Jump to content

Cat is definitely the heir named in Robb's will


Recommended Posts

Just now, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

Stannis didn't exactly have a lot of options. Though I do think that he subsequently learned Rickon was alive and is currently allied with Manderly and company. My point is that it was a super mixed bag as far as lords supporting a bastard went, and I wouldn't be surprised if the north was a similar mixed bag. It is, at a minimum, not ideal for Jon to be a bastard if Robb wants to make him the heir.

Proves that the idea that nobody would support a legitimised bastard isn't true though, doesn't it? Mixed bag or not, people did support Daemon even thought the actual King was alive and well, so I find the idea that the North would absolutely refuse to follow Jon if the previous King made him his heir as utterly nonsensical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, WSmith84 said:

Proves that the idea that nobody would support a legitimised bastard isn't true though, doesn't it? Mixed bag or not, people did support Daemon even thought the actual King was alive and well, so I find the idea that the North would absolutely refuse to follow Jon if the previous King made him his heir as utterly nonsensical.

That's cool. Did I say this idea at some point? Pretty sure that is not what I said...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

I agree there would be no bigger defeat than accepting Jon as heir. But being named heir herself would also make her feel defeated.

This really doesn't make sense.  It would be a triumph, not a defeat!  Once Robb dies, she would be able to name an heir of her choosing -- a dream come true!  She loves making unilateral decisions (e.g. taking Tyrion hostage without consultation).

THERE IS NO NEED TO 'TRAP' CAT INTO BEING ROBB'S HEIR  -- Though you pursue it relentlessly, this is the principal flaw of your argument!

24 minutes ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

But yes, everyone seems to think that it is a no-brainer that Robb named a bastard would-be oathbreaker and potentially dead (but at a bare minimum MIA) person as his heir without anyone telling Jon, when really that is ridiculous because it would fail to address the entire point of naming an heir: avoiding chaos in the event of Robb's death

No, it's not 'ridiculous.'  Robb makes emotional decisions, or he wouldn't have married the first girl with whom he had a campaign romance.

Let's return to the direwolf, Grey Wind, as a barometer of Robb's true intentions.  Are you suggesting the direwolf is also being 'disingenuous' -- a 'master mummer' -- when he bares his teeth to Cat in displeasure?  If he hadn't approved of what Robb was saying (namely that Jon should be the heir), he would have snarled at Robb and licked Cat's fingers in appreciation, instead.  Wolves are not good liars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, ravenous reader said:

This really doesn't make sense.  It would be a triumph, not a defeat!  Once Robb dies, she would be able to name an heir of her choosing -- a dream come true!  She loves making unilateral decisions (e.g. taking Tyrion hostage without consultation).

THERE IS NO NEED TO 'TRAP' CAT INTO BEING ROBB'S HEIR  -- Though you pursue it relentlessly, this is the principal flaw of your argument!

LOL well if that were true, it would certainly be a huge flaw. But I disagree. I don't think she wanted the job. ;) 

8 minutes ago, ravenous reader said:

No, it's not 'ridiculous.'  Robb makes emotional decisions, or he wouldn't have married the first girl with whom he had a campaign romance.

Naming Jon as heir is one thing. Doing it without checking if Jon is actually alive would be fucking idiotic, not merely emotional.

9 minutes ago, ravenous reader said:

Let's return to the direwolf, Grey Wind, as a barometer of Robb's true intentions.  Are you suggesting the direwolf is also being 'disingenuous' -- a 'master mummer' -- when he bares his teeth to Cat in displeasure?  If he hadn't approved of what Robb was saying (namely that Jon should be the heir), he would have snarled at Robb and licked Cat's fingers in appreciation, instead.  Wolves are not good liars.

I already addressed this earlier when you brought it up. I will copy and paste my earlier response:

I think you are incorrectly interpreting Grey Wind's behavior. Are Grey Wind and Robb telepathically linked, and Grey Wind constantly expressing Robb's inner emotions? Definitely! But you are wrongly associating Grey Wind's bared teeth with Cat's disagreement over Jon being the heir. You said:

  Quote

When Cat starts to argue against Jon's and therefore Ghost's authority as head of the pack, Grey Wind leaps up onto the grave at the foot of the king (hint hint) baring his teeth to her.

This is not totally correct. When Cat starts to argue against Jon being the heir, Grey Wind at first does nothing. They continue to argue calmly for another 90 seconds or so after Cat says a Snow is not a Stark. It is only after Cat brings up Theon's betrayal and compares Theon to Jon that Robb gets angry. Robb had expected Cat to argue against Jon and was not angered by that alone. Here is the full quote:

  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.”

“Jon is a brother of the Night’s Watch, sworn to take no wife and hold no lands. Those who take the black serve for life.”

“So do the knights of the Kingsguard. That did not stop the Lannisters from stripping the white cloaks from Ser Barristan Selmy and Ser Boros Blount when they had no more use for them. If I send the Watch a hundred men in Jon’s place, I’ll wager they find some way to release him from his vows.”

He is set on this. Catelyn knew how stubborn her son could be. “A bastard cannot inherit.”

“Not unless he’s legitimized by a royal decree,” said Robb. “There is more precedent for that than for releasing a Sworn Brother from his oath.”

“Precedent,” she said bitterly. “Yes, Aegon the Fourth legitimized all his bastards on his deathbed. And how much pain, grief, war, and murder grew from that? I know you trust Jon. But can you trust his sons? Or their sons? The Blackfyre pretenders troubled the Targaryens for five generations, until Barristan the Bold slew the last of them on the Stepstones. If you make Jon legitimate, there is no way to turn him bastard again. Should he wed and breed, any sons you may have by Jeyne will never be safe.”

“Jon would never harm a son of mine.”

“No more than Theon Greyjoy would harm Bran or Rickon?”

Grey Wind leapt up atop King Tristifer’s crypt, his teeth bared. Robb’s own face was cold. “That is as cruel as it is unfair. Jon is no Theon.”

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/22/2017 at 1:10 PM, Elaena Targaryen said:

So you truly believe Robb is completely fine with being the last of his eight thousand year line and ending his house? I feel the books themselves and the history they are based on fully prove otherwise.

We all read and analyze the books through a lens and while it's productive to do this from a modern perspective it's also enlightening, and at times essential, to examine the perspective of the time period. We all have our own opinions but really opinions can be anywhere from an educated opinion to flights of fancy, not that I don't enjoy and participate in the whole spectrum myself. :P 

Considering that the books are fictional and we have no quotes from Robb indicating he gave 2 shits about the Stark bloodline, I disagree with your feelings. :P 

On 6/22/2017 at 1:10 PM, Elaena Targaryen said:

Yes laws of inheritance are murky because there can be multiple claimants. Claim is the key word. It means being in the line of succession, a right to the rank. Cat can't be the heir since inheritance does not run backwards. Cat can't be the heir because Robb was crowned a dynastic king and Cat is not a queen. (also that House Tully was never a royal house and they have taken House Stark as their liege lord) Cat even says she was taught that the gods make kings. Cat is not even considered the Queen Mother since she was never married to a king, never crowned queen and because inheritance does not run backwards. (Not to mention jumping to a different tree entirely.)

Now regarding Jeyne... don't assume I think it's likely she will have a say in northern politics but she does have a right. Jeyne Westerling married King Robb Stark and was crowned his Queen. Jeyne is now the Dowager Queen since she is Robb's widow. The precedent cited in this thread is Lady Hornwood - which isn't a royal house like Robb's case and it's only a minor vassal that the liege lord had not yet made a ruling on the case - would equate with Jeyne before Cat since Jeyne is Robb's widow. Also Lady Hornwood most likely would have to name an heir of Hornwood blood and there are two choices, the bastard or a nephew - so if Jeyne did end up with a choice of Jon or a Vale cousin who would she choose knowing Robb's feelings on the matter? Again not that I believe it will ever come to that for Jeyne,  anymore than Cat, only that the right to do so can be argued.

Robb had to name Cat as an heir because she had no claim. He gave her a claim. And yes, Jeyne would have a right, and she is technically a closer parallel to Lady Hornwood than Cat, but I am sure the northern lords would much rather have Ned's widow ruling over them than Jeyne, who is basically a stranger to them.

But I think you are wrong about Lady Hornwood having to name an heir with Hornwood blood. My impression, based on the fact that so many men were trying to marry her for her land, was that her new husband would basically inherit Hornwood and pass it to his heir.

On 6/22/2017 at 1:10 PM, Elaena Targaryen said:

I think you read this part incorrectly. Robb did know they were at Oldstones and he was merely asking if Cat knew the real name of the castle but it has been forgotten and lost to time.

I think Robb discusses and addresses all of Cat's concerns which leaves her without any argument later at the will signing.

LOL no, I read it correctly ;). That question is the beginning of Robb's trap. He is feigning ignorance while playing the master mummer and leading Cat into a conversation about naming Jon his heir.

On 6/22/2017 at 1:10 PM, Elaena Targaryen said:

I think Robb discusses and addresses all of Cat's concerns which leaves her without any argument later at the will signing.

Sure, OK, I agree :P 

On 6/22/2017 at 1:10 PM, Elaena Targaryen said:

Robb is equating himself to the heir that failed and lamenting on not having an heir if proof of that. You have to ask yourself "how did Tristifer's heir fail him?" He failed by being the last of his line, by being the end of House Mudd, by being the end of a thousand year old royal dynasty.

Yes, Robb is equating himself to Tristifer. But I think the point, considering the fact that they are standing among ruins, is that Robb wanted to ensure the survival of his kingdom, not his bloodline.

On 6/22/2017 at 1:10 PM, Elaena Targaryen said:

I believe he addresses her issues and that leaves her without argument at the will signing. Point by point Robb breaks down the realities for Cat because let's face it she has become quite irrational and delusional at this point. Then he ends by clearly stating she has no say in the matter.

Robb has been trying to get rid of Cat since the beginning of the campaign and they all know it. He has been tired of her confrontational attitude and now in her grief it's unbearable. I love Cat and she's probably my favorite character, she's tragic and I feel she's a Casandra figure. But this is Robb's perspective we are discussing.

From Robb's perspective, I think he respects her more than anyone else in the world and would be his first choice to inherit his kingdom. I think people tend to project their own opinions of Cat too much onto Robb.

On 6/22/2017 at 1:10 PM, Elaena Targaryen said:

No Robb can not just name whoever the fuck he feels like as heir - the heir by definition has to be a claimant. There are claimants and the succession wars would destroy the kingdom.

Says who? Robb is king. He can make whatever kingly declarations he sees fit. If he doesn't like the law he can change it, because there is no supreme court or anything. He is a KING!

On 6/22/2017 at 1:10 PM, Elaena Targaryen said:

So the trap.... They all have been having a very hard time and they are losing the war. They have lost family, heirs, castles, vassals and a whole region. They are trudging through the rain to grovel and beg. They finally receive wonderful news - Balon died and Victarion will leave a token force at Moat Cailin so Robb comes up with a great plan to retake it.

This is almost certainly wrong. Robb immediately called the meeting when they met up with Lord Mallister. There was only a few minutes in between Robb learning of Balon's death and outlining his plan to take Moat Cailin. He had already made this plan before learning of Balon's death.

On 6/22/2017 at 1:10 PM, Elaena Targaryen said:

Cat's trap was trifold like the plan on MC. Cat has been a downer and quite nasty at times in her grief, which she's aware of. Cat truly was blindsided by being sent to Seagard, she was angered and argued against it but Robb ended it by making it a royal command. Then he pulled out the will (likely naming Jon heir) and Cat was speechless since she did not have an argument against it. Any points she would raise Robb has already shot down and she would look bitter and confrontational again against her sovereign when they finally have something going their way.

As I have said, that is a pretty weak and pointless trap :P. That would have involved less mummery even than his earlier trap from ASOS Catelyn II, when he bagged Cat like a hare in a snare. Logically, this second trap should be more impressive, and involve even more masterful mummery. According to most people on the forum, Robb's second trap involved basically zero mummery. That would just be so boring... and disappointing... and nonsense... :P 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:
Spoiler

 

I agree there would be no bigger defeat than accepting Jon as heir. But being named heir herself would also make her feel defeated.

I don't like Cat or want her to be the heir, but I think she is. I didn't want Dany to greenlight the torture of innocent people, but it happened.

Robb was in the process of "trapping" Cat, as she alluded to in the last line of the chapter, so to call a spade a spade, we should assume Robb was tricking her into something significant in their earlier conversation and, therefore, he was being disingenuous when he claimed that he would make Jon his heir, which was the basically the point of the entire conversation.

Earlier in ASOS, Robb traps Cat in a much less impressive trap, showing us that Robb is capable of such behavior and has quickly learned some things about diplomacy since becoming a king. Cat even noted that:

Anyways, here is Robb's "warm-up" trap from ASOS Catelyn II. First, Robb summoned Cat to the great hall when everyone was still there, and the following conversation ensued:

OK, so we have established that as of ASOS Catelyn II, Robb is acting more like a king, and was capable at least of enough trickery to stage a scene with the cunning worthy of a master mummer... or a king. So if we are calling a spade a spade, we should expect Robb's later "trap" in ASOS Catelyn V to be even more impressive than this one, and we should be on the lookout for some more master mummery. And SURE ENOUGH, it seems clear that Robb was setting up his second trap with their private conversation that ended with Robb disingenuously declaring that Jon would be named his heir, you know, like a master mummer would do. His trap was so impressive in fact, that Cat compares it to his military plan for taking Moat Cailin. And I explained how this trap was laid out in the OP.

Other spades...

 

Robb informed everyone except Cat that she was being sent to Seagard after the wedding to keep her safe. Why didn't he tell Cat?

Spoiler

 

Because this info was directly related to her being heir and part of his trap. Upon learning she is being named the heir, she is immediately made aware that all the other lords there are already on board with this decision and support it. And since she explicitly promised to support Robb in any decision other than naming Jon as heir, she has been trapped into fully supporting Robb. And really, this is the only possible decision Robb would even need her support for. Cat holds little power over anyone other than herself.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the entire point of naming an heir was to avoid the type of "chaos" that ensued when Balon died. In other words... Robb's heir should be someone who is the known and agreed upon choice, but also someone who is, you know, made aware they have been named the heir to a kingdom and also preferably somewhere in the vicinity of Robb's army and bannermen! Not only does Robb apparently think (according to most people on the forum) that naming Jon heir without telling him was a fine idea, ROBB DOESN'T EVEN KNOW IF JON IS ALIVE OR WHERE HE IS IF HE IS ALIVE, and he certainly didn't bother checking with the NW to get a status update before signing his will.

In fact, where is Jon when Robb is naming his heir??? OH YEAH... he is meeting with Mance Rayder. :mellow:

For all the people at the Wall know, Jon is dead, along with about 300 other good men who were attacked at the Fist. And even the people who were at the fist think Jon and the other scouting parties are likely dead.

But yes, everyone seems to think that it is a no-brainer that Robb named a bastard would-be oathbreaker and potentially dead (but at a bare minimum MIA) person as his heir without anyone telling Jon, when really that is ridiculous because it would fail to address the entire point of naming an heir: avoiding chaos in the event of Robb's death. What happened when Robb died? Did his heir Jon immediately take over in a smooth, nonchaotic fashion? No. Unfortunately for Robb's kingdom, his heir was killed with him

 

.

Very simple.

From the text, we know Cat does impressively impulsive things when unsupervised- journey to KL, kidnap Tyrion, free Jaime...

Robb simply wants to get her out of the way with as little fuss as possible.

In medieval times, she'd be 'encouraged' to find a religious vocation and retire to a nunnery.

3 hours ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

Stannis didn't exactly have a lot of options. Though I do think that he subsequently learned Rickon was alive and is currently allied with Manderly and company. My point is that it was a super mixed bag as far as lords supporting a bastard went, and I wouldn't be surprised if the north was a similar mixed bag. It is, at a minimum, not ideal for Jon to be a bastard if Robb wants to make him the heir.

There's no reason for the lords to back a bastard as heir.

They know Rickon is alive.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎6‎/‎23‎/‎2017 at 1:37 PM, Prof. Cecily said:

 

An interesting point about Queen Jeyne.

Though with the failed rebellion, and the prohibition to marry for two years, I wonder how much of a player she'll be in TWOW.

And yes, all hail https://asearchoficeandfire.com/

This marvellous search engine puts our researches on an entirely different level!

Thank you!

I agree and I don't think Jeyne will play a role. It's unlikely but I guess she could if UnCat and the BwB rescue her but even then I still don't think it's likely she would be pivotal.

13 hours ago, ravenous reader said:

Let's return to the direwolf, Grey Wind, as a barometer of Robb's true intentions.  Are you suggesting the direwolf is also being 'disingenuous' -- a 'master mummer' -- when he bares his teeth to Cat in displeasure?  If he hadn't approved of what Robb was saying (namely that Jon should be the heir), he would have snarled at Robb and licked Cat's fingers in appreciation, instead.  Wolves are not good liars.

I forgot to quote you last time but I do really love your catch with Grey Wind!

13 hours ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

Considering that the books are fictional

Considering the books were meant to have realism, that Martin wanted to write them like historical fiction and they are heavily influenced by history it's safe to compare. From the peerage and feudal system, mating and courtships, hospitality laws, walk of shame, the Red Wedding, religions, Hadrian's Wall, War of the Roses, Greek fire and so on.

Quote

and we have no quotes from Robb indicating he gave 2 shits about the Stark bloodline, I disagree with your feelings. :P 

So in books where bloodline means everything, that's based on history where bloodline means everything, Robb is some modern aberration while still wearing a crown derived from his bloodline?

Robb was groomed as The heir to House Stark - "Bran can't be Lord of Winterfell before me" & "You can't be Lord of Winterfell, you're bastard-born." - so he gives a shit about his bloodline because it gives him a claim.

Here are Robb's  views on succession, and he seems to care quite a bit.

Quote

 

 "Renly is not the king," Robb said. It was the first time her son had spoken. Like his father, he knew how to listen.

"You cannot mean to hold to Joffrey, my lord," Galbart Glover said. "He put your father to death."
 
 "That makes him evil," Robb replied. "I do not know that it makes Renly king. Joffrey is still Robert's eldest trueborn son, so the throne is rightfully his by all the laws of the realm. Were he to die, and I mean to see that he does, he has a younger brother. Tommen is next in line after Joffrey."
 
 "Tommen is no less a Lannister," Ser Marq Piper snapped.
 
 "As you say," said Robb, troubled. "Yet if neither one is king, still, how could it be Lord Renly? He's Robert's younger brother. Bran can't be Lord of Winterfell before me, and Renly can't be king before Lord Stannis."
 
 Lady Mormont agreed. "Lord Stannis has the better claim."
 
 "Renly is crowned," said Marq Piper. "Highgarden and Storm's End support his claim, and the Dornishmen will not be laggardly. If Winterfell and Riverrun add their strength to his, he will have five of the seven great houses behind him. Six, if the Arryns bestir themselves! Six against the Rock! My lords, within the year, we will have all their heads on pikes, the queen and the boy king, Lord Tywin, the Imp, the Kingslayer, Ser Kevan, all of them! That is what we shall win if we join with King Renly. What does Lord Stannis have against that, that we should cast it all aside?"
 
 "The right," said Robb stubbornly. Catelyn thought he sounded eerily like his father as he said it.

 

Cat probably taught her children what she was taught -  "Yet I was also taught that the gods make kings, not the swords of men."

Quote

Robb had to name Cat as an heir because she had no claim. He gave her a claim.

I would like to see any precedent at all where a king named someone heir because they have no claim. It defies the entire logic and foundation of their system.

Quote

And yes, Jeyne would have a right, and she is technically a closer parallel to Lady Hornwood than Cat, but I am sure the northern lords would much rather have Ned's widow ruling over them than Jeyne, who is basically a stranger to them.

Heh, I bet some of the northern lords would just love to have either Jeyne or Cat ruling over them. It gives them lots of potential for advancement - like taking over completely. The Boltons would have jumped right on that like they did with Lady Hornwood.

Quote

But I think you are wrong about Lady Hornwood having to name an heir with Hornwood blood. My impression, based on the fact that so many men were trying to marry her for her land, was that her new husband would basically inherit Hornwood and pass it to his heir.

Oh yes that's the right impression - which is what the problem was, look what happens to Lady Hornwood. It also highlights the chaos of what could happen with Cat or Jeyne.

But I'm not wrong about naming an heir with Hornwood blood - that's most likely what would have happened if the liege lord was at home, made his ruling and if not for the war. It would protect the lady, the lands, the bloodline and the suitors would give up. The bastard Larence Snow or the nephew Beren Tallhart taking the Hornwood name and being named heir fixes the crisis.

Quote

LOL no, I read it correctly ;). That question is the beginning of Robb's trap. He is feigning ignorance while playing the master mummer and leading Cat into a conversation about naming Jon his heir.

I'm unclear on what you believe because you are so focused on your theory. Do you think the ruined castle was always named Oldstones or do you concede that the ruins are now called Oldstones but in the time of House Mudd the castle had a different unknown name? The latter was my point. I can't help that it may add more holes to a threadbare theory. :P

"Oldstones, all the smallfolk called it when I was a girl, but no doubt it had some other name when it was still a hall of kings."

Quote

Sure, OK, I agree :P 

You should have said "Sure, OK, mayhaps I agree :P " ;) 

Quote

Yes, Robb is equating himself to Tristifer. But I think the point, considering the fact that they are standing among ruins, is that Robb wanted to ensure the survival of his kingdom, not his bloodline.

Yes, Robb is equating himself to the failed heir. That's why he worries about Jeyne not being pregnant since it would be the end of House Stark. A kingdom and castle can be won back but a lost bloodline is permanent.

"The fifth Tristifer was not his equal, and soon the kingdom was lost, and then the castle, and last of all the line. With Tristifer the Fifth died House Mudd, that had ruled the riverlands for a thousand years before the Andals came."

"His heir failed him." Robb ran a hand over the rough weathered stone. "I had hoped to leave Jeyne with child .."

And I think them standing among the ruins is multilayered. Robb even brings this up "There's a song," he remembered. "'Jenny of Oldstones, with the flowers in her hair."' Jenny whose royal husband broke a betrothal to marry her connects back to Robb and Jeyne.

Also I really don't comprehend your hang-up on 'the kingdom' while completely dismissing the bloodline... don't you understand within this system they can't have one without the other - they are intertwined.

I really wish I was better at explaining things but I can only recommend you read more history focusing on the social and cultural, anthropology and philosophy.

Quote

From Robb's perspective, I think he respects her more than anyone else in the world and would be his first choice to inherit his kingdom. I think people tend to project their own opinions of Cat too much onto Robb.

Yes, Robb does respect Cat but it's also clear in the text that he wants to grow into his manhood and rank without his mother chastising him or being accused of hiding behind his mother's skirts. He's at war with his bannermen testing him constantly, Cat even counseled him and shows restraint to help him with this, but what he wanted was for Cat to go home.

I'm not projecting anything on Cat since I'm not discussing her perspective as your theory revolves around Robb's perspective. Are you sure your not projecting your own opinions on Robb? Or is it the crow calling the raven black? I don't know since I don't frequent the board much lately so please don't get offended if I seem too blunt as I'm just very inarticulate. :) 

Quote

Says who? Robb is king. He can make whatever kingly declarations he sees fit. If he doesn't like the law he can change it, because there is no supreme court or anything. He is a KING!

Heh, we do know what happens to kings who think they can do whatever they want - they get murdered. The last three kings of the Iron Throne were killed and I haven't checked but now I wonder when was the last time a Hand was allowed to die of natural causes...

Yea kings can get away with quite a bit but they do have checks and balances - it's their peerage, who get very nervous when changed rules can hurt them or they get simply too grasping or whatever.

Quote

This is almost certainly wrong. Robb immediately called the meeting when they met up with Lord Mallister. There was only a few minutes in between Robb learning of Balon's death and outlining his plan to take Moat Cailin. He had already made this plan before learning of Balon's death.

It can't be wrong because that's what I thought I said. :P You really have to use your reading comprehension with me because I have such a disheveled syntax, heh.  Even when I remember to fully explain my thought process....

But I do quibble a little with what you wrote. While I do agree he already had plans in place the news made the plans more likely to succeed and he may have tweaked them some as well. But I think there were more than a few minutes for Robb think about this, not much more but more.

They called a halt, set up tents and Cat went to the king's tent with Robb before a brazier looking at a map with some lords already assembled. Then Robb says  "The gods have heard our prayers, my lords. Lord Jason has brought us the captain of the Myraham, a merchanter out of Oldtown. Captain, tell them what you told me." So Robb had a little more time than "a few minutes" to refine his plans. Good thing he already planned on assaulting Moat Cailin. :) 

Quote

As I have said, that is a pretty weak and pointless trap :P. That would have involved less mummery even than his earlier trap from ASOS Catelyn II, when he bagged Cat like a hare in a snare. Logically, this second trap should be more impressive, and involve even more masterful mummery. According to most people on the forum, Robb's second trap involved basically zero mummery. That would just be so boring... and disappointing... and nonsense... :P 

You may feel the trap is weak, pointless, boring, disappointing nonsense but I think most would find a trap that gets Cat to agree to name Jon the Stark heir nothing short of miraculous. ;) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

That's cool. Did I say this idea at some point? Pretty sure that is not what I said...

Pretty much. Here's you:

Quote

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?

The not inconsiderable number of supporters Daemon had, as well as the fact that Stannis seems to think the North will follow Jon no problem, seems to contradict your point. Plus, if Robb can name anyone, regardless of blood, his heir, doesn't that weaken the idea of trueborn children inheriting far more than legitimised bastards does? Because if you can name anyone heir, then a marriage is basically worthless; no point marrying Bolton to Stark so the Boltons are co-rulers of the North if Lord Stark is gonna name Barry Mormont his heir.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, WSmith84 said:

Pretty much. Here's you:

The not inconsiderable number of supporters Daemon had, as well as the fact that Stannis seems to think the North will follow Jon no problem, seems to contradict your point. Plus, if Robb can name anyone, regardless of blood, his heir, doesn't that weaken the idea of trueborn children inheriting far more than legitimised bastards does? Because if you can name anyone heir, then a marriage is basically worthless; no point marrying Bolton to Stark so the Boltons are co-rulers of the North if Lord Stark is gonna name Barry Mormont his heir.

No on both points. First, you are unfairly strawmanning my argument. I never said "nobody" would accept a bastard or that the north would "absolutely" not accept Jon. What I have said over and over is that it is reasonable to expect that at least some portion of northerners would take issue with a bastard being their king.

And Robb naming Cat does nothing to detract from the rights of trueborn children because she would only inherit the north in the event that there were no more trueborn children left. People keep asking me, would Robb really end an 8000 year dynasty in a feudal society? And I have to keep pointing out that Robb did not go out of his way to end a dynasty. A crazy sequence of events led to the lord and all his heirs to die (obviously that didn't really happen but that was what people thought).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

No on both points. First, you are unfairly strawmanning my argument. I never said "nobody" would accept a bastard or that the north would "absolutely" not accept Jon. What I have said over and over is that it is reasonable to expect that at least some portion of northerners would take issue with a bastard being their king.

And yet you seem to think that most Northern lords would rather have Catelyn - not a Stark by blood and a woman to boot - than a bastard. Now, we have history of Westerosi lords following legitimised bastards, but I can't think of any instance where people followed someone that was in the position you purport Catelyn to be in.

15 minutes ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

And Robb naming Cat does nothing to detract from the rights of trueborn children because she would only inherit the north in the event that there were no more trueborn children left. People keep asking me, would Robb really end an 8000 year dynasty in a feudal society? And I have to keep pointing out that Robb did not go out of his way to end a dynasty. A crazy sequence of events led to the lord and all his heirs to die (obviously that didn't really happen but that was what people thought).

Well, there's still the bastard at the Wall. I'm not convinced that Robb (or most Northerners) would rather have Cat as heir than Jon. Jon basically had the same education as Robb, does not have a history of serious screw-ups (that anyone knows of) and has Stark blood. He can easily tie up the Riverlands to him (if he marries a Riverland House's girl) or marry outside to gain more allies.

And why is Robb legitimising a bastard and making him his heir (in the event that he has no trueborn children/siblings) any worse than making Catelyn his heir (in the event that he has no trueborn children/siblings)?

As for the oathbreaking part; we have an example of someone who swore a holy vow to a lifelong institution and was forced to leave by a King's command: Barristan. And yet nobody ascribes any dishonour to him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, WSmith84 said:

And yet you seem to think that most Northern lords would rather have Catelyn - not a Stark by blood and a woman to boot - than a bastard. Now, we have history of Westerosi lords following legitimised bastards, but I can't think of any instance where people followed someone that was in the position you purport Catelyn to be in.

It is an unprecedented situation. After 8,000 years of a continuous Stark line, the Starks were all wiped out by a war.

3 hours ago, WSmith84 said:

Well, there's still the bastard at the Wall. I'm not convinced that Robb (or most Northerners) would rather have Cat as heir than Jon. Jon basically had the same education as Robb, does not have a history of serious screw-ups (that anyone knows of) and has Stark blood. He can easily tie up the Riverlands to him (if he marries a Riverland House's girl) or marry outside to gain more allies.

And why is Robb legitimising a bastard and making him his heir (in the event that he has no trueborn children/siblings) any worse than making Catelyn his heir (in the event that he has no trueborn children/siblings)?

As for the oathbreaking part; we have an example of someone who swore a holy vow to a lifelong institution and was forced to leave by a King's command: Barristan. And yet nobody ascribes any dishonour to him.

Jon's situation is not comparable to Barristan. Barristan swore a vow to one man (Joffrey) to defend and obey that man, and he was dismissed and replaced. Jon swore a vow directly to the Old Gods, and he promised to give his life to defend the realms of men. And he would definitely be breaking most of his vows by becoming a king. The northern lords would care a hell of a lot more about making someone their king who broke an oath made to the Old Gods than people generally cared about the dismissal of Barristan. And we actually don't even know how most people felt about that.

Are there problems with naming Cat the heir? Yes. Are there problems with naming Jon the heir? Yes. Do I think Robb named Jon heir without telling Jon, or even checking to make sure he was alive first? No, I don't think Robb is an idiot. Robb specifically said he was trying to avoid chaos in the event of his death. How does naming a potentially dead person as your heir avoid chaos? It doesn't. And even if Jon was alive and well at the Wall, he would completely vulnerable to being captured by Robb's enemies in the north. And I'll say again, Jon is meeting with Mance Rayder when this is all happening and no one even knows if he is alive or where exactly he is. If Robb had actually bothered to write a letter to Maester Aemon, he would have learned that Jon was MIA and presumed dead, not exactly an ideal situation for your heir.

You know what makes infinitely more sense? Naming Cat his heir, telling her about it, and keeping her safe at Seagard, separated from the other super important person in his life, his potentially pregnant wife who is being kept safe at Riverrun, keeping your treasures in separate purses to make it more difficult for your enemies to rob you and all that jazz. I think he named the person who was actually, you know, in the general vicinity of his army whose status was known and who was being kept safe rather than the person who was, I guess in Robb's mind, hopefully totally fine and at the Wall in case they needed him.

:D:P 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

It is an unprecedented situation. After 8,000 years of a continuous Stark line, the Starks were all wiped out by a war.

Jon's situation is not comparable to Barristan. Barristan swore a vow to one man (Joffrey) to defend and obey that man, and he was dismissed and replaced. Jon swore a vow directly to the Old Gods, and he promised to give his life to defend the realms of men. And he would definitely be breaking most of his vows by becoming a king. The northern lords would care a hell of a lot more about making someone their king who broke an oath made to the Old Gods than people generally cared about the dismissal of Barristan. And we actually don't even know how most people felt about that.

Barry swore to serve that man until his death. In the entire history of the Kingsguard, no member was ever dismissed in this way. But whatever Barry's wishes were, he was still dismissed and his vow was broken. Nobody seems to think ill of him for it. Hell, Renly is hoping he turns up looking for a job and Daenerys is angry that he agreed to serve Robert but doesn't seem to give a crap that he's not serving Joffrey. If Robb were to do the same (or Stannis, for that matter) with Jon against his will, would people hold it against him? Are you actually an oathbreaker if someone prevents you from completing that oath? If Robb gave the Lord Commander 100 men in exchange for Jon and the LC declared that Jon was no brother of the NW, what could Jon do? Get himself killed, I suppose, but that doesn't help his vows much. Would people really consider him an oathbreaker when they know he had no choice?

14 minutes ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

Are there problems with naming Cat the heir? Yes. Are there problems with naming Jon the heir? Yes. Do I think Robb named Jon heir without telling Jon, or even checking to make sure he was alive first? No, I don't think Robb is an idiot. Robb specifically said he was trying to avoid chaos in the event of his death. How does naming a potentially dead person as your heir avoid chaos? It doesn't. And even if Jon was alive and well at the Wall, he would completely vulnerable to being captured by Robb's enemies in the north. And I'll say again, Jon is meeting with Mance Rayder when this is all happening and no one even knows if he is alive or where exactly he is. If Robb had actually bothered to write a letter to Maester Aemon, he would have learned that Jon was MIA and presumed dead, not exactly an ideal situation for your heir.

Robb didn't know Jon was North of the Wall meeting Mance Rayder, as far as I'm aware. Actually, Robb seems to be woefully ignorant of the situation at the Wall, so I see no reason to believe he didn't think it was exactly as it was when he left: Benjen missing, Jon at the Wall. He has no reason to believe Jon's life is in any danger. Note that Robb doesn't even mention Mance Rayder in his return North plan? He clearly isn't aware of the threat the Wildlings pose and doesn't mention anything about protecting the North from them.

22 minutes ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

You know what makes infinitely more sense? Naming Cat his heir and keeping her safe at Seagard, separated from the other super important person in his life, his potentially pregnant wife who is being kept safe at Riverrun, keeping your treasures in separate purses to make it more difficult for your enemies to rob you and all that jazz. I think he named the person who was actually, you know, in the general vicinity of his army whose status was known and who was being kept safe rather than the person who was, I guess in Robb's mind, hopefully totally fine and at the Wall in case they needed him.

:D:P

I have to ask how Catelyn as heir is not complete chaos. Won't every lord vying for control of the North seek to marry Catelyn once Robb dies, to put their own blood on the throne? And what if Catelyn refuses to marry, or can't have more children? Will she have to pick an heir? How long before civil wars break out with various Houses trying to force the current monarch to name their family as successor? What chaos does Catelyn as heir avoid?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, WSmith84 said:

Robb didn't know Jon was North of the Wall meeting Mance Rayder, as far as I'm aware. Actually, Robb seems to be woefully ignorant of the situation at the Wall, so I see no reason to believe he didn't think it was exactly as it was when he left: Benjen missing, Jon at the Wall. He has no reason to believe Jon's life is in any danger. Note that Robb doesn't even mention Mance Rayder in his return North plan? He clearly isn't aware of the threat the Wildlings pose and doesn't mention anything about protecting the North from them.

I have to ask how Catelyn as heir is not complete chaos. Won't every lord vying for control of the North seek to marry Catelyn once Robb dies, to put their own blood on the throne? And what if Catelyn refuses to marry, or can't have more children? Will she have to pick an heir? How long before civil wars break out with various Houses trying to force the current monarch to name their family as successor? What chaos does Catelyn as heir avoid?

My point is that Jon is not in a position to take over command in the event of Robb's death, and Robb does nothing to inform Jon about his new status as Robb's heir or even check with the NW to make sure Jon is still alive and at the Wall, which he in fact is not. Cat, on the other hand, is in a position to take over. She would be safe at Seagard in the event of Robb's death, which is geographically close to Robb's army and bannermen, and everyone important knew she was the heir.

Yeah, Cat would definitely have to marry and have kids and quickly. But that is not chaos at all. It is a very straightforward and non-chaotic situation. Cat is in charge, and she is going to pick a new husband in the near future. And most of Robb's bannermen literally signed their names to his will declaring Cat the heir. Compare that to the Ironborn situation, where there were 3 major claimants and no one had been explicitly named as Balon's heir. And Balon's bannermen were not in agreement at all about who should be their new ruler.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, WSmith84 said:
Spoiler

 

Barry swore to serve that man until his death. In the entire history of the Kingsguard, no member was ever dismissed in this way. But whatever Barry's wishes were, he was still dismissed and his vow was broken. Nobody seems to think ill of him for it. Hell, Renly is hoping he turns up looking for a job and Daenerys is angry that he agreed to serve Robert but doesn't seem to give a crap that he's not serving Joffrey. If Robb were to do the same (or Stannis, for that matter) with Jon against his will, would people hold it against him? Are you actually an oathbreaker if someone prevents you from completing that oath? If Robb gave the Lord Commander 100 men in exchange for Jon and the LC declared that Jon was no brother of the NW, what could Jon do? Get himself killed, I suppose, but that doesn't help his vows much. Would people really consider him an oathbreaker when they know he had no choice?

Robb didn't know Jon was North of the Wall meeting Mance Rayder, as far as I'm aware. Actually, Robb seems to be woefully ignorant of the situation at the Wall, so I see no reason to believe he didn't think it was exactly as it was when he left: Benjen missing, Jon at the Wall. He has no reason to believe Jon's life is in any danger. Note that Robb doesn't even mention Mance Rayder in his return North plan? He clearly isn't aware of the threat the Wildlings pose and doesn't mention anything about protecting the North from them.

 

I have to ask how Catelyn as heir is not complete chaos. Won't every lord vying for control of the North seek to marry Catelyn once Robb dies, to put their own blood on the throne? And what if Catelyn refuses to marry, or can't have more children? Will she have to pick an heir? How long before civil wars break out with various Houses trying to force the current monarch to name their family as successor? What chaos does Catelyn as heir avoid?

I quite agree with you on this point- but would add to the possible problems of Cat not marrying or being unable to have children, that a future husband was incapable of siring children.

Naming Cat as heir only prolongs an unstable dynastic situation- similar, if you think about it, to the case of Spain at the time of Alfonso XII's death. 

Quote

Alfonso was born in Madrid on 17 May 1886. He was the posthumous son of Alfonso XII of Spain, who had died in November 1885, and became King of Spain upon his birth. Just after he was born, he was carried naked to the Spanish prime minister on a silver tray. Five days later he was carried in a solemn court procession with a golden fleece round his neck and was baptized with water specially brought from the River Jordan in Palestine.[1] The French newspaper Le Figaro described the young king in 1889 as "the happiest and best-loved of all the rulers of the earth".[2] His mother, Maria Christina of Austria, served as his regent until his 16th birthday. During the regency, in 1898, Spain lost its colonial rule over Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam and the Philippines to the United States as a result of the Spanish–American War.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfonso_XIII_of_Spain

 

 

25 minutes ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

My point is that Jon is not in a position to take over command in the event of Robb's death, and Robb does nothing to inform Jon about his new status as Robb's heir or even check with the NW to make sure Jon is still alive and at the Wall, which he in fact is not. Cat, on the other hand, is in a position to take over. She would be safe at Seagard in the event of Robb's death, which is geographically close to Robb's army and bannermen, and everyone important knew she was the heir.

Yeah, Cat would definitely have to marry and have kids and quickly. But that is not chaos at all. It is a very straightforward and non-chaotic situation. Cat is in charge, and she is going to pick a new husband in the near future. And most of Robb's bannermen literally signed their names to his will declaring Cat the heir. Compare that to the Ironborn situation, where there were 3 major claimants and no one had been explicitly named as Balon's heir. And Balon's bannermen were not in agreement at all about who should be their new ruler.

You've forgotten about the elephant in the room (or rather, in Skagos)

The lords know Rickon is alive.

Your post made me wonder:

Who is Robb's second in command at the time of the signing of the will?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Elaena Targaryen said:

I agree and I don't think Jeyne will play a role. It's unlikely but I guess she could if UnCat and the BwB rescue her but even then I still don't think it's likely she would be pivotal.

Unless she's pregnant, of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Prof. Cecily said:

You've forgotten about the elephant in the room (or rather, in Skagos)

The lords know Rickon is alive.

No, I haven't forgotten about it, because they do not yet know that Rickon is alive. The timeline isn't precise, but there was probably only several days in between Bran being seen by the Liddles and Robb signing his will. So they haven't had time to get the word out. Wex witness Bran and Rickon alive around 6 weeks before the signing of the will, and he probably got this info to the other Ironborn, but we don't see Wex chatting with northerners until ADWD. I certainly doubt that any of Robb's bannermen who signed his will were aware that Rickon and Bran were alive at the time.

20 minutes ago, Prof. Cecily said:

Your post made me wonder:

Who is Robb's second in command at the time of the signing of the will?

NO ONE! :P 

There is no chain of command. That is the point. If Robb dies before signing that will, chaos would ensue, just like what happened with the Ironborn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

. The timeline isn't precise, but there was probably only several days in between Bran being seen by the Liddles and Robb signing his will. So they haven't had time to get the word out. Wex witness Bran and Rickon alive around 6 weeks before the signing of the will, and he probably got this info to the other Ironborn, but we don't see Wex chatting with northerners until ADWD. I certainly doubt that any of Robb's bannermen who signed his will were aware that Rickon and Bran were alive at the time.

Rickon was sent to Skagos before ADWD and Manderly certainly knew about Rickon well before ADWD. 

Whatever we speculate, we'll know the truth in the books to come!

22 minutes ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

There is no chain of command. That is the point. If Robb dies before signing that will, chaos would ensue, just like what happened with the Ironborn.

Ah, well.

Who knows? Maybe JW is pregnant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always assumed that the trap that Cat was caught in was being forced to sign the agreement, Rob stating that as King everyone should sign it gave Cat little choice but to sign it in front of everyone, especially as she has already been called a traitor once for releasing Jamie.

If she does not need to sign it, it at least takes away any opportunity she has to speak her mind to the other lords present.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...