Cat is definitely the heir named in Robb's will

[Lollygag]

38 minutes ago, ravenous reader said:

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

You and @Dorian Martell's son are quickly becoming my favorite ship, even over any of the actual characters.

[40 Thousand Skeletons]

19 minutes ago, Makk said:

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.

Yes, actually, I already addressed this and it fully supports my theory. For some reason, Robb privately discussed sending Cat to Seagard with every person in that meeting except for Cat before the meeting happened. And the most logical reason for this was that Robb was not just discussing sending his mother away, but discussing his new heir and keeping her safe during the war. And he directly utilized the support of the other lords to execute the final part of his trap in the meeting. When Robb declared Cat to be his heir, it was not a surprise to anyone except Cat. They already knew Cat was the heir, just like they already knew she was being sent to Seagard. And because Robb has immediately proven to her that she has the full support of the other lords in the same moment that she learned about being named heir, Cat has no choice but to accept and support the decision.

And there are other clues, but yes my theory mainly rests on the fact that Cat declared a kingly trap to have taken place.

27 minutes ago, Makk said:

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.

I'm still not following you at all. You are arguing that Cat did not actually read the name on the will, right? Whether or not it was Jon or Cat, I disagree with that. Tyrion is a bad example because IIRC, he explicitly referred to Aegon as a prince in his head at some point. So that is pretty direct. But really I can't say if it is a bad example because I'm not sure what your point is exactly  

Are you arguing that Cat should think about it in her head later? Because she dies pretty soon after being named heir.

[40 Thousand Skeletons]

7 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

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.

No, no, no, you have misunderstood my point. People don't have a problem with bastards existing or being acknowledged. People have a problem with bastards ruling over them, or generally inheriting lands. The entire basis of feudal marriages was that land and power would always be passed to trueborn children. If bastards start getting too many rights, this threatens the entire system. What good is a marriage pact if the lord can just go have kids by some random woman and declare his bastard to be his heir? Marriages would be pointless. One of the key points of the Blackfyre rebellion was that many considered Daemon to be a bastard, even though he had been legitimized, because they didn't view legitimization as a legitimate action (irony).

And yes, you make a good point about the Mormont women being respected for their strength. Yet another piece of evidence that the north would accept Cat as their ruler.

"NW deserter" may be up for interpretation, but "oathbreaker" is not. You cannot possibly argue that Jon can become a king, take a queen, and have children and then still be somehow adhering to his NW vow. He may be fulfilling his "duty" to the NW, but he would definitely be breaking his NW oath by any standard.

What "unacceptable weakness" has Cat shown?

[Lollygag]

Just now, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

No, no, no, you have misunderstood my point. People don't have a problem with bastards existing or being acknowledged. People have a problem with bastards ruling over them, or generally inheriting lands. The entire basis of feudal marriages was that land and power would always be passed to trueborn children. If bastards start getting too many rights, this threatens the entire system. What good is a marriage pact if the lord can just go have kids by some random woman and declare his bastard to be his heir? Marriages would be pointless. One of the key points of the Blackfyre rebellion was that many considered Daemon to be a bastard, even though he had been legitimized, because they didn't view legitimization as a legitimate action (irony).

Ah, gotcha. But all of this is a non-issue for Robb since there are no more true born Starks who are not married to a Lannister. Jon's being a bastard doesn't trample the rights of any true born, he's just a back-up. If you're arguing that some will have problems with Jon's being a bastard after Bran, Rickon and Arya are found alive and/or if Sansa's marriage is annulled, then I agree there because true borns become relevant to the discussion again. But Robb nor the Lords know this (yet).

If you break it down, the Winterfell kids are a major succession clusterf*** which seems to be the intent. Very well crafted as all of the kiddos have major strengths and also major weaknesses.

Robb already argued about the NW situation and everyone seemed fine with it.

Cat let Jaime lose because she missed her kids. I understand, but that was weakness from their view. It really hurt their position in the war and put lots of lives at stake. In fact, that was a HUUUGGGEEEE show of weakness. And to use your word which is very appropriate, she's shattered, despondent, not even able to eat well. When Bran was hurt, she couldn't even function as Lady of Winterfell, Robb had to step up and do the job for her. Robb made her feel defeated - and she accepted the defeat. Contrast Cat/Robb to Robb/Greatjon in the passage I quoted earlier. Rather than an inspirational and strong leader, she's more of a wet blanket lately. Catelyn herself questions her own capacity to function in the North.

ASOS Catelyn V

Catelyn knew of whom they spoke; Jorah Mormont had brought his second wife to Winterfell for feasts, and once they had guested for a fortnight. She remembered how young the Lady Lynesse had been, how fair, and how unhappy. One night, after several cups of wine, she had confessed to Catelyn that the north was no place for a Hightower of Oldtown. "There was a Tully of Riverrun who felt the same once," she had answered gently, trying to console, "but in time she found much here she could love."

All lost now, she reflected. Winterfell and Ned, Bran and Rickon, Sansa, Arya, all gone. Only Robb remains. Had there been too much of Lynesse Hightower in her after all, and too little of the Starks? Would that I had known how to wield an axe, perhaps I might have been able to protect them better.

 

 

 

 

[Prof. Cecily]

10 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

...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 quite agree with you about the rethinking of social constructs GRRM demands of us! I've never reread a book so slowly in my life as ASoIaF. 

Anyway, yes, "survival means doing what the situation calls for". 

 

37 minutes ago, Makk said:

...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.

Well spotted, those clues about Aegon! And yes, the cyvass game was the turning point.

Yet another example could be those 'fever dreams' of Ned.

 

3 hours ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

L

Spoiler

OL 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.

I can see your points here. 

Cat married to a lord with Stark blood.

Is there such a one? Apart from the remote Vale cousins?

 

In any case, I think the discussions in ACOK about the case of Lady Hornwood show the difficulties of choosing viable options in such an instance. In fact, I took those discussions to be a foreshadowing of the succession dilema Robb faced in ASOS.

And the abduction of poor Lady Hornwood, a mirroring of just how the Northerners underestimate their enemies.

Now, the vexatious problem of Jon's tainted blood. And his oath as a NW.

Lollygags dealt with them brilliantly here

 

5 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

Ah, gotcha. But all of this is a non-issue for Robb since there are no more true born Starks who are not married to a Lannister. Jon's being a bastard doesn't trample the rights of any true born, he's just a back-up. If you're arguing that some will have problems with Jon's being a bastard after Bran, Rickon and Arya are found alive and/or if Sansa's marriage is annulled, then I agree there because true borns become relevant to the discussion again. But Robb nor the Lords know this (yet).

If you break it down, the Winterfell kids are a major succession clusterf*** which seems to be the intent. Very well crafted as all of the kiddos have major strengths and also major weaknesses.

Robb already argued about the NW situation and everyone seemed fine with it.

Cat let Jaime lose because she missed her kids. I understand, but that was weakness from their view. It really hurt their position in the war and put lots of lives at stake. In fact, that was a HUUUGGGEEEE show of weakness. And to use your word which is very appropriate, she's shattered, despondent, not even able to eat well. When Bran was hurt, she couldn't even function as Lady of Winterfell, Robb had to step up and do the job for her. Robb made her feel defeated - and she accepted the defeat. Contrast Cat/Robb to Robb/Greatjon in the passage I quoted earlier. Rather than an inspirational and strong leader, she's more of a wet blanket lately. Catelyn herself questions her own capacity to function in the North.

ASOS Catelyn V

 

Catelyn knew of whom they spoke; Jorah Mormont had brought his second wife to Winterfell for feasts, and once they had guested for a fortnight. She remembered how young the Lady Lynesse had been, how fair, and how unhappy. One night, after several cups of wine, she had confessed to Catelyn that the north was no place for a Hightower of Oldtown. "There was a Tully of Riverrun who felt the same once," she had answered gently, trying to console, "but in time she found much here she could love."

 

All lost now, she reflected. Winterfell and Ned, Bran and Rickon, Sansa, Arya, all gone. Only Robb remains. Had there been too much of Lynesse Hightower in her after all, and too little of the Starks? Would that I had known how to wield an axe, perhaps I might have been able to protect them better.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

18 minutes ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

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.

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

That was a joke! I was joking about the blood-lines,  though it is clear (mayhaps) Cat was not.

[Ygrain]

3 hours ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

I just think Robb doesn't care that much.

You have mentioned this before, but do you have any, any, textual support for this? Because in the book I have read, he seems to care about being a Stark and son of Eddard Stark quite a lot.

[40 Thousand Skeletons]

19 hours ago, Lollygag said:

Ah, gotcha. But all of this is a non-issue for Robb since there are no more true born Starks who are not married to a Lannister. Jon's being a bastard doesn't trample the rights of any true born, he's just a back-up. If you're arguing that some will have problems with Jon's being a bastard after Bran, Rickon and Arya are found alive and/or if Sansa's marriage is annulled, then I agree there because true borns become relevant to the discussion again. But Robb nor the Lords know this (yet).

You are still kind of missing my point about bastards. The problem, or at least part of the problem, is that a bastard becoming king deals a blow to the rights of all trueborn children. It is a blow to the institution of marriage itself. If trueborn children like Sansa can be set aside so that bastards can be made kings, what is the point of marriage? Where is the guarantee that the children of any random lord's wife will inherit his lands and power over his bastards? If Lord Glover gets tired of his wife and has a bastard who he really likes, what will happen if he goes to the Bastard King Jon Stark and asks for his bastard to be legitimized and made the heir to House Glover?

Additionally, marriage has a religious aspect that goes beyond normal politics. Trueborn children are, in the most fundamental sense, considered to be "true" because they have been born of a marriage sanctified by the gods. And some of the more devoutly religious lords and commoners may be loath to serve a bastard king on that basis alone.

19 hours ago, Lollygag said:

Robb already argued about the NW situation and everyone seemed fine with it.

When did this happen? I assume you are referring to his private conversation with Cat? Cat was definitely not fine with Jon becoming king. Robb made a wonky comparison to a KG like Ser Barristan being released from their vows, but that is totally different from the NW. The NW exists not to defend kings, but to defend the realms of men. And Jon didn't swear his oath to a king or a priest, but directly to the Old Gods themselves. If Jon leaves the NW to become king, he will unquestionably be breaking a good portion of his oath. And Robb mentions sending 100 men to replace him, but really how is that supposed to work? Is Robb going to make those men take NW vows? Will they be volunteers? Could he even find 100 volunteers to join the NW? I doubt it. Will it be 100 prisoners? Shouldn't they be sent to the Wall anyways? Robb's suggestion sounds logistically impractical.

19 hours ago, Lollygag said:

Cat let Jaime lose because she missed her kids. I understand, but that was weakness from their view. It really hurt their position in the war and put lots of lives at stake. In fact, that was a HUUUGGGEEEE show of weakness. And to use your word which is very appropriate, she's shattered, despondent, not even able to eat well. When Bran was hurt, she couldn't even function as Lady of Winterfell, Robb had to step up and do the job for her. Robb made her feel defeated - and she accepted the defeat. Contrast Cat/Robb to Robb/Greatjon in the passage I quoted earlier. Rather than an inspirational and strong leader, she's more of a wet blanket lately. Catelyn herself questions her own capacity to function in the North.

I disagree. I did not immediately change anything about the war. In fact, Jaime was a hostage with almost zero value, because he was in the KG and at least officially was not the heir to Casterly Rock. Frankly the logic that Robb and Cat used to justify not offering Jaime in a trade for Sansa and Arya, girls are not important enough, was really stupid. Jaime is basically useful as a commander in battle, and that's it. Maybe he would be better than the man he would replace, but that isn't necessarily enough to change the outcome of any battle or the war. Sansa on the other hand can be married off to help form alliances. And Arya has already been betrothed, but the Starks cannot fulfill their end of the betrothal if they don't get Arya back, and that was part of the deal with Walder Frey, who we know to be prickly about such matters.

Cat did not simply let Jaime loose. Jaime left under the guard of a capable fighter of extreme loyalty, wearing chains. He couldn't exactly march back into a Lannister camp. Unlike Tyrion who was released by Lysa and allowed to walk right into a Lannister camp. Granted, she hoped the mountain clans would kill him, but still.

It did not really hurt their position in the war in the end, and none of the lords other than Karstark ever criticized Cat for it. If anyone else formed a truly negative opinion of Cat because she released Jaime, there is no evidence for it. In fact, the Mormont women said explicitly that they supported her actions. In general, the opinions of many readers regarding Cat seem to be far more critical than the opinions of the northern lords.

[40 Thousand Skeletons]

17 hours ago, Ygrain said:

You have mentioned this before, but do you have any, any, textual support for this? Because in the book I have read, he seems to care about being a Stark and son of Eddard Stark quite a lot.

I think Robb doesn't care that much about his bloodline because I think he named Cat his heir and because there is no evidence showing that he does care a lot about his bloodline continuing after his death. Sure, he may take pride in being a Stark and a son of Eddard, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is important to him that the future of House Stark be dependent on preserving Ned's bloodline.

So I'm not using the fact that Robb doesn't care about his bloodline as evidence for this theory. It is a conclusion that is unavoidable if this theory is true. And conversely, if there was some hard evidence that Robb cared about his blood line, then that would be evidence directly against this theory. But as far as I know, no such evidence exists (please do correct me if I'm wrong though). The closest thing to it is the content of his private conversation with Cat about his heir, but as I stated in the OP, I think Robb is being disingenuous for that entire conversation because it is all part of his kingly "trap", so it can't be used as evidence against this particular theory.

[40 Thousand Skeletons]

21 hours ago, Prof. Cecily said:

I can see your points here. 

Cat married to a lord with Stark blood.

Is there such a one? Apart from the remote Vale cousins?

We don't know the specifics, but reasonably speaking there has to be multiple northern houses with blood ties to House Stark. For instance, when Hornwood was up for grabs, the Tallharts, Flints, and Karstarks all had valid claims to Hornwood through the female line according to Luwin. So there may not be any known descendants from recent Stark males outside the Vale cousins, but I have to imagine that there are people descended from Stark females contained in northern houses.

21 hours ago, Prof. Cecily said:

In any case, I think the discussions in ACOK about the case of Lady Hornwood show the difficulties of choosing viable options in such an instance. In fact, I took those discussions to be a foreshadowing of the succession dilema Robb faced in ASOS.

Yes, precisely. Robb faces the same exact dilemma. He must choose between legitimizing a bastard (Jon) or allowing the Lord's widow (Cat) to keep control of WF and take a new husband at the discretion of her liege lord, which in Cat's case would be herself. I think it was foreshadowing, and specifically I think the foreshadowing indicates that Cat is an option, because she is the parallel to Donella just as Jon is the parallel to Lord Hornwood's bastard. In other words, if Lady Donella was a viable option for Hornwood, then Cat should be a viable option for WF.

21 hours ago, Prof. Cecily said:

And the abduction of poor Lady Hornwood, a mirroring of just how the Northerners underestimate their enemies.

I disagree. The abduction of Lady Hornwood, at least from the pov of Luwin and Ser Rodrik, was an absolutely ridiculous and nonsensical political move on the part of Ramsay. In fact, Ramsay's abduction makes zero sense unless Ramsay's actions, like Jojen's, are being guided by Bloodraven.

Think about it. What in the world did Ramsay gain by abducting and marrying Lady Hornwood? Sure, he technically became the Lord of Hornwood, but how is that worth anything? Ramsay simultaneously made all the Hornwood smallfolk and soldiers hate him for what he did to Donella and incurred the wrath House Stark and all the other northern lords. And then shortly after committing this crime, Ramsay foolishly goes hunting without any guards, switches places with Reek (he conveniently brought a bunch of formal, identifiable clothing with him on his hunting trip to give to Reek), and gets taken prisoner by the Starks.

But boy howdy, Ramsay sure caught a lucky break because right after he is taken prisoner, Theon shows up and releases him. Wow, it's almost as if Ramsay somehow knew ahead of time that the Ironborn would be taking WF, sort of like how Jojen predicted ahead of time that the Ironborn would take WF. And then Ramsay catches another super lucky break when he gets an opportunity to frame Theon for the murders of Bran and Rickon. Lucky for Ramsay he thought ahead and brought Bran's and Rickon's formal, identifiable clothing with him on their hunting trip (sound familiar?). It's almost as if Ramsay somehow knew ahead of time that he would be skinning the faces off those miller's boys and passing them off as Bran and Rickon, sort of like how Jojen predicted that Ramsay would skin the faces off Bran and Rickon.  

My point is, no one had any reason to think that Ramsay would kidnap and murder-marry Donella. It was not an underestimation of Ramsay on their part. If that was a legitimate risk, Donella would have brought more than "6 tired men-at-arms" with her for protection. The only reason Ramsay did this crazy act was because he was receiving visions from Bloodraven, and he knew that becoming a prisoner at WF would actually turn out to be politically useful.

Cat would certainly never put herself at such risk as the new Queen in the North.

[The Mother of The Others]

Uhhhhhhhhhhhh, what's the point of this theory other than proving it ?    Cuz She dead.    So if Catelyn wants winterfell now she just claims it by being scary, no paper will needed.

wwhat's to accomplish there?   Out- frighten the boltons and resist any anti- life voodoo they cast?    Unless Cat raises an army of dead stark kings to mess the Others up, I want her elsewhere , sweeping the lannisters out of her Fish family castle then ending the walder plot.   Or, if she really think she can come between jaime & brienne and forces the issue maybe she go right back in the river again.

[Lollygag]

Just now, The Mother of The Others said:

Uhhhhhhhhhhhh, what's the point of this theory other than proving it ?    Cuz She dead.    So if Catelyn wants winterfell now she just claims it by being scary, no paper will needed.

wwhat's to accomplish there?   Out- frighten the boltons and resist any anti- life voodoo they cast?    Unless Cat raises an army of dead stark kings to mess the Others up, I want her elsewhere , sweeping the lannisters out of her Fish family castle then ending the walder plot.   Or, if she really think she can come between jaime & brienne and forces the issue maybe she go right back in the river again.

Discussing the nature of the trap and what Robb actually did was interesting - I assume it'll impact the future plot somehow hence why it's not specified, but I completely agree that the Catelyn as heir rules-Jon as heir drools discussion at this point is pretty pointless.

[40 Thousand Skeletons]

4 minutes ago, The Mother of The Others said:

Uhhhhhhhhhhhh, what's the point of this theory other than proving it ?    Cuz She dead.    So if Catelyn wants winterfell now she just claims it by being scary, no paper will needed.

wwhat's to accomplish there?   Out- frighten the boltons and resist any anti- life voodoo they cast?    Unless Cat raises an army of dead stark kings to mess the Others up, I want her elsewhere , sweeping the lannisters out of her Fish family castle then ending the walder plot.   Or, if she really think she can come between jaime & brienne and forces the issue maybe she go right back in the river again.

Well my point is to prove to people that Jon was not named the heir. Whether or not you think Cat being the heir will "accomplish" anything, it will definitely make for a different story than Jon being the heir, and we can use that insight to better inform other theories. However, it is definitely a key plot point, and considering the fact that Cat is still walking and talking, and commanding hundreds of troops, I think it is fair to say that LSH being the current Queen in the North will have some sort of effect on the politics in TWOW. I will not underestimate GRRM's ability to surprise us. What if Cat crowns Robb's child via Jeyne and then claims the regency? Who would oppose her? Would people be against it because she is a zombie? Well... Jon will also presumably be a zombie. Not a huge difference there. Would people oppose her because she is terrifying looking and clearly not really alive? Maybe. It's hard to say. We lack precedent for zombie politics.

[Prof. Cecily]

2 hours ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

We don't know the specifics, but reasonably speaking there has to be multiple northern houses with blood ties to House Stark. For instance, when Hornwood was up for grabs, the Tallharts, Flints, and Karstarks all had valid claims to Hornwood through the female line according to Luwin. So there may not be any known descendants from recent Stark males outside the Vale cousins, but I have to imagine that there are people descended from Stark females contained in northern houses.

 

Yes, precisely. Robb faces the same exact dilemma. He must choose between legitimizing a bastard (Jon) or allowing the Lord's widow (Cat) to keep control of WF and take a new husband at the discretion of her liege lord, which in Cat's case would be herself. I think it was foreshadowing, and specifically I think the foreshadowing indicates that Cat is an option, because she is the parallel to Donella just as Jon is the parallel to Lord Hornwood's bastard. In other words, if Lady Donella was a viable option for Hornwood, then Cat should be a viable option for WF.

I disagree. The abduction of Lady Hornwood, at least from the pov of Luwin and Ser Rodrik, was an absolutely ridiculous and nonsensical political move on the part of Ramsay. In fact, Ramsay's abduction makes zero sense unless Ramsay's actions, like Jojen's, are being guided by Bloodraven.

Think about it. What in the world did Ramsay gain by abducting and marrying Lady Hornwood? Sure, he technically became the Lord of Hornwood, but how is that worth anything? Ramsay simultaneously made all the Hornwood smallfolk and soldiers hate him for what he did to Donella and incurred the wrath House Stark and all the other northern lords. And then shortly after committing this crime, Ramsay foolishly goes hunting without any guards, switches places with Reek (he conveniently brought a bunch of formal, identifiable clothing with him on his hunting trip to give to Reek), and gets taken prisoner by the Starks.

But boy howdy, Ramsay sure caught a lucky break because right after he is taken prisoner, Theon shows up and releases him. Wow, it's almost as if Ramsay somehow knew ahead of time that the Ironborn would be taking WF, sort of like how Jojen predicted ahead of time that the Ironborn would take WF. And then Ramsay catches another super lucky break when he gets an opportunity to frame Theon for the murders of Bran and Rickon. Lucky for Ramsay he thought ahead and brought Bran's and Rickon's formal, identifiable clothing with him on their hunting trip (sound familiar?). It's almost as if Ramsay somehow knew ahead of time that he would be skinning the faces off those miller's boys and passing them off as Bran and Rickon, sort of like how Jojen predicted that Ramsay would skin the faces off Bran and Rickon.  

My point is, no one had any reason to think that Ramsay would kidnap and murder-marry Donella. It was not an underestimation of Ramsay on their part. If that was a legitimate risk, Donella would have brought more than "6 tired men-at-arms" with her for protection. The only reason Ramsay did this crazy act was because he was receiving visions from Bloodraven, and he knew that becoming a prisoner at WF would actually turn out to be politically useful.

Cat would certainly never put herself at such risk as the new Queen in the North.

 

 

Quote

We don't know the specifics, but reasonably speaking there has to be multiple northern houses with blood ties to House Stark. For instance, when Hornwood was up for grabs, the Tallharts, Flints, and Karstarks all had valid claims to Hornwood through the female line according to Luwin. So there may not be any known descendants from recent Stark males outside the Vale cousins, but I have to imagine that there are people descended from Stark females contained in northern houses.

Can you point to any of these, specifically? I thought Cat trotted out all the available coz in her conversation with Robb at Trisifer's sepulcher.

As for Ramsey and Lady Hardwood- GRRM does seem to have written himself into a corner here. I wonder where he'll take this in the books to come.

As for common folk hating their new lord- well, that's not a new story in Westeros, is it?

 

2 hours ago, The Mother of The Others said:

Uhhhhhhhhhhhh, what's the point of this theory other than proving it ?    Cuz She dead.    So if Catelyn wants winterfell now she just claims it by being scary, no paper will needed.

wwhat's to accomplish there?   Out- frighten the boltons and resist any anti- life voodoo they cast?    Unless Cat raises an army of dead stark kings to mess the Others up, I want her elsewhere , sweeping the lannisters out of her Fish family castle then ending the walder plot.   Or, if she really think she can come between jaime & brienne and forces the issue maybe she go right back in the river again.

Who knows what the role of LSH will be in the next two books? 

2 hours ago, Lollygag said:

Discussing the nature of the trap and what Robb actually did was interesting - I assume it'll impact the future plot somehow hence why it's not specified, but I completely agree that the Catelyn as heir rules-Jon as heir drools discussion at this point is pretty pointless.

It's an an excuse for researching the books.

 

[Ygrain]

7 hours ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

I think Robb doesn't care that much about his bloodline because I think he named Cat his heir and because there is no evidence showing that he does care a lot about his bloodline continuing after his death. Sure, he may take pride in being a Stark and a son of Eddard, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is important to him that the future of House Stark be dependent on preserving Ned's bloodline.

So I'm not using the fact that Robb doesn't care about his bloodline as evidence for this theory. It is a conclusion that is unavoidable if this theory is true. And conversely, if there was some hard evidence that Robb cared about his blood line, then that would be evidence directly against this theory. But as far as I know, no such evidence exists (please do correct me if I'm wrong though). The closest thing to it is the content of his private conversation with Cat about his heir, but as I stated in the OP, I think Robb is being disingenuous for that entire conversation because it is all part of his kingly "trap", so it can't be used as evidence against this particular theory

So... in a book where bloodlines and legitimate claims have been the basis of society for thousands of years, you claim that a character who needs to solve the problem of being without an issue, doesn't care about bloodlines? Sorry but the burden of proof is with you that he doesn't, not with us that he does, because caring about the bloodlines is the norm. He says explicitely that the Starks must continue. Unless you can prove that he is being disingenuous there, your theory is dead because Cat is not a Stark. You are applying a lot of circular thinking to support your theory but I'm afraid it doesn't work this way.

[kissdbyfire]

I'd rather have a bastard as king than a scary vengeful zombie.

 

[maudisdottir]

55 minutes ago, Ygrain said:

You are applying a lot of circular thinking

The evidence that Robb named Cat his heir is that Robb doesn't care about his bloodline, and the evidence for Robb not caring about his bloodline is partly because he named Cat his heir. For which there is no evidence, only a belief that Robb doesn't care about bloodlines, because he named Cat his heir.

I'm getting dizzy.

Quote

and because there is no evidence showing that he does care a lot about his bloodline continuing after his death

Funnily enough, this is the only part that does have evidence. That would be the words on the page, coming out of Robb's mouth:

Quote

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.

I feel like I'm in an episode of Twilight Zone.

[Trigger Warning]

When in doubt the safe bet is to assume that the feudal king from a prestigious 8000 year old bloodline in a culture that revolves around bloodlines from a house that insists that there "must always be a Stark in Winterfell" would not care about completely ending said bloodline and completely alienating all his vassals to whom bloodlines are very important. 

 

[40 Thousand Skeletons]

4 hours ago, Ygrain said:

So... in a book where bloodlines and legitimate claims have been the basis of society for thousands of years, you claim that a character who needs to solve the problem of being without an issue, doesn't care about bloodlines? Sorry but the burden of proof is with you that he doesn't, not with us that he does, because caring about the bloodlines is the norm. He says explicitely that the Starks must continue. Unless you can prove that he is being disingenuous there, your theory is dead because Cat is not a Stark. You are applying a lot of circular thinking to support your theory but I'm afraid it doesn't work this way.

When did Robb say this?

I am not using circular logic at all. I don't understand why you think I am.

[40 Thousand Skeletons]

1 hour ago, Trigger Warning said:

When in doubt the safe bet is to assume that the feudal king from a prestigious 8000 year old bloodline in a culture that revolves around bloodlines from a house that insists that there "must always be a Stark in Winterfell" would not care about completely ending said bloodline and completely alienating all his vassals to whom bloodlines are very important. 

You are mischaracterizing the issue. There is no proof that House Stark "insists" there must always be a Stark in WF. It is just something that Ned said to Cat in AGOT before he left. And he may have, in fact, been referring to Cat herself. It is ambiguous. And I don't think bloodlines are as important to their vassals as power is. As long as they benefit from Robb's choice, they should be content, even if it is Cat and she takes a new northern husband with "less Stark blood" than Jon.

You are implying that they would care more about getting the purest Stark blood possible than they would care about avoiding having a bastard, NW deserting oathbreaker as their king. I fail to see how that is in any way the "safe" bet.

[40 Thousand Skeletons]

3 hours ago, maudisdottir said:

The evidence that Robb named Cat his heir is that Robb doesn't care about his bloodline, and the evidence for Robb not caring about his bloodline is partly because he named Cat his heir. For which there is no evidence, only a belief that Robb doesn't care about bloodlines, because he named Cat his heir.

I'm getting dizzy.

No, I never said this. The evidence that Robb named Cat his heir is all the shit I presented in the OP, and the evidence for Robb not caring about his bloodline is partly because he named Cat his heir, for which there is an entire OP worth of evidence.

I don't know why you are getting dizzy. Maybe you are on drugs, and that is why you have a hard time remembering what I actually argued in my OP.