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

[kissdbyfire]

10 minutes ago, aryagonnakill#2 said:

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".

Yeah, that could very well throw a spanner in the works.

"...half-brother Jon Snow, son of Eddard Stark, yadda yadda yadda". 

The other "surprise" we could get in the will is to find out that Robb named Arya his heir, and in her absence, Jon. 

[a black swan]

1 hour ago, kissdbyfire said:

Yeah, that could very well throw a spanner in the works.

"...half-brother Jon Snow, son of Eddard Stark, yadda yadda yadda". 

The other "surprise" we could get in the will is to find out that Robb named Arya his heir, and in her absence, Jon. 

It seems odd that he didn't include her when he listed his dead siblings. George leaves it ambiguous on purpose? 

[Kienn]

18 hours ago, Damon_Tor said:

I'm not sure what you mean.

You said patrilineage doesn't matter... So Arya Flint is the furthest back we know matrilineally for Jon. So why is she so special?

 

7 hours ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

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.

Not sure how this is related to Jon...

[cgrav]

Would Jon have to be legitimized in name to hold Winterfell or the North? He could just be a bastard-regent or steward, although that also means the Stark line would effectively have ended. The only other way to restore the Stark line, as far as Robb could have known, would be for Sansa to inherit Winterfell, bear a bastard, and then legitimize him in her own name (which seems more like the Littlefinger plan).

[Sophist]

The question of who gets to rule, at least until very recently, was rarely a legal question, but always a military/political one. IMO, it doesn't matter what Jon's "legitimacy" status might be at law, it matters what the Northern Lords will accept. His "legitimacy" might have some indirect impact on how readily they accept him, but in times of crisis those issues tend to become secondary.

I'm personally of the view that Jon is the legitimate son of R+L, but that probably doesn't matter for ruling the North anyway.

[cgrav]

9 minutes ago, Sophist said:

The question of who gets to rule, at least until very recently, was rarely a legal question, but always a military/political one. IMO, it doesn't matter what Jon's "legitimacy" status might be at law, it matters what the Northern Lords will accept. His "legitimacy" might have some indirect impact on how readily they accept him, but in times of crisis those issues tend to become secondary.

I'm personally of the view that Jon is the legitimate son of R+L, but that probably doesn't matter for ruling the North anyway.

yeah I think this is important to point out. Westeros doesn't have a concept of Law, only customs. One of the major themes in the books (and in real life history) is that every rule has as many exceptions as applications. We're presented with an ostensibly patriarchal society governed by customs of patrilineal inheritance, but by the time we get to Storm, it's pretty clear that Cersei and Olenna are two of the most powerful people in Westeros, the Targaryens legitimized a whole bunch of bastards, the Stark line may have been genetically broken by a wildling bard, and primogeniture doesn't mean squat for inheritance. 

Varys lays it out very straightforwardly in his conversation with Tyrion in Clash - power resides where people think it resides. 

[Curled Finger]

I once tallied up all the things HR could possibly know.  As we are further removed from the original publication with the advantage of reread and discussion things become either clearer or murkier.   Now this list of mine was lengthy and impressive.   Then I read some more and discussed some more.  The only thing I'm certain of is that Howland Reed knows Lyanna was Jon's mother.   That's it.   He is the one who took Lyanna's hand from Ned's.  He saw her and he saw the baby.   That's it.   Ok, he also kept close tabs on every schmuck Lady Ashara Dayne danced with at Harrenhall, but that's all we really know he knows about anything.   

We speculate Maege and Galbart survived their journey.   We speculate there is some will of Robb's decreeing Jon legitimate.  We speculate HR knows Rhaegar is Jon's father.   My speculations at least, gave Howland Reed a great deal of knowledge for a guy who hasn't left the marsh in nearly 20 years.   

The question is how would the little crannogman react to a King's will, legitimizing Lyanna Stark's son.  I would think that in the absence of any viable Starks to lead the North, HR would be delighted to annoint Jon Snow King in the North or Lord of Winterfell or whatever the hell he wants Jon to be.   I think the blood matters more in the North than the status.   The North desperately needs a Stark to follow.  It wouldn't matter to HR if Jon was Lyanna's or Ned's, Jon has Stark blood and I expect that would be good enough for him.  It may be that all HR could tell Jon  is that he is a Stark via Lyanna, not Ned.   I like to think there is some proof of royal lineage, but I have nothing but desire to base it on.   Could be Jon will be satisfied to know who his mother was and how much Ned loved him in claiming him as his own.  Could be HR can offer Jon the R + L gossip and they can piece together the truth.  With all the trueborn Stark kids presumed dead and definitely missing any Stark would do.   

[aryagonnakill#2]

1 hour ago, Curled Finger said:

I once tallied up all the things HR could possibly know.  As we are further removed from the original publication with the advantage of reread and discussion things become either clearer or murkier.   Now this list of mine was lengthy and impressive.   Then I read some more and discussed some more.  The only thing I'm certain of is that Howland Reed knows Lyanna was Jon's mother.   That's it.   He is the one who took Lyanna's hand from Ned's.  He saw her and he saw the baby.   That's it.   Ok, he also kept close tabs on every schmuck Lady Ashara Dayne danced with at Harrenhall, but that's all we really know he knows about anything.   

We speculate Maege and Galbart survived their journey.   We speculate there is some will of Robb's decreeing Jon legitimate.  We speculate HR knows Rhaegar is Jon's father.   My speculations at least, gave Howland Reed a great deal of knowledge for a guy who hasn't left the marsh in nearly 20 years.   

The question is how would the little crannogman react to a King's will, legitimizing Lyanna Stark's son.  I would think that in the absence of any viable Starks to lead the North, HR would be delighted to annoint Jon Snow King in the North or Lord of Winterfell or whatever the hell he wants Jon to be.   I think the blood matters more in the North than the status.   The North desperately needs a Stark to follow.  It wouldn't matter to HR if Jon was Lyanna's or Ned's, Jon has Stark blood and I expect that would be good enough for him.  It may be that all HR could tell Jon  is that he is a Stark via Lyanna, not Ned.   I like to think there is some proof of royal lineage, but I have nothing but desire to base it on.   Could be Jon will be satisfied to know who his mother was and how much Ned loved him in claiming him as his own.  Could be HR can offer Jon the R + L gossip and they can piece together the truth.  With all the trueborn Stark kids presumed dead and definitely missing any Stark would do.   

Having been the only other survivor, and travelling all the way back north with Ned, I am personally willing to say definitively that Howland knows who Jons father is.  Some may deny this, but it is to deny logic, which I will not do.  Logic is my religion.

[Curled Finger]

2 minutes ago, aryagonnakill#2 said:

Having been the only other survivor, and travelling all the way back north with Ned, I am personally willing to say definitively that Howland knows who Jons father is.  Some may deny this, but it is to deny logic, which I will not do.  Logic is my religion.

I think we can safely assume Rhaegar's guilt here, but we can't know because we don't hear the conversation other than "promise me".  It is logical for us to assume this child was fathered by Rhaegar--guilt by association if you will but the truth is we don't know.   Our advantage is that we know more than most of the characters and maybe HR knows everything I thought he might in the beginning.  I'm just trying not to pin all my hope on a guy we don't even know for sure is alive.  

[Lord of Raventree Hall]

18 hours ago, Praetor Xyn said:

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.

Because Ned made such good decisions.... And Catelyn gave Robb good advice mostly. She told him to not use Theon. Or should she only phrase it as "Your father thinks..." Perhaps she thought her opinion should count for just as muchas his, you know, because it SHOULD. Do you know who wouldnt have told Cersei everything before Robert? Catelyn.

[kissdbyfire]

12 hours ago, DutchArya said:

It seems odd that he didn't include her when he listed his dead siblings. George leaves it ambiguous on purpose? 

That's my take on it, yes.

[Lady Blizzardborn]

19 hours ago, Kienn said:

You said patrilineage doesn't matter... So Arya Flint is the furthest back we know matrilineally for Jon. So why is she so special?

 

Not sure how this is related to Jon...

Jon needs the information that Bran is going to learn. Also, don't forget Jon climbed the Wall, and if Lyanna was his mother then Arya Flint is his great-grandmother as well as Bran's. If Jon needs to do anymore climbing, that connection could be important. If all that matters is the maternal line then Jon's line is actually potentially more potent in any powers from the Flint side because he gets it without interruption by a male ancestor. Arya Flint>Lyarra Stark>Lyanna Stark>Jon.

[Kienn]

5 hours ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

Jon needs the information that Bran is going to learn. Also, don't forget Jon climbed the Wall, and if Lyanna was his mother then Arya Flint is his great-grandmother as well as Bran's. If Jon needs to do anymore climbing, that connection could be important. If all that matters is the maternal line then Jon's line is actually potentially more potent in any powers from the Flint side because he gets it without interruption by a male ancestor. Arya Flint>Lyarra Stark>Lyanna Stark>Jon.

Jon climbed a ladder, not the Wall.

[Lady Blizzardborn]

1 minute ago, Kienn said:

Jon climbed a ladder, not the Wall.

A ladder for climbing the Wall. And my point about future climbing still stands.

[the conquering bastard 25]

On 3/6/2017 at 1:26 PM, Sophist said:

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".

I love and hate this piece of  history.  The Beautforts were bastards even legal bastards. However they barred from the throne by 2 kings and a Pope. Sry the Tudor dynasty were usurpers of the first order. 

I love the Tudor dynasty but they were what they were a bastard branch of house Plantagenet who used murder and slew of other sins to win hold and keep the throne

[Lady Snow]

Jon is a Stark, he is more qualified to be Lord of Winterfell and King in the North than anyone else, it doesn't matter who his true father was. Robb could see this as plain as day, although he thought his Stark blood came from his father. I'm sure Howland Reed would have the same thoughts but it is annoying that he's been kept off page for so long, surely once he'd heard of Ned's death he would have come out of hiding so I just don't understand the logic of that part of it. 

[Ser_Jon_General]

I'm not sure it would really matter to Reed, or any of the other Northern lords for that matter.

There are a few suggestions that it won't be a big deal, firstly there's Varys' riddle: Power resides where men believe it resides.  If the Northern lords want Jon to be their overlord then Jon will be their overlord.  Jon may try to persuade them that another living Stark is the rightful ruler, but the decision really isn't his (which ties in with the rest of Jon's story thus far).

Then there's The GreatJon: Why shouldn't we rule ourselves again? It was the dragons we married.  Northern traditions may be more closely aligned to Wildling culture than they would like to think - they'll swear fealty to another ruler if they're strong enough.  Even better, if R+L=J is revealed to the North it may actually strengthen Jon's legitimacy in their eyes, they've knelt to the dragons & they've knelt to the Starks and Jon is the whole package.

[WalkinDude]

The question no one ever asks regarding Robb's will, is why wouldn't Jon turn the throne over to Bran or Rickon once he's aware of their existence. Jon isn't a power hungry bastard looking to screw over his family. He turned down Stannis twice. 

 

His entire focus assuming he comes back will be fighting the Others. Not getting in a pissing contest over who holds Winterfell.

As Bran is going to be tied up being a greenseer for the time being, it's much more likely Jon would serve as regent until Rickon is of age. Of course this says nothing about his probable claim to the Iron Throne which would require him to name a Stark as warden of the north anyway. 

[BRANDON GREYSTARK]

The same oath of secrecy that bound Eddard , Eddard would have used it to bind Howland and the mysterious they also to secrecy .