Daendrew

Since Howland Reed knows R+L=J, how he would react to Robb's will?

39 posts in this topic

Since Howland Reed knows R+L=J, I wonder how he would react to Robb's will legitimizing "Jon Stark"?

This may be part of why GRRM has kept Howland off-camera so to speak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Probably something like, "I thought this was obvious. About froggin' time!!" Our next scene is him packing his bags and rounding up Maege and Galbart to get traveling out of the bogs.

And yeah, I agree that this is probably why GRRM seems to have left Howland off-page for so long.

Edited by The Fattest Leech

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm curious whether he has told Catelyn/Stoneheart (the two have probably met recently) and how that would change her opinion of Jon. The need for absolute secrecy may not apply now since Robert is dead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Daendrew said:

Since Howland Reed knows R+L=J, I wonder how he would react to Robb's will legitimizing "Jon Stark"?

This may be part of why GRRM has kept Howland off-camera so to speak.

He's closest to the morals and culture of the Singers of all our characters, so I doubt he gives a damn how "legitimate" Jon is. It's important that Jon become the Stark in Winterfell because Jon isn't tainted by Catlyn's Hoare blood, but that's an issue of genetics, which the will doesn't effect at all. GRRM doesn't value patriarchy or patrilineage, so having one patriarch name the next patriarch won't be an act of any value. Jon is the Stark because his MOTHER carried the requisite genes, not because of who his father was or wasn't and CERTAINLY not because Rob said it was so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A good maester should be able to make short work of Robb's will...

Quote

An error in the motive of the testator always rendered the disposition invalid. Thus, if the testator intended to insert A,.
but believing him to be dead when he was not dead, inserted B, the former will be the heir. So it was held by Cicero that if a father disinherited a son for some special reason and the reason is proved to be a mistake, the son will inherit; S and the converse is also true, that where a man made another his heir and subsequently found out that he was not his heir the will would be revoked. 

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3306838?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what the laws of Westeros and the North are, but although there is a certain amount of common sense in that, I wouldn't hold your breath on that applying.

Also we don't even know exactly what Robb decreed. If as a separate decree he legitimised Jon, Jon would inherit ahead of Bran (and all the others) even if they were alive.

And lastly it depends on the other lords. Do they want a boy or girl to deal with the Boltons and Freys or someone who has actually led and performed in battle admirably and could also bring a few thousand extra soldiers to the table?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Makk said:

I'm not sure what the laws of Westeros and the North are, but although there is a certain amount of common sense in that, I wouldn't hold your breath on that applying.

Also we don't even know exactly what Robb decreed. If as a separate decree he legitimised Jon, Jon would inherit ahead of Bran (and all the others) even if they were alive.

And lastly it depends on the other lords. Do they want a boy or girl to deal with the Boltons and Freys or someone who has actually led and performed in battle admirably and could also bring a few thousand extra soldiers to the table?

That is not necessarily true for a couple of reasons. First, do we no that an older legitimized bastard son takes before a younger trueborn son? And does a full-blooded brother take before a half-brother?  As to the first point, I think the legitimization allows the bastard the right to take his father's name and bear his father's arms, and it allows him to inherit, but I don't believes it moves him ahead of a trueborn son. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Lost Melnibonean said:

That is not necessarily true for a couple of reasons. First, do we no that an older legitimized bastard son takes before a younger trueborn son? And does a full-blooded brother take before a half-brother?  As to the first point, I think the legitimization allows the bastard the right to take his father's name and bear his father's arms, and it allows him to inherit, but I don't believes it moves him ahead of a trueborn son. 

It's not clear:

Quote

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.

-So Spake Martin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really it depends on who's in power in the North at the time it's brought out, and if Jon wants any part of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Damon_Tor said:

He's closest to the morals and culture of the Singers of all our characters, so I doubt he gives a damn how "legitimate" Jon is. It's important that Jon become the Stark in Winterfell because Jon isn't tainted by Catlyn's Hoare blood, but that's an issue of genetics, which the will doesn't effect at all. GRRM doesn't value patriarchy or patrilineage, so having one patriarch name the next patriarch won't be an act of any value. Jon is the Stark because his MOTHER carried the requisite genes, not because of who his father was or wasn't and CERTAINLY not because Rob said it was so.

So why is Arya Flint so special?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

8 hours ago, Daendrew said:

Since Howland Reed knows R+L=J, I wonder how he would react to Robb's will legitimizing "Jon Stark"?

This may be part of why GRRM has kept Howland off-camera so to speak.

He won't care. Through his son and potentially his magical training with the green men he is aware of the gathering forces of the others beyond the wall. This is  paramount. Otherwise, why would he send his children and heirs on such a perilous journey?  

Edited by Dorian Martell's son

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Dorian Martell's son said:

He won't care. Through his son and potentially his magical training with the green men he is aware of the gathering forces of the others beyond the wall. This is the most paramount. Otherwise, why would he send his children and heirs on such a perilous journey?  

I came here to say something around the same point. So this minus the "he won't care" 

Share this post


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

So why is Arya Flint so special?

I'm not sure what you mean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly I always thought Catelyn was his her with her language about him trapping her. If she is that's obviously void seeing how she's a murderous zombie, but it was bad beforehand because she's an idiot who did none of the things Ned told her to do in King's Landing, nor even told them to Robb  (your father told me to watch Theon might have persuaded Robb against using him as an envoy), and kidnapped Tyrion which started the war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Daendrew Good question Ser!

Well if Howland intends to sit Jon on the Iron Throne, Robb's will would be very beneficial to his cause. Should The North unite under Jon as King in The North, then team Jon would have a good chunk of the Seven Kingdoms already brough to heel should they make their way to Kings Landing.

19 hours ago, Makk said:

I'm curious whether he has told Catelyn/Stoneheart (the two have probably met recently) and how that would change her opinion of Jon. The need for absolute secrecy may not apply now since Robert is dead.

Another interesting point! 

I'm not sure if they have met recently (although it seems like it would be in both parties best interests to do so) but if they have then Howland telling Stoneheart the truth about Jon would bring her own years of anguish at Ned's apparent infidelity full circle. This meeting could also provide Jon with a mass of Riverlands forces such as The Brotherhood Without Banners and any remaining Stark/Tullysoldiers, should the undead Stoneheart look upon Jon with more positivity once his parentage is revealed.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Kienn said:

So why is Arya Flint so special?

Without her blood, Bran wouldn't have climbed. Without Bran climbing he wouldn't have ended up without the use of his legs. Without Bran ending up unable to use his legs, he might never have met Bloodraven. Without meeting Bloodraven, Bran could not learn how to defeat the Others. Without learning how to defeat the Others, Bran cannot save the world.

That's why Arya Flint is special.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think Howland Reed will make any revelation to Mormont or Glover disputing the will.  For all we know, he is aware of the prophecy and may now believe Jon is the one to save Westros.  If Reed discredits Jon's claim on the North, then that would  make the North leaderless and ineffective in dealing with both the Boltons and the Whitewalkers.  I would look for a private revelation after the wars are over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would depend on the wording, we don't know Robb ever wrote the words Jon Stark in it, what if he wrote "I legitimize him in the name of his father".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

First, do we no that an older legitimized bastard son takes before a younger trueborn son?

The law of Westeros is unclear, but if we're looking for real-life examples, Henry VII descended from Edward III via John Beaufort, one of the subsequently legitimised "Beaufort Bastards".

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