his best friend and father figure. Yeah, I think this is exactly the kind of thing that Ned was trying to avoid. Maybe he didn't want to risk his nephew's brains bloodying some knights gauntlets, and maybe he didn't want to betray his best friend and perhaps need to have him killed. And maybe Lyanna made him promise not to.

Yeah, Brandon in charge sounds a lot better. :rolleyes:

Edited by WSmith84

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After Tywin's death, pregnant women were offering to name their babies for him, hoping to garner Cersei's favor. Naming a child after a leader, especially during wartime, appears to be common practice, so it does not seem to be outside the realm of possibility that Robb, born during a war, was named in honor of Robert, the leader of the side to which Ned, Catelyn, and Catelyn's father were sworn. 

Either Cat/Ned gave Robb a name that just so happens in a completely unrelated way to be an honorific of Ned's best friend's name, or Robb was named for Robert, and this was such common knowledge that no one in-universe felt the need to comment on it. 

However, his parents' reasons for naming Robb and GRRM's reasons may not have been the same, and I think the OP's suggestion that Robb, the Southern-born, Southern-named Stark was named such by the author to signify him being the King Who Lost the North is as good an explanation as any. 

 

Also, I thought Ned Dayne told Arya he was called Ned after her father... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, devilish said:

And how exactly Robert planned to do that exactly? He couldn't even convince all the bannermen of his own region (which is as big as Winterfell's garden). How will he convince them to go North and invade the North?

We all know that the North can't be conquered and surely if Robert planned to invade the North then the Tullys will step in. They would probably be joined by Jon Arryn whose married to a Tully and who'll find it hard to convince his bannermen to turn the blind eye on this innocent boy considering that they had just kicked the true king because they defended two innocent young men. With the Arryn-Tully-Stark-Baratheon alliance in chaos, the royalists will raise their head again, with many siding towards Rhaegar's son and against the usurper. Sure, the Lannisters will take Robert side. However I doubt the Tyrells would do the same considering that the king's own brother happens to be married to a Florent, whose got equal claim to their lands.They'll probably sit for that war (or even join the Starks), letting the Lannisters and the Baratheons freeze their arse off in the North.

 

Surely you can see why Ned would want to avoid this conflict even if he thought he could resist the South. He knew Robert hated the Targaryens and would be extremely unpredictable. It might not be armies but could be a blade or poison. It just makes no sense to get into that when it can be avoided.

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