Cat is definitely the heir named in Robb's will

[40 Thousand Skeletons]

3 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

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

Yeah, sure... but that bastard will presumably also be a zombie  

And Cat will probably crown Jeyne's child and maybe just be a zombie regent. How would you feel about having a scary vengeful zombie as regent?  

In all seriousness, I don't think she will try to claim the regency as a zombie but I would love it if she did. She would do better than Cersei I bet  

[Prof. Cecily]

4 hours ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

And Cat will probably crown Jeyne's child and maybe just be a zombie regent. How would you feel about having a scary vengeful zombie as regent?

Jeyne's child?

[Jon's Queen Consort]

Another of PJ’s baseless theories, how original.

So Robb named his heir a Southern foreigner who has no blood connection with the Starks, who worships foreign Gods and has also committed high treason because he didn’t cared about the Starks. Seems legit.

[The Twinslayer]

39 minutes ago, The Doctor's Consort said:

Another of PJ’s baseless theories, how original.

So Robb named his heir a Southern foreigner who has no blood connection with the Starks, who worships foreign Gods and has also committed high treason because he didn’t cared about the Starks. Seems legit.

Remember that Robb was King of both the North (as a son of Eddard Stark) and the Riverlands (as a grandson of Hoster Tully).  When he named an heir, he was naming someone to rule both parts of his kingdom.  How likely do you think it is that Robb named a foreign bastard with no blood connections to the Tullys ,who worships foreign gods, who is sworn to hold no lands, take no wife, and wear no crowns and has never been South of the Neck, as the King of the Riverlands?  

Having been Lady Stark for 15 years, having spent significant time with every noble house in the North, and potentially being the mother to Robb's half-sibling (if she marries again), Catelyn has a better chance of holding the North than Jon does of holding the Riverlands.   

[Jon's Queen Consort]

6 minutes ago, The Twinslayer said:

Remember that Robb was King of both the North (as a son of Eddard Stark) and the Riverlands (as a grandson of Hoster Tully).  When he named an heir, he was naming someone to rule both parts of his kingdom.  How likely do you think it is that Robb named a foreign bastard with no blood connections to the Tullys ,who worships foreign gods, who is sworn to hold no lands, take no wife, and wear no crowns and has never been South of the Neck, as the King of the Riverlands?  

Having been Lady Stark for 15 years, having spent significant time with every noble house in the North, and potentially being the mother to Robb's half-sibling (if she marries again), Catelyn has a better chance of holding the North than Jon does of holding the Riverlands.   

Cat was a traitor for the whole North to see and the only connection she had with the North was that she was Ned's baby making machine. Her power comes from her children she has no power of her own right.

Robb wasn't naming the head of house Tully but the head of house Stark. No one in the North would have accepted a Tully with no Stark blood, no connection with the North and a known traitor as their overlord. Even Robb wasn't that stupid to think that.

[Ferocious Veldt Roarer]

16 hours ago, The Twinslayer said:

Remember that Robb was King of both the North (as a son of Eddard Stark) and the Riverlands (as a grandson of Hoster Tully).  

Huh?

You do know that Hoster Tully had a son? And heir? Who would later become Lord of Riverrun? Cat's brother? Edmure.

Robb didn't get the Riverlands through inheritance, he got them because the river lords broke their allegiance to the Iron Throne and bent the knee to Winterfell instead.

And, if you read the heir discussion in ASOS, you'll be able to count the exact number of fucks given by both Robb and Cat to Tully blood and the feelings of the river lords re: Robb's prospective heir. Spoiler alert,

Spoiler

It's zero.

Stop introducing into evidence things absent from the books!

[St Daga]

On 6/13/2017 at 7:15 AM, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

Robb could probably legitimize Jon and get him released from his vows, but he and Cat both fail to mention the fact that many northerners would never accept a bastard oathbreaker as their king.

Possibly neither Robb nor Cat mentions this because they don't see it as a problem in the case of Jon inheriting? You, @40 Thousand Skeletons seem to have a problem with Jon inheriting for this reason, but do people in the north?

*

On 6/14/2017 at 9:32 PM, 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.

Agreed! Bran and Luwin even discuss the possibility of Lord Hornwood's bastard son being named the heir to Hornwood lands, and Lord of the Hornwood. This decision is left unsettled by the war, and with Robb being gone from Winterfell. Ramsay takes Lady Hornwood by force, and marries her. He declares himself Lord of Hornwood because he took it by force (even if he disguised it behind a marriage), not because he legally had the best claim. If the north had not been torn apart by the War of the Five Kings, this action by Ramsay Snow would not have stood.

*

On 6/14/2017 at 8:27 PM, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

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 Robb does care about the Stark blood line. I think Cat cares about it, too, but not nearly as much as Robb. She would prefer the Stark blood line to continue with a nice mixture of Tully blood in the pot, and eventually it might if the story has the blood line come from Arya (however, I am not convinced that Arya has Tully blood but that tinfoil is for another day and another thread).

Both Robb and Cat plainly state that Stark blood is important to who Robb names as his heir in the following exchange.

Quote

 

"Mother." There was a sharpness in Robb's tone. "You forget. My father had four sons."

She had not forgotten; she had not wanted to look at it, yet there it was. "A Snow is not a Stark."

"Jon's more a Stark than some lordlings from the Vale who have never so much as set eyes on Winterfell." ASOS-Caatelyn V

 

Robb plainly wants someone of Stark blood to follow him as his heir. He even seems to think it important that person come from Ned's bloodline, if at all possible. Even Catelyn recognizes this is important, but she tries to derail Robb by claiming that Jon is no Stark, that he is a Snow. Of course, that argument might work for legal names but not for blood, and Robb rightly points out that Jon, despite not carrying the Stark name, is still more of a Stark than some random couins in the Vale.

Jon is certainly more of a Stark than Catelyn, I think we can all agree! The argument that Robb doesn't care about his heir carrying Stark blood doesn't hold water. If that is the case, why even try to have a child with Jeyne Westerling? 

The biggest impediment to Jon not following Robb, who is King in the North as well as King of the Trident, isn't that fact that Jon is bastard born, or even that he is a sworn brother of the nights watch, but that he doesn't really have a claim to the riverlands, just the north. This makes it tricky for Jon to be the King of the Trident, although as King in the North, I think the people of the north would follow Jon with little trouble, regardless of his bastard birth, and depending on how he was released from his Nights Watch vows.

I mentioned on a different thread, and it has been brought up on this thread as well, would Catelyn think she had been trapped if Jon was named heir and Robb declared that Jon should marry Cat? I think she would feel terribly defeated by this declaration. Personally I think it's a terrible "trick" to play on both Jon and Cat, however, children of that union would carry both Stark and Tully blood, and it might make a lot of sense for Robb to do this. Poor Jon and Cat, if that is the case! And even if Robb did do this, since Catelyn is dead, although reborn, she now has a zombie womb and I doubt can breed any more heirs, so I am not sure it would matter. If this is what Robb did, with Catelyn dead, then her only legal female heirs are Sansa and Arya. Sansa is already married, and until Tyrion is dead, I don't think she is free to marry again, leaving Arya as Catelyn's female heir.

This idea makes me think of Arya joking about a fish in a wolves mouth as her sigil, when she and Jon discuss heraldry in AGOT Arya I. That chapter also declares bastards get the swords and girls get the arms, and I think it hints at a union between Jon and Arya. I know many people don't like this idea, whether Jon and Arya are siblings or cousins, but I think there are enough hints in the text to consider that GRRM is leaving the door open to that hallway/possibility.

 

Quote

 

He makes his mother's House equal in honor to the king's."

"The woman is important too!" Arya protested.

Jon chuckled. "Perhaps you should do the same thing, little sister. Wed Tully to Stark in your arms."

"A wolf with a fish in its mouth?" It made her laugh. "That would look silly. Besides, if a girl can't fight, why should she have a coat of arms?"

Jon shrugged. "Girls get the arms but not the swords. Bastards get the swords but not the arms. I did not make the rules, little sister." AGOT-Arya I

 

*

On 6/14/2017 at 9:56 PM, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

When he said he wanted Jon to be his heir, HE WAS LYING! That's the whole point of this theory

Why do you think Robb was lying? He has not been a known liar before this time, why would he start being a liar now? And about this, of all things? That is a part of your theory that is pretty shaky, no offense.

*

On 6/14/2017 at 8:27 PM, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

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.

Well, that is your opinion. And that is fine. I have opinions that color how I view the text as well. But that doesn't mean it is the opinion of the northern lords, or any characters in GRRM's story. However, we all are guilty of projecting our own ideals and judgments on the text, but that doesn't make those personal ideals and judgments beneficial in figuring out the plot. Actually, our own personal ideals and judgments can make us misread the plot because of what we believe or wish.

Maybe I don't want to think of Catelyn as Robb's heir because I personally blame her for so much of went wrong for the north from the very beginning of the story, therefore I think she would not deserve the north. But that is just my opinion coloring my hopes for the text, just as your opinion about Jon inheriting seems to color yours!

*

On 6/14/2017 at 9:26 PM, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

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.

Well, we know that Catelyn was dead and came back as a "zombie", we don't know either thing about Jon. We don't know if he is dead at all, and if he isn't dead, then we don't need to worry about him being a zombie. 

*

On 6/15/2017 at 0:03 AM, Lollygag said:

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.

Yes! A huge succession mess. And if Jon is legitimized and named Robb's heir, then he is considered to be Ned's eldest son, and many would support him over his younger half-siblings. Jon as Robb's heir and legitimized as Ned's eldest living child makes the succession a much more intriguing clusterf***!

*

18 hours ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

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?

Maybe that is exactly what GRRM is trying to tell us! That every child is equal, no matter if his/her parents were married. That the institution of marriage isn't important to the outcome! That bastard born children are just as worthy and maybe more capable as rulers than their true born counterparts!

*

18 hours ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

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.

There has been much debate over the years about what parts of the Night's Watch oath are original and what are added. Who is to say what parts the Old Gods themselves respect? Maybe the Old God's themselves don't give two shits about holding lands, wearing crowns or fathering children! There is too much of the story left for GRRM to tell for us to say how it's going to all play out, but I don't think we have learned all the important things about the Nights Watch or their vows yet, or how it will effect the outcome of the story, or even what is the important part of the vows.

*

18 hours ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

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.

Oh, now, that isn't true at all. Jaime was important because it affected Tywin and Cersei's Lannister pride and arrogance. Jaime was an important hostage as a symbol, and Catelyn made a huge mess of that situation! Time will tell if Cat's releasing Jaime will play out in the eventual return of either Sansa or Arya to Winterfell, but at this point of the story, it has gained nothing. Nothing for the Stark's anyway, it has worked out only okay-ish for Jaime. I mean, after all he is free, but as a captive in Riverrun, at least he had his sword hand! Jaime might not thank unCat for her "gift" of freedom, either.

*

16 hours ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

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

Catelyn put herself in a similar situation when she chose to travel to and from Kings Landing with only Ser Rodrik as her escort. Pretty much right after Ned made her acting regent in the north. She might not have been captured but she easily could have been. Catelyn makes some pretty poor decision's in this story, decisions that make me question her ability to rule in Winterfell, a place she admittedly never felt a part of, even after more than a decade and five children.

*

I told myself days ago I was done discussing this thread, but here I am. Reading the discussion has been interesting, and I can't help but wanting to respond to a few things.  I do appreciate discussing the text, even if we can't all agree. Of course, how boring would it be if we all agreed all of the time? Yuck!

[Lollygag]

18 hours ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

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.

I don’t disagree with your argument. I just disagree with the weight it carries against other arguments. A lot of what you state above also results if you set the precedent of naming a non-blood heir, only worse. Chaos from an elevated a bastard would only be relevant to isolated incidents. Naming a non-blood heir potentially affects every transfer of power for every house. If you think the Game of Thrones is bad now...

Robb's views on Jon have been perfectly clear. If you disagree with Robb's opinion, that's a different topic.

18 hours ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

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.

Robb did it. Everyone signed. The question is what he did, not whether you or anyone else agrees with it. I didn’t hear any problems from anyone but Cat, and we know where she’s coming from, and Cat isn't the one making the decision, it's Robb. Are you really suggesting that all of the Lords of the Riverlands and all of the Lords of the North combined can't come up with 100 men or whatever price the NW demands? They're really not in a position to turn down any good offer and Robb knows that. Robb never suggests Jon should be an oathbreaker, and besides, the Northererns don't care as much about oathbreaking as

you do, and neither does Robb, just ask Jeyne Westerling. See my earlier post on Robb and the Greatjon and how the Northerners presumably break their oaths all the time to the Kings of Winter by rebelling.

18 hours ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

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.

This is what you think, not what Robb or any other thinks.

Robb and the rest of the Northerners wanted Jaime kept in captivity. Robb was not ok that Jaime was released, but he couldn’t lash out because he had just made the same mistake by marrying Jeyne Westerling and Robb commanded that no one criticize Catelyn, so we wouldn’t know of direct condemnation, but if you read her chapters carefully, it’s definitely there along with the ramifications of what she did. Some of the people sympathized with her decision as a mother, sure. But the decision that a monarch should make is often in conflict with one a parent should make. Catelyn made the decision of a parent, not a monarch. That's what the Mormont women sympathized with. And that's why it disqualifies her as counsel to the King, and by extension, as monarch. She put her own needs over that of her people. Robb made the same decision for love over his duty as king, and look where he is now.

ASOS Catelyn I

Ser Desmond Grell had served House Tully all his life. He had been a squire when Catelyn was born, a knight when she learned to walk and ride and swim, master-at-arms by the day that she was wed. He had seen Lord Hoster's little Cat become a young woman, a great lord's lady, mother to a king. And now he has seen me become a traitor as well.

…

Edmure: "You do not understand. Highgarden has declared for Joffrey. Dorne as well. All the south." His mouth tightened. "And you see fit to loose the Kingslayer. You had no right."

ASOS Catelyn II

"Aye, my lady." Lord Rickard Karstark pushed past the Greatjon, like some grim specter with his black mail and long ragged grey beard, his narrow face pinched and cold. "And I have one son, who once had three. You have robbed me of my vengeance."

Catelyn faced him calmly. "Lord Rickard, the Kingslayer's dying would not have bought life for your children. His living may buy life for mine."

The lord was unappeased. "Jaime Lannister has played you for a fool. You've bought a bag of empty words, no more. My Torrhen and my Eddard deserved better of you."

"Leave off, Karstark," rumbled the Greatjon, crossing his huge arms against his chest. "It was a mother's folly. Women are made that way."

"A mother's folly?" Lord Karstark rounded on Lord Umber. "I name it treason."

"Enough." For just an instant Robb sounded more like Brandon than his father. "No man calls my lady of Winterfell a traitor in my hearing, Lord Rickard." When he turned to Catelyn, his voice softened. "If I could wish the Kingslayer back in chains I would. You freed him without my knowledge or consent . . . but what you did, I know you did for love. For Arya and Sansa, and out of grief for Bran and Rickon. Love's not always wise, I've learned. It can lead us to great folly, but we follow our hearts . . . wherever they take us. Don't we, Mother?"

ASOS Catelyn III

"Near three hundred riders and twice as many mounts, melted away in the night." Robb rubbed his temples, where the crown had left its mark in the soft skin above his ears. "All the mounted strength of Karhold, lost."

Lost by me. By me, may the gods forgive me. Catelyn did not need to be a soldier to grasp the trap Robb was in. For the moment he held the riverlands, but his kingdom was surrounded by enemies to every side but east, where Lysa sat aloof on her mountaintop. Even the Trident was scarce secure so long as the Lord of the Crossing withheld his allegiance. And now to lose the Karstarks as well . . .

If you’re angling toward LSH’s power being expanded, possibly greatly, from the BwB, then I think this is entirely possible. The Varamyr prologue chapter hints that Jon will be side-lined and spend a lot of time in Ghost. If things become a lot more chaotic and no Stark materializes, then LHS could become the de facto leader in the void. If Rickon, Bran or Arya materializes before Jon, we could see one of them rule with a LHS regent of sorts. It’s really hard to tell right now. But will LHS attain any power through Robb’s will, nah. Plus, she becomes more interesting to me anyhow if she does what she does without hanging on legalities of Robb’s will. Rule by conquest always makes the more interesting story.

 

[The Mother of The Others]

I told myself days ago I was done discussing this thread, but here I am.

 

is it catelyn who should feel trapped, or is it us?    

[Darkstream]

On 2017-6-13 at 5:26 PM, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

Cat wouldn't jump at the opportunity because she has been emotionally shattered and is exhausted, she (wrongly) believes that everyone is super pissed at her over releasing Jaime, and she thinks some of the sexist lords view her negatively as a woman and a mother and weak. But as you pointed out, she was vehemently against Jon inheriting WF, and so Robb crafts the perfect trap to overcome these obstacles. He threatens to name Jon as his heir, then gets every Lord traveling with them to support his real choice of Cat, and finally he names Cat as his heir in front of all the Lords there, proving to Cat that she has no reasonable choice but to accept and support the decision.

I don't see this as a viable reason that Robb would need to trap her into accepting  his wish to name her his heir. Do you really think someone is going to turn down a position of this much power and prestige, just because they are depressed and exhausted?

Besides, what duty would Robb naming her heir, necessitate her having to perform at this time? This would just be a back up plan, which would only come to fruition should Robb be killed, and not have managed to produce an heir of his own by that time. And might I remind you of the Tully words: "Family, Duty, Honor". Cat is not one who would turn her back on this request of her son. I would think she would be honored to accept this duty in service to her son family.

Quote

"I cannot," she said. "In all else, Robb. In everything. But not in this . . . this folly. Do not ask it."

Also, do you not think, in the case that she would need convincing, that it would be more prudent of Robb to just inform her of his wishes, and should she refuse, then he could play the Jon card as his only other alternative?

[kissdbyfire]

7 hours ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

Yeah, sure... but that bastard will presumably also be a zombie  

He'd have to die before turning into a zombie, and since he didn't (yet)...

 

7 hours ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

And Cat will probably crown Jeyne's child and maybe just be a zombie regent. How would you feel about having a scary vengeful zombie as regent?  

LOL Same way as I'd feel about a scary vengeful queen... SCARED!

 

7 hours ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

In all seriousness, I don't think she will try to claim the regency as a zombie but I would love it if she did. She would do better than Cersei I bet  

But my dead nan, who is not a zombie btw, would do better than Cersei!

now have to go back and find that post of yours I haven't replied to yet...

[ravenous reader]

3 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

I don't see this as a viable reason that Robb would need to trap her into accepting  his wish to name her his heir. Do you really think someone is going to turn down a position of this much power and prestige, just because they are depressed and exhausted?

No, indeed.  Cat is a control freak with serious 'stepmonster' issues.  She would jump at the chance -- no need for a trap!

As I've indicated upthread to @40 Thousand Skeletons, this is the weakest part of his argument, failing to take into account the motivations of either Cat or Robb, essentially deconstructing the premise from within.  Nevertheless, 40000 persists, and by drawing our eyes to 'the trap,' and away from the intrinsic motivations of two individuals who are both known to be predominantly emotional, not to mention stubborn, in their decision-making -- he thereby traps us in his maze of tinfoil!

Legitimate heir or not, I wonder if Cat Stoneheart will crown herself or another with the (fake) crown of the King of Winter now in her possession?  That would introduce a delectable parallel into the mix between Brienne and Jaime's arcs, which I've previously posited are inversions of one another.  Thus, the situation could arise of Brienne (as 'queensguard') doing some lifesaving (king)queenslaying of the out-of-control death Queen she's sworn to serve, making her the very thing of which she once accused Jaime, an oathbreaker, performing the deed with 'Oathkeeper' no less -- it's perfect -- oh, the things Brienne will do for love (of Jaime, of course...)!    

[Lollygag]

58 minutes ago, St Daga said:

Maybe that is exactly what GRRM is trying to tell us! That every child is equal, no matter if his/her parents were married. That the institution of marriage isn't important to the outcome! That bastard born children are just as worthy and maybe more capable as rulers than their true born counterparts!

I hope so! I really hate the bastard stigma and I really hope GRRM turns it around. Given that the bastard stigma is rooted in maintaining the integrity of the feudal system, I'm expecting this to be the case. I think the end of the series will show at least the beginnings of the end of the feudal system in Westeros, as it should be.

 

1 hour ago, St Daga said:

There has been much debate over the years about what parts of the Night's Watch oath are original and what are added. Who is to say what parts the Old Gods themselves respect? Maybe the Old God's themselves don't give two shits about holding lands, wearing crowns or fathering children! There is too much of the story left for GRRM to tell for us to say how it's going to all play out, but I don't think we have learned all the important things about the Nights Watch or their vows yet, or how it will effect the outcome of the story, or even what is the important part of the vows.

Agree and I'll add: If Jon uses his position as KitN to support the NW which he will, and do it much more effectively than as LC, then is he really breaking his oath? Essentially he'd be breaking the lesser parts of his oath (which only exist to reinforce the most important part of the oath) to support the only important part of the oath. This has been the core of Jon's challenges thus far in his arch. I'm not sure if the Old Gods care that much about lawyer-esque technicalities so much as outcome.

The NW oath makes me think of how the Church denied the priests marriage rights to stamp out nepotism. It was a lesser vow which was meant to support the most important part of the priest's work. But somehow the marriage rights issue has become so important that it's now interfering with the most important part of a priest's work. It's now working against its original intent.

1 hour ago, St Daga said:

I told myself days ago I was done discussing this thread, but here I am. Reading the discussion has been interesting, and I can't help but wanting to respond to a few things. 

Me too!

[Philokles]

1 hour ago, St Daga said:

This idea makes me think of Arya joking about a fish in a wolves mouth as her sigil, when she and Jon discuss heraldry in AGOT Arya I. That chapter also declares bastards get the swords and girls get the arms, and I think it hints at a union between Jon and Arya. I know many people don't like this idea, whether Jon and Arya are siblings or cousins, but I think there are enough hints in the text to consider that GRRM is leaving the door open to that hallway/possibility.

I think the fish in the wolf's mouth foreshadowing has already played out with Nymeria fishing Cat's body out of the Trident.

 

1 hour ago, St Daga said:

I think Robb does care about the Stark blood line. I think Cat cares about it, too, but not nearly as much as Robb. She would prefer the Stark blood line to continue with a nice mixture of Tully blood in the pot, and eventually it might if the story has the blood line come from Arya (however, I am not convinced that Arya has Tully blood but that tinfoil is for another day and another thread).

That'd be an interesting read.

[The Mother of The Others]

 Yes.  Evidence: hair mussing = shared lineage.    Already went there.   Tough to find a lingering targdick for Cat's revenge impregnation during that timeslot, though.  Now back to you.

[kissdbyfire]

On 13/06/2017 at 8:20 PM, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

Ahem... please see the statement below my name  

But in all seriousness, I think the weirnet/Old Gods/Bloodraven is directly or indirectly responsible for every major event in the plot, basically because I think the Old Gods are purposefully propping up Jon and Dany to be "savior" figures and wage an unjust war against the Others.

Can you elaborate on this a bit? 

On 13/06/2017 at 8:20 PM, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

And since Jon and Dany both becoming saviors/military leaders will be effectively a confluence of all the major events in the story so far, that would necessitate that the Old Gods are either causing or planning around everything we have witnessed in the story so far, going at least as far back as the rebellion and the births of Jon and Dany, and maybe even long before that.

Why? I'm not trying to be super dense/a pain in the arse here but I really fail to see what you're driving at with this. And also how are the OG causing/planning everything? 

On 13/06/2017 at 8:20 PM, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

And yes, GRRM is writing a story primarily about the human heart in conflict with itself as he has said, but the weirnet has manipulated events so that the choices available to characters have been contrived. For instance, Ned decides not to make peace with the Lannisters, ultimately because of the attempt on Bran's life. This was a beautiful moral dilemma that we, the readers, got to see played out in Ned's heart in AGOT, but the whole situation was contrived from its outset, and the weirnet/Bloodraven was able to get the war they wanted by planting the dagger and killing the king.

Wait. We know Ned dislikes (to put it mildly) the Lannisters from the get-go. You know, there's Tywin sitting on his arse until the war was pretty much decided, then Jaime arrogantly sitting on the IT (this is minor though), and then the savage and brutal murders of Rhaenys and Aegon... And then, in the present time we have Lysa's secret msg accusing the Lannisters of murdering Jon Arryn, who was like a father to Ned. So I don't really see the fact that Ned didn't make peace w/ the Lannisters as nothing more than what was expected. Unless you're actually saying that Bloodraven skinchanged into Tywin and basically took up residence in him for the duration of RR, then later into Jaime, then Tywin again just to give Lorch and Clegane the order to kill Rhaegar's children? Because that would be a tad too silly. 

On 13/06/2017 at 8:20 PM, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

I think the goal of the weirnet is to finally conquer free will by gaining the power to skinchange humans, via training Bran to have said power and then absorbing Bran into the weirnet.

Huh? First, I'm not sure who or what is the weirnet in your opinion. But from what I've read so far, the weirnet is responsible for every major event since RR or something... but it/they don't have free will? And skinchanging into humans, despite the abomination stigma, is something that's not that outrageously hard for a skilled skinchanger. Sure, Varamyr fails in the Prologue, and we know he's skilled, but he was weak and dying. The point is, it's been done before. So, it feels a bit convoluted to have this super weirnet controlling everything just to do so,etching that's been done already. Bran has done it even before he reached the cave. And if I may, why does the weirnet want to skinchange into humans? To have power and manipulate everything? B/c I thought the premise here is that it's already doing just that? So, the weirnet manipulates everything and everyone just so they can skinchange into humans to manipulate everything and everyone? I gotta tell you, this whole thing is doing my head in!

On 13/06/2017 at 8:20 PM, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

Ultimately, I theorize that the weirnet will finally "lose" the game and probably be destroyed when Bran makes the decision to be crippled and/or die for the sake of those he loves, and he will choose to destroy the weirnet instead of joining it. And I think Arya may help. The "souls" inside the weirnet may in fact be in a sort of living Hell for all we know, and this would be the ultimate target for the Faceless Men.

Why? 

On 13/06/2017 at 8:20 PM, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

Additionally, there is evidence that the FM have been working for the fAegon cause (it seems they have gold dragons minted with the likeness of Daemon Blackfyre), and Jaqen's original mission may have been to travel north of the Wall with Rorge and Biter to track and kill Bloodraven, the arch rival of Bittersteel (that's admittedly much more speculative). Anyways, I think the purpose of Chekov's wolf pack may be for all the wolves to run around through the various tunnel and cave networks of Westeros and devour the living greenseers hooked into the weirnet like BR.

What makes you think Jaqen's mission was to go beyond the Wall to kill Bloodraven? And what makes you think Rorge and Biter were on the same mission? 

I won't comment on the wolf pack running around eating greenseers because I have no idea what to say to that tbh. But not b/c I'm blown away, more because I'm in shock.

 

[The Mother of The Others]

Yeah it feels like the faceless honor the children's tradition and magic wood.   The faceless might be the one sliver of humanity living in accord with the children's standards.   But siccing the wolves on the undertrees would be cool endgame stuff.

[The Fattest Leech]

@40 Thousand Skeletons I just want to say that you have been a gracious thread host. With the large amount of counter-debate to your theory, you have at least been in good spirits about it and have not devolved into name calling and insults. This makes discussion and fandom actually fun , even though I still think this idea is crazy  

By the way, what battery brand do you use because you are tireless!

[Lord Wraith]

9 hours ago, The Doctor's Consort said:

Another of PJ’s baseless theories, how original.

So Robb named his heir a Southern foreigner who has no blood connection with the Starks, who worships foreign Gods and has also committed high treason because he didn’t cared about the Starks. Seems legit.

I just wish more people would admit this when they post these ideas.

Well on the flip side why would anyone in the Riverlands support Jon as King of the Riverlands? He worships foreign gods, is a bastard, has taken the Black and has no connection to House Tully. Just because Robb who lost them the war wanted it so?

[maudisdottir]

I don't think the Riverlands are as gung ho about the king as the northerners. They may not follow Jon as King in the North the way they did half-Tully Robb, but that's not to say they wouldn't remain allies or even a vassal territory, at least until the war was over.

The scene where Robb was named King in the North doesn't say that the Riverlanders named him King of the Trident. It just says they drew their blades and bent their knees and shouted the old words "the King in the North" along with everyone else.