Cat is definitely the heir named in Robb's will

[40 Thousand Skeletons]

9 hours ago, Ygrain said:

Yeah, such a pity...

- Back to the OP. Sorry, I'm afraid I'm losing track as the debate is going in circles, so once again: how exactly does naming Cat Robb's heir maintain the Stark bloodline?

LOL it doesn't. I just think Robb doesn't care so much about preserving his "blood line" that he named Jon his heir over Cat. I think the readers care infinitely more about the Stark bloodline than Robb does. I think he would rather pass his kingdom on to whoever is the "best choice" regardless of blood. And regardless of the strange consensus of people on the forum about the politics of naming Cat heir, I think Cat inheriting WF and then marrying a northern lord with some trace of Stark blood would be much more politically practical than making a bastard and NW deserter the new King in the North. Cat may not have Stark blood herself, but at least she doesn't have the tainted blood of a bastard. And Cat may have released Jaime behind Robb's back in a misguided attempt to save her daughters, but at least she never swore a sacred oath to the Old Gods to take no wife, hold no lands, father no children, and wear no crowns only to break the entire oath just a few years later. If I were a northern lord, I would rather have Ned's widow marry someone new and let them have WF than a bastard deserter who has possibly been cursed by the Old Gods for breaking an oath made to them.

[40 Thousand Skeletons]

22 hours ago, Makk said:

As I gather this whole premise is basically shaped around the use of word "trap".

Admittedly, yes. I think this is how GRRM writes. He leaves a glaring breadcrumb as a clue, and that breadcrumb points to some obvious things that we simply didn't notice before because we had to be nudged in the right direction. For example, since it has been proven true already, go back and read through all the hints that Lysa poisoned Jon Arryn. You could have figured it out just with AGOT alone if you were really smart. And the big glaring breadcrumb that could have tipped you off is this passage from AGOT Catelyn VII:

Quote

"His lord father agreed with you," said a voice at her elbow. She turned to behold Maester Colemon, a cup of wine in his hand. "He was planning to send the boy to Dragonstone for fostering, you know… oh, but I'm speaking out of turn." The apple of his throat bobbed anxiously beneath the loose maester's chain. "I fear I've had too much of Lord Hunter's excellent wine. The prospect of bloodshed has my nerves all a-fray…"

"You are mistaken, Maester," Catelyn said. "It was Casterly Rock, not Dragonstone, and those arrangements were made after the Hand's death, without my sister's consent."

The maester's head jerked so vigorously at the end of his absurdly long neck that he looked half a puppet himself. "No, begging your forgiveness, my lady, but it was Lord Jon who—"

A bell tolled loudly below them. High lords and serving girls alike broke off what they were doing and moved to the balustrade. Below, two guardsmen in sky-blue cloaks led forth Tyrion Lannister. The Eyrie's plump septon escorted him to the statue in the center of the garden, a weeping woman carved in veined white marble, no doubt meant to be Alyssa.

So after you read that for the first time, if you are smart you can reread AGOT and figure out that Lysa was the murderer. Poison is said to be a woman's weapon. We learned that Lysa had effectively been threatened to be separated from her child before her husband's death. This knowledge, combined with the fact that Lysa is still breastfeeding her child and generally insane gives her a clear a motive for murder. And Lysa was the one who blamed the murder on the Lannisters in the first place.

Similarly, in this theory, the "trap" is the big glaring breadcrumb. It is supposed to make us ask the question: what trap? And then we are supposed to reread the chapter/book and realize that Robb set up the entire earlier conversation as a trap. And this logically leads to the conclusion that Cat herself was named as the heir based on the rest of the text in the chapter.

23 hours ago, Makk said:

When exactly do you believe he told her? The start of the relevant conversation which you seem to have omitted for some reason, is as follows...

I think (at least hope) you can agree that at this point she does not believe that Robb has named her his heir.
 

The only possible time GRRM could have hidden some special detail (and this applies for Arya as well) would be after he "picked up a sheet of paper" but before the next paragraph. I think it would be extremely misleading to the reader to hide it in such a manner, when details like this are hidden, they are done in a much cleverer fashion.

Yes, you are absolutely correct. But I disagree that it is very misleading. You are assuming that Cat correctly assumed Jon had been named as heir without bothering to actually read the damn paper and reacted to her own foregone conclusion in that moment. That would be kind of weird, in my opinion. I think that, regardless of whether it was Jon or Cat, it is implied that she read the name on the will. Sure, GRRM could have explicitly written:

Quote

Robb placed the parchment on the table for the lords to sign. Cat had dreaded this moment these past days and nights. She made herself read the name at the bottom, scrawled in a maester's hand. A king indeed, Catelyn thought, defeated. She could only hope that the trap he'd planned for Moat Cailin worked as well as the one in which he'd just caught her.

But there was simply no need for him to be so explicit there.

23 hours ago, Makk said:

And in that case her previous and next thoughts would not gel... 

Robb stood, and as quick as that, her fate was settled.

A king indeed, Catelyn thought, defeated. She could only hope that the trap he'd planned for Moat Cailin worked as well as the one in which he'd just caught her.

That is because she has learned life-changing information in between those 2 non-gelling thoughts. First she thinks her fate is to simply be a prisoner at Seagard. Then she learns she is actually Robb's heir.

23 hours ago, Makk said:

She should be some combination of completely shocked, staggered, bewildered and relieved. But not defeated.

That is your opinion  

[40 Thousand Skeletons]

23 hours ago, ravenous reader said:

I don't think so.  If that's what GRRM decides to do, everyone will nod sagely and make excuses for him, perhaps even talk about the daring 'subversion of some tropes,' rather than criticize the shoddy writing.

FUCKING EXACTLY  

[40 Thousand Skeletons]

22 hours ago, Darkstream said:

Well, I appreciate the respectful response, and I hope I didn't come off as disrespectful myself, that was not my intent. It's just that some of your ideas have given me that impression in the past, and I've refrained from commenting about it, but seeing as you sort of brought it up yourself...well, it seemed like a fair accusation to make.

Although we don't see eye to eye on many interpretations of the text, I do find your thoughts interesting, and I have no ill will towards you, or your theories, so I'm happy to take your word on it.

It was totally fair. I just get that accusation thrown at me a lot so my default reaction is to get insulted at this point. You were respectful.  

22 hours ago, Darkstream said:

Most of what I disagree with you on has already been brought up, so I won't reiterate the same arguments.

However, one thing that I don't believe has been discussed is Rob's ignorance in regards to the castle they were at - which really can't be classified as a castle, to be fair. I really don't find it peculiar that he wouldn't know of it. Oldstones is an ancient ruins, in the middle of nowhere, with barely anything left of it. Cat even mentions that the only reason she is familiar with it, is because she remembers camping there with her father on their way to Seagard when she was a child. I don't believe that it would be on any modern maps that Robb, or his men would be using, or that many people would even know of it. Even the real name is lost to time, Oldstones is just the name the local smallfolk have given to the remnants of the castle, which are just foundations overgrown with vegetation. It's likely that this was not a planned destination of Robb and his army, just somewhere they figured was a good place to make camp once they came upon it.

Good points. Robb may have not known about Oldstones in the course of his normal duties. I think it would be a little odd if he had never heard about King Tristifer IV and House Mudd considering their impact on history and the Andal invasion, not to mention their alliance with House Tully, Robb's own ancestors. I absolutely believe that Cat wouldn't have learned about military history as a woman, but Robb definitely did. But yes, Robb may have had to go ask Edmure or someone about Oldstones. I definitely think he knew what Cat's answers would be going into the conversation. He meant to have a private conversation about his heir with Cat.

23 hours ago, Darkstream said:

Also, as I believe was already brought up, and if you have responded to this I apologize as I must have missed it, but I fail to see what the literary point of this would be. What could this possibly add to the story? As I see it, not only does it not add to the story, but it would take away from it. If this were to be true, it would just seem like a pointless dead end in the grand scheme of the story GRRM is telling, and that's not what I've come to expect from such a meticulous and talented writer, who doesn't waste any words on things that don't matter.

No offense, but I think this argument has no merit, and I see it made constantly. We simply do not know how this would impact TWOW. I could see your point if Cat was 100% dead, but she isn't! Cat is walking and talking, she has Robb's crown in her possession, and she even has some troops under her command. Who knows what Cat will do? What happens if Cat is revealed to be the heir and she starts giving commands to northern lords? Will they listen? You might say, that's ridiculous she is a zombie. But Jon would probably also be a zombie, albeit hopefully a better looking, more articulate one. Until we actually know what the story is, we can't form really credible opinions on how theories would add to or detract from said story.

23 hours ago, Darkstream said:

Oh, and should you hit the jackpot, and it turns out that you are right, please feel free to gloat in my face, and I will gladly bow down to your genius. I'll have one of these  all ready and cued up just for you.

Looking forward to it   

[40 Thousand Skeletons]

22 hours ago, Darkstream said:

Well, considering the circumstances, I don't think that is too far fetched for him to hope for. Cat's main fear of Jon was of him challenging the rights of her own children. As far as she knows, that is no longer a viable threat. Unless she fears that he would steal the tombs reserved for them in the crypts of Winterfell, what would her perceived threat from Jon be?

 

22 hours ago, ravenous reader said:

She doesn't fear Jon so much as she fears his mother -- the one Ned 'loved fiercely' --  'winning'.  That's why she feels 'defeated.'  Robb doesn't understand how deep it goes.  When she looks at Jon, she sees 'the other woman'; when he looks at Jon, he sees his brother, and the leader of his pack.

 

21 hours ago, Darkstream said:

Sure, I can entertain that as the mind set of Cat, and as a threat to her pride. However, I don't think that can be used as a means to label Robb as being naive for hoping that she will accept Jon as his heir. At this point, as far as they know, he is the only other remaining person of Stark blood alive, and I think it would be reasonable of Robb to think she might see the validity in his decision, considering the circumstances - however much she might despise it. 

And as you say, he doesn't understand how deep it goes with her, and I wouldn't expect him to know.

OK, maybe not "naive". But if I were Robb, I wouldn't be expecting her to support naming a person as heir who she hates enough to never say his name.

[Lollygag]

1 hour ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

And regardless of the strange consensus of people on the forum about the politics of naming Cat heir, I think Cat inheriting WF and then marrying a northern lord with some trace of Stark blood would be much more politically practical than making a bastard and NW deserter the new King in the North. Cat may not have Stark blood herself, but at least she doesn't have the tainted blood of a bastard. And Cat may have released Jaime behind Robb's back in a misguided attempt to save her daughters, but at least she never swore a sacred oath to the Old Gods to take no wife, hold no lands, father no children, and wear no crowns only to break the entire oath just a few years later. If I were a northern lord, I would rather have Ned's widow marry someone new and let them have WF than a bastard deserter who has possibly been cursed by the Old Gods for breaking an oath made to them.

I feel like this view is more reflective of traditional Southern views than Northern ones. Northerners do stigmatize bastards, but not as much as Southerners. Both Ned and Roose openly had bastards in their houses and no Northerner really cared. Other houses as well have showed a more casual view of bastardy than Southerners. Catelyn notes the difference in the North and in the South.

AGOT Catelyn II

He did more than that. The Starks were not like other men. Ned brought his bastard home with him, and called him "son" for all the north to see. When the wars were over at last, and Catelyn rode to Winterfell, Jon and his wet nurse had already taken up residence.

The North is also less preoccupied by Knightly honor than the South. Ned's sense of honor was derived more from House Arryn than the Starks. Cold, harsh climates where life is very difficult see honor and other knightly ideas as a luxury one can't afford when one's family and friends are freezing to death and survival itself is a struggle. It's actually not in the Northerners interest to embrace honor so much that it hurts their odds for survival. And, just my impression, but the Northerners haven't fully assimilated into the rest of Westeros at all. As they interact more and more with the Wildlings, I suspect that they'll find that they still have more in common with the Wildlings than the Southerners and they will in turn revert to some degree back to their pre-Aegon ways. There are strong indications that this is already the case as Robb was first declared King of Winter, not King in the North. The title The King who Knelt sounds a lot like Wildling speak. I think the crown speaks to this: gold, silver, and gemstones sound like knightly, romantic things to me. Iron and bronze sound like survival.

AGOT Catelyn XI

Maege Mormont stood. "The King of Winter!" she declared, and laid her spiked mace beside the swords. And the river lords were rising too, Blackwood and Bracken and Mallister, houses who had never been ruled from Winterfell, yet Catelyn watched them rise and draw their blades, bending their knees and shouting the old words that had not been heard in the realm for more than three hundred years, since Aegon the Dragon had come to make the Seven Kingdoms one … yet now were heard again, ringing from the timbers of her father's hall:

"The King in the North!"

ACOK Catelyn I

The ancient crown of the Kings of Winter had been lost three centuries ago, yielded up to Aegon the Conqueror when Torrhen Stark knelt in submission. What Aegon had done with it no man could say. Lord Hoster's smith had done his work well, and Robb's crown looked much as the other was said to have looked in the tales told of the Stark kings of old; an open circlet of hammered bronze incised with the runes of the First Men, surmounted by nine black iron spikes wrought in the shape of longswords. Of gold and silver and gemstones, it had none; bronze and iron were the metals of winter, dark and strong to fight against the cold.

ASOS Catelyn VI

"Bronze and iron are stronger than gold and silver," Robb answered. "The old Kings of Winter wore such a sword-crown."

World of Ice and Fire

There upon the south bank of the Trident, he knelt, laid the ancient crown of the Kings of Winter at Aegon's feet, and swore to be his man. He rose as Lord of Winterfell and Warden of the North, a king no more. From that day to this day, Torrhen Stark is remembered as the King Who Knelt...

Song and story tell us that the Starks of Winterfell have ruled large portions of the lands beyond the Neck for eight thousand years, styling themselves the Kings of Winter (the more ancient usage) and (in more recent centuries) the Kings in the North. Their rule was not an uncontested one. Many were the wars in which the Starks expanded their rule or were forced to win back lands that rebels had carved away. The Kings of Winter were hard men in hard times.

I think that Jon acting out of survival rather than honor will grant him even more Northern King of Winter cred.

Robb was the true-born eldest son of Eddard, yet he was still was forced to prove himself before some would be loyal to him. The Greatjon cares nothing of oathbreaking though Robb hurled that threat at him, but he cares a lot about having to follow a weak green boy. Robb also doesn’t bother pressing his point by going into the gravity of oathbreaking, he proved himself by demonstrating that he wasn’t weak. This looks way more Wildling than Southern. Note that Robb also wasn’t declared King of Winter/King of the North until he demonstrated that he could actually win.

AGOT Bran VI

And when Lord Umber, who was called the Greatjon by his men and stood as tall as Hodor and twice as wide, threatened to take his forces home if he was placed behind the Hornwoods or the Cerwyns in the order of march, Robb told him he was welcome to do so. "And when we are done with the Lannisters," he promised, scratching Grey Wind behind the ear, "we will march back north, root you out of your keep, and hang you for an oathbreaker." Cursing, the Greatjon flung a flagon of ale into the fire and bellowed that Robb was so green he must piss grass. When Hallis Mollen moved to restrain him, he knocked him to the floor, kicked over a table, and unsheathed the biggest, ugliest greatsword that Bran had ever seen. All along the benches, his sons and brothers and sworn swords leapt to their feet, grabbing for their steel.

Yet Robb only said a quiet word, and in a snarl and the blink of an eye Lord Umber was on his back, his sword spinning on the floor three feet away and his hand dripping blood where Grey Wind had bitten off two fingers. "My lord father taught me that it was death to bare steel against your liege lord," Robb said, "but doubtless you only meant to cut my meat." Bran's bowels went to water as the Greatjon struggled to rise, sucking at the red stumps of fingers … but then, astonishingly, the huge man laughed. "Your meat," he roared, "is bloody tough."

And somehow after that the Greatjon became Robb's right hand, his staunchest champion, loudly telling all and sundry that the boy lord was a Stark after all, and they'd damn well better bend their knees if they didn't fancy having them chewed off.

 

 

[40 Thousand Skeletons]

 

Quote

And yet, this possibility, that of having a distant cousin inherit Winterfell, is one Robb rejects in the conversation with Cat at Tristifer’s sepulcher

Robb does not want some stranger who is not even from the north or WF inheriting his kingdom. However, if Cat inherited the kingdom and was in charge, it would make sense for her to marry someone with at least some Stark blood and for her children to take the Stark name. It offers more legitimacy to their rule.

Quote

Yet the text contradicts this notion“Jon is the only brother that remains to me. Should I die without issue, I want him to succeed me as King in the North. ”

As I stated in the OP, he was being disingenuous for that entire conversation. When he said he wanted Jon to be his heir, HE WAS LYING! That's the whole point of this theory . He had already decided on Cat at this point. You are quoting the key line in Robb's trap. 

Quote

An uncertain/unsettled succession of the House Hornwood legacy gives Ramsey the opening to seize Lady Donella and ursurp the Hornwood lands and power, if I've understood the situation properly.

Yes you have . And Cat, who would be in a very similar situation, should probably avoid riding around through the woods near the Dreadfort with only "6 tired men-at-arms" to protect her. In fact, she should probably avoid that even after she finds a new husband. Lady Donella was asking for trouble, frankly.

[40 Thousand Skeletons]

17 hours ago, Darkstream said:

Because he's not dead. OK, maybe he is, and maybe Cat technically isn't, but I hope you understand what I'm getting at here.

The Northerners are not going to accept, or even consider for a second, an undead zombie as their ruler. When Robb's will is revealed, what is it going to amount to if it was Cat named as the heir? Nothing. That will be the end of it, and it will be as if Robb never did name an heir. It is a dead end.

We all know that this is not the end of Jon's story. He is not staying dead, if indeed he is dead, and he isn't going to be some decomposed undead zombie in the same sense as Lady Stoneheart is. When Robb's will is revealed, and it names Jon his heir, sure he may not be accepted by everyone, but there will be some who do accept him, and it will result in either a decision for him to make, and/or any number of conflicts and drama to be dealt with, that will and can further the plot, and add something to the story.

I agree that the interest level concerning this is subjective, and some might like, and some might not like Jon being named the heir, but as far as Cat is concerned, if she is the heir, there really is no story there for the readers to express their subjective opinions about.

As I mentioned in my other reply, I just don't think we can say this with any certainty until TWOW comes out.

[40 Thousand Skeletons]

16 hours ago, Ferocious Veldt Roarer said:

Seems about right.

Like playing a lottery, picking the numbers according to patented, scientific system powered by astrology and voodoo - and not only that, but also arguing to the bitter end and then some how well-founded the system really is.

And if he hits the jackpot - won't he look a certifiable genius, and all us detractors - complete fools?

You always seem biased against me for some reason FVR, as if you don't believe that I actually believe my own theories. I'll just copy and paste my response to the person you quoted:

This is absolutely not the driving factor behind my theories. I am not rolling the dice against the odds. I am simply obsessed with figuring out what is going on in asoiaf, because I consider it to be the most fun and entertaining puzzle out of every puzzle/mental challenge in my life, and it is a puzzle with an expiration date, because theoretically TWOW and ADOS will be released some day and much of my fun will be over. And my quest for answers has led my conclusions about the story to change drastically over the past couple years. In particular, reading other stories by GRRM from his Thousand Worlds universe completely shattered my previously held notions about asoiaf, namely And Seven Times Never Kill Man, Men of Greywater Station, and Nightflyers. As much as people on the forum believe otherwise, I never reach a conclusion because it is what I "want" to happen in the story. Even after reading the books 3 times, I still wanted Aegon to be real. But I think he is fake because of the evidence.

Bloodraven sending Bran's assassin is a perfect example. Most people consider that explanation to be tinfoil and instead stick to the classic explanation that Joffrey did it, based on the incrimination of Joffrey via the nonsensical logic of a drunk Tyrion. But for me, Joffrey being the culprit always failed to answer 2 basic questions: 1) Why arm the assassin at all, let alone with a fancy dagger, and 2) Why/how was specifically Littlefinger's dagger chosen? Most people waive this aside, saying that it is simply a contrived coincidence that GRRM included because it was necessary for the plot of AGOT. I think, however, that Bloodraven planting the dagger and killing King Robert to help start the Wot5K makes infinitely more sense, especially because that would make the Wot5K a perfect parallel to the plot of And Seven Times Never Kill Man, the GRRM story that is the most similar on its face to asoiaf, with direct analogues for the COTF, the weirwoods, and the humans who took their land and cut down the weirwoods.

[40 Thousand Skeletons]

10 hours ago, sgtpimenta said:

 I think this translates perfectly.

And it's not like this is an original theory. I mean, there's a youtuber out there who defend all these ridiculous theories - not here, oh no, not where people could actually argue and question and debate. Just a youtube channel, where he can say whatever and ignore detractors, logic or common sense.

I actually think the OP actually may have something going on. At least he tries. It must be said, the theory have the surprise factor in its favor. But that's all. It lacks textual evidence. It leans too much on the internal monologue about "trap". The theory invites us to doubt the actual text, with lots and lots of inferences pulled out of thin air. In the end, it holds no water, and it just isn't convincing enough.

Well I'm glad you at least appreciate my efforts if not my logic  

I would argue this certainly is an original theory. I have never seen it anywhere else... Sure, plenty of people have named Cat the heir. But I have never read anyone spell out the clear logic for the "trap" that GRRM has intentionally written for us to find. I am going to arrogantly claim that not only is my theory original, it is also probably correct.  

But my theory does not lack textual evidence. I don't know if you saw, but I quoted a bunch of the text from asoiaf in the OP, specifically from ASOS Catelyn V.

I would argue it appropriately leans heavily on the internal monologue about "trap" because that is exactly how GRRM intends for us to read his writing. The "trap" line is a giant glaring red flag, a clue pointing to a plot twist happening. And GRRM has said that his books "encourage rereading". So what we are supposed to do is read that line about the trap, and then think, "Wait, what trap??!" And then we are supposed to reread the chapter/book and figure out what the trap was. Like I already said in an earlier response to someone, this is how GRRM writes, and Lysa killing Jon Arryn is a perfect example. The line from Maester Colemon about Jon Arryn wanting to foster Robert at Dragonstone is a big glaring red flag, and then if you reread AGOT, without ever having read ACOK or ASOS, you can figure out that Lysa was the murderer.

I am not inviting you to "doubt the actual text". Please list for me these lots and lots of inference pulled out of thin air. It may not convince you, but that doesn't make it wrong.  

[Makk]

1 hour ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

Yes, you are absolutely correct. But I disagree that it is very misleading. You are assuming that Cat correctly assumed Jon had been named as heir without bothering to actually read the damn paper and reacted to her own foregone conclusion in that moment. That would be kind of weird, in my opinion. I think that, regardless of whether it was Jon or Cat, it is implied that she read the name on the will. Sure, GRRM could have explicitly written:

I'm not assuming Cat assumed anything. I am assuming that if something important happens to a POV character in their POV chapter that completely alters their POV of something, and there is still something to conceal from the reader, it is done in a more clever fashion than simply omitting it. I'm trying to think of another situation where that has happened but off the top of my head I can't think of any. I think it probably has before, possibly with Tyrion, but the place eludes me. Catelyn doesn't think about once in her remaining chapters.

At least now you have revealed when you think Catelyn became aware of it. But at that point of time I don't actually think the word "trap" is appropriate. You are using it in a manner where you are implying Robb tricks her into becoming his heir so he doesn't name Jon. But even if he did name her, there was simply no need for trickery, he just made an order. To have the appropriate meaning it would have to be something she agreed to.

 

[40 Thousand Skeletons]

10 hours ago, Prof. Cecily said:

By leaving her the possibility of marrying Jon and hereby maintaining the purity of the Targaryen, sorry, Stark genes?

 

Seriously, it doesn't. It simply delays the inevitable some years and invites problems.

Imagine a widowed LF riding up to WF.

 

9 hours ago, Ygrain said:

Now, that would be a twist - Cat marrying Jon! No wonder Robb had to trap her into it, there is no way in seven hells that she would agree to it!

Honestly, this is never something I had thought about, but I could actually see GRRM doing this. My logic for the trap would still apply, and Cat would certainly feel "defeated" about it.  

[40 Thousand Skeletons]

1 minute ago, Makk said:

I'm not assuming Cat assumed anything. I am assuming that if something important happens to a POV character in their POV chapter that completely alters their POV of something, and there is still something to conceal from the reader, it is done in a more clever fashion than simply omitting it. I'm trying to think of another situation where that has happened but off the top of my head I can't think of any. I think it probably has before but the place eludes me.

I'm not really following you here. If you have an example I would read it though.  

1 minute ago, Makk said:

At least now you have revealed when you think Catelyn became aware of it. But at that point of time I don't actually think the word "trap" is appropriate. You are using it in a manner where you are implying Robb tricks her into becoming his heir so he doesn't name Jon. But even if he did name her, there was simply no need for trickery, he just made an order. To have the appropriate meaning it would have to be something she agreed to.

Aaah, but as I said in the OP, Robb does need her to agree to rule the north after he dies. A king can't really order someone to be their heir, because as soon as they are dead their heir gets all the power and can immediately abdicate. Robb could technically name her the heir against her will, but he needs her support for that to have any real meaning. Additionally, it wouldn't exactly bode well if Robb didn't properly set up his trap and then when he named her the heir in front of everyone she protested. Imagine being ruled by someone who publicly protested taking the job.

[40 Thousand Skeletons]

1 hour ago, Lollygag said:

I feel like this view is more reflective of traditional Southern views than Northern ones. Northerners do stigmatize bastards, but not as much as Southerners. Both Ned and Roose openly had bastards in their houses and no Northerner really cared. Other houses as well have showed a more casual view of bastardy than Southerners. Catelyn notes the difference in the North and in the South.

Well I don't think we can assume Ned is representative of the differences between the north and south. If anything, I think Cat's statement reflects on the general treatment of bastards. And Ramsay was only recently acknowledged and made use of, unlike Jon who was raised at WF. Again, if anything, Ramsay is an example of how bastards are treated poorly relative to their true-born siblings.

But I actually think Jon being a NW deserter would be a much bigger issue for northerners. It wasn't Jon's fault he was born a bastard, but he chose to make a sacred oath to the Old Gods to serve the NW, and he would be choosing to break that oath to be king.

[ravenous reader]

48 minutes ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

Quote

Yet the text contradicts this notion“Jon is the only brother that remains to me. Should I die without issue, I want him to succeed me as King in the North. ”

As I stated in the OP, he was being disingenuous for that entire conversation. When he said he wanted Jon to be his heir, HE WAS LYING! That's the whole point of this theory . He had already decided on Cat at this point.

To quote @Dorian Martell's son: 'No.'

[40 Thousand Skeletons]

Just now, ravenous reader said:

To quote @Dorian Martell's son: 'No.'

 

[Makk]

29 minutes ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

I'm not really following you here. If you have an example I would read it though.  

Aaah, but as I said in the OP, Robb does need her to agree to rule the north after he dies. A king can't really order someone to be their heir, because as soon as they are dead their heir gets all the power and can immediately abdicate. Robb could technically name her the heir against her will, but he needs her support for that to have any real meaning. Additionally, it wouldn't exactly bode well if Robb didn't properly set up his trap and then when he named her the heir in front of everyone she protested. Imagine being ruled by someone who publicly protested taking the job.

If he wants her support he would ask her, and possibly need to convince (or trap) her with the threat of Jon, but ultimately get her to agree and promise to fulfill it. Or if she doesn't promise, as you say, she could abdicate after with no threat of Jon being named. He wouldn't simply produce a paper in public telling her or she would be much more likely to protest. Also consider the regard that those in the room currently hold her in since she freed the kingslayer and whether their reaction suits your theory. There are no other clues at all that point to this, your entire theory rests on how this is a trap.

An example to what I was talking about is when GRRM conceals something from the reader that happens to a POV character, and what they are thinking. This is what you require him to be doing here in the middle of a chapter. I guess an unproven example of this would be when Tyrion is playing Cyvasse with Aegon. I believe at this point Tyrion has already figured out that Aegon is a fake, but his thoughts never tell the reader directly. But there are lots of clues, like the ironic line "He may well be a Targaryen after all." It also isn't as blatant as an actual event that happens, he is simply not telling the reader every thought.

[Ygrain]

36 minutes ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

Honestly, this is never something I had thought about, but I could actually see GRRM doing this. My logic for the trap would still apply, and Cat would certainly feel "defeated" about it.  

She would have been very vocal about such a decision!

But really: naming Cat does not preserve the Stark bloodline, naming Jon does.

[40 Thousand Skeletons]

15 minutes ago, Ygrain said:

She would have been very vocal about such a decision!

Mayhaps she was. The chapter ends and we don't see what happened after. But yeah, I don't actually think Robb decreed that Cat would marry Jon. I only consider it possible.

17 minutes ago, Ygrain said:

But really: naming Cat does not preserve the Stark bloodline, naming Jon does.

Yes, I agree. I have not contested this point . I just think Robb doesn't care that much.

[Lollygag]

39 minutes ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

Well I don't think we can assume Ned is representative of the differences between the north and south. If anything, I think Cat's statement reflects on the general treatment of bastards. And Ramsay was only recently acknowledged and made use of, unlike Jon who was raised at WF. Again, if anything, Ramsay is an example of how bastards are treated poorly relative to their true-born siblings.

But I actually think Jon being a NW deserter would be a much bigger issue for northerners. It wasn't Jon's fault he was born a bastard, but he chose to make a sacred oath to the Old Gods to serve the NW, and he would be choosing to break that oath to be king.

I don't recall any Northerner criticizing bastards to the degree that Southerners do. Nor do I recall any Northerner having a problem with Jon being at Winterfell and openly declared son. If you're recalling something I'm not in regards to Northern bias towards bastards being at the same level as Southern bias of bastards, I'd be very interested in seeing it. I disagree about Ramsey's treatment when compared to the general treatment of Southern bastards. I don't recall anyone objecting when Ramsey was acknowledged. No one criticizes the Mormont women either - quite the opposite, they're respected. Imagine if the Mormont women behaved that way as a Southern house. The thing about the Northern treatment of bastards is that no one seems to object to their being a member of the legit family. Cat didn't have a problem with Jon or any bastard existing out of sight and out of mind, she had a problem with him being in the main household.

I don't want to go into it much, but "NW deserter" is a very strict interpretation of the rules, and one which GRRM wants us to rethink (Jaime, Ned, and Jon have all had big oath conflicts). The Northerners have problems with authority and rules in principle so I disagree that they'll be strict about these rules. Survival means doing what the situation calls for, and strict adherence to any rules works against that. I know that some people are big sticklers about rules and if you're also one, we're just not going to see eye to eye on this.

When the only other options are Catelyn who has no Stark blood and is showing lots of unacceptable weakness when uber-winter is coming and Tyrion, I think the Northerners are going to be especially open to breaking rules.

I agree that these issues may be a bigger point of contention with some Southerners.