Lord of WF

[UnViserion]

Ramsay Bolton. If he dies then fArya becomes the Lady of Winterfell. Im not sure what happens if she's exposed for being a fraud-- she's still Ramsay's lawful wife (..right?) and he's the lawful lord of Winterfell by conquest.

Robb's will is meaningless, UNLESS an overwhelming majority of northmen decided otherwise and overthrew the Boltons, who would have to be extinguished as a noble family in order for Jon to be installed as Lord of WF. It's not like they would just roll over and recognize Jon as their liege. 

[Deepbollywood Motte]

22 minutes ago, BRANDON GREYSTARK said:

Roose and Ramsay Bolton by right of conquest .

this.. I hate all the 'who it the heir to ...' posts because with this logic half of westeros could proclaim themselves as rightfull heirs to some throne. The house with the most support is the Lord/King/Knight/whatever of that region, their son is the heir. If someone wants to contest than he/she can do that with enough support and allies but it is not like some supreme court would rule 'Well, this little boy is the heir so lets all support him' and everyone would follow

[cyberdirectorfreedom]

1 hour ago, Clegane'sPup said:

Thanks for that info.  Maybe you could help me a bit more with Queen Jeyne. If she were freed from captivity whether she is pregnant or not is she Lady Stark?

 

50 minutes ago, falcotron said:

There really is no answer to that question.

Well, as much as it is partially a case by case basis sort of deal with all succession, the answer is no. Of course, she could become Lady Stark, should she gather enough support, but all of her power in the North derived directly from Robb, and without him, she's basically nobody, especially if she isn't pregnant. Think about the Iron Throne's current succession; after Robert's children, his brothers are the heirs, not Cersei. Despite being Robert's Queen, she has no royal blood (no Baratheon royal blood, anyway) and therefore has absolutely no claim to the throne. Same goes for Jeyne. No Stark blood, no claim.

But, of course, that's just how it should be, not how it necessarily will be. If the North thinks it to their advantage, she could very well end up leading the North (as a Stark), despite her lack of Stark blood.

The issue there, obviously, is that if Jeyne isn't pregnant, the Stark line will die off if they put Jeyne in charge, even if the name doesn't. Oftentimes, people will scrounge around for anyone with the right blood to put in charge, to avoid that happening; distant cousins, bastards, and the like, people nobody really wants on the throne or at the head of the House, but who has the right blood. Blood is important, and people will follow it, beyond reason. Indeed, even if pushing for Jeyne to be in charge would give the Northmen everything they want, their independence, peace with the Iron Throne, prosperity within the North, there would be some who would oppose her being in charge, because she doesn't have the blood.

[SirArthur]

On 6.9.2017 at 6:57 PM, Clegane'sPup said:

Who do you think is the rightful Lord of WF and why?

Jeyne Westerlings child, then Bran for some very simple reasons:

1. He/She is not of age, so he can't deny and his warden prob. can't deny for him. 

2. Bran was Robbs "Crown Prince" (that's the Prince of Winterfell title), Robb could name a new successor, however

3. a feudal lord can't just change the succession. Louis XIV made a point about it but that was absolutism. The feudal system works because the successor can't be choosen. Usually (at least in medieval europe) there are family contracts that prevent a change in succession. 

4. A change would need a council (see the Tagaryen councils about this very issue) of either the sworn lords or the family. If there is a deadlock it could be brought before the liege but I am not sure about that.

 

And no, just bashing your heads against each other until one head owner is dead will not result in a rightful lord. There is a point to be made about rebellion but rebellion is not a case of the family, it is a case of the current lord. 

And I still find the very idea to change a successor per secret testament absurd. The successor is a public title for some very good reasons. Robb did have enough witnesses in his will but still .... it would still result in a succession war unless the will requires a family council. 

[Kytheros]

3 hours ago, UnViserion said:

Ramsay Bolton. If he dies then fArya becomes the Lady of Winterfell. Im not sure what happens if she's exposed for being a fraud-- she's still Ramsay's lawful wife (..right?) and he's the lawful lord of Winterfell by conquest.

Robb's will is meaningless, UNLESS an overwhelming majority of northmen decided otherwise and overthrew the Boltons, who would have to be extinguished as a noble family in order for Jon to be installed as Lord of WF. It's not like they would just roll over and recognize Jon as their liege. 

To be fair, most of the Northmen probably would cheerfully take the opportunity to back Jon as the Stark of Winterfell in accordance with Robb's Will, if they knew about Robb's Will, and extinguish the Boltons.

 

2 hours ago, SirArthur said:

Jeyne Westerlings child, then Bran for some very simple reasons:

1. He/She is not of age, so he can't deny and his warden prob. can't deny for him. 

2. Bran was Robbs "Crown Prince" (that's the Prince of Winterfell title), Robb could name a new successor, however

3. a feudal lord can't just change the succession. Louis XIV made a point about it but that was absolutism. The feudal system works because the successor can't be choosen. Usually (at least in medieval europe) there are family contracts that prevent a change in succession. 

4. A change would need a council (see the Tagaryen councils about this very issue) of either the sworn lords or the family. If there is a deadlock it could be brought before the liege but I am not sure about that.

 

And no, just bashing your heads against each other until one head owner is dead will not result in a rightful lord. There is a point to be made about rebellion but rebellion is not a case of the family, it is a case of the current lord. 

And I still find the very idea to change a successor per secret testament absurd. The successor is a public title for some very good reasons. Robb did have enough witnesses in his will but still .... it would still result in a succession war unless the will requires a family council. 

Robb's Will wasn't precisely secret. However, I expect that he wanted to get Jon formally released from the Night's Watch before spreading the news and formally announcing Jon his heir. It's also not very clear just how much time there was between getting his Will witnessed by the lords with him and the Red Wedding - it probably wasn't all that long, which means that there'd've been little opportunity for the information to be spread before the Red Wedding happened, and after the Red Wedding, well, anybody who survived and knew about Robb's Will naming Jon his heir is unlikely to share that information around.

 

At the time Robb made the Will, Bran and Rickon were presumed dead - had been announced dead in fact.

In addition, the Westerosi rules about succession order are extremely fuzzy when it comes to legitimized bastards and where they get inserted into the order of succession.

Robb's Will explicitly named Jon as his heir in the absence of a child, and possibly as regent for a child.

It's not clear what would happen if it were in play, and Bran and/or Rickon reappeared. I suspect that in at least some part, it would depend on how far along the process of Jon succeeding Robb was, and which one reappeared and how they did so. Jon would likely be willing to cede being Robb's heir to Bran/Rickon, and serve as regent for them.

However, as far as having/gaining supporters go ... Jon's grown, and an experienced fighter, commander, and leader, and the oldest living son of Ned Stark, though an acknowledged and now legitimized bastard; Bran is a cripple, and his ability to sire children and heirs of his own is questionable at best, and he had a dubious track record when he was running Winterfell, he might also require a regent for some time, although he is the eldest trueborn son; Rickon's a small child, and would have minimal, if any, instruction in what being a lord requires, and would absolutely require a regent for an extended period of time, and he is a trueborn son, who presumably won't have any problems siring children and heirs of his own.

However, I doubt it would come to violence between them unless an outside party got involved. Which, admittedly, could happen, depending on what happens with the Vale plotline and Sansa

[SirArthur]

44 minutes ago, Kytheros said:

Robb's Will explicitly named Jon as his heir in the absence of a child, and possibly as regent for a child.

It's not clear what would happen if it were in play, and Bran and/or Rickon reappeared. I suspect that in at least some part, it would depend on how far along the process of Jon succeeding Robb was, and which one reappeared and how they did so. Jon would likely be willing to cede being Robb's heir to Bran/Rickon, and serve as regent for them.

However, as far as having/gaining supporters go ... Jon's grown, and an experienced fighter, commander, and leader, and the oldest living son of Ned Stark, though an acknowledged and now legitimized bastard; Bran is a cripple, and his ability to sire children and heirs of his own is questionable at best, and he had a dubious track record when he was running Winterfell, he might also require a regent for some time, although he is the eldest trueborn son; Rickon's a small child, and would have minimal, if any, instruction in what being a lord requires, and would absolutely require a regent for an extended period of time, and he is a trueborn son, who presumably won't have any problems siring children and heirs of his own.

Legally speaking having more support will not lead to a rightful succession. The fault could fade with time. However, in case of other claimants (especially Bran), we are in a legal limbo. I would strongly argue a great council (like in 101, 136, 233) is required to solve the issue and the will is not enough to overrule the succession of a child.

In the case of Bran neither being a cripple (Doran Martell) nor having a bad record is any issue within a legal feudal system. It creates problems but those problems result from the very design of the feudal system.

And speaking of Jon, it is not even clear if a resurrected Jon can have children nor if Bran can or can't have children. 

[falcotron]

28 minutes ago, Kytheros said:

It's not clear what would happen if it were in play, and Bran and/or Rickon reappeared. I suspect that in at least some part, it would depend on how far along the process of Jon succeeding Robb was, and which one reappeared and how they did so. Jon would likely be willing to cede being Robb's heir to Bran/Rickon, and serve as regent for them.

It's possible that Jon would not only be willing, he'd give the crown to Bran and start acting as regent instead of king before anyone could even discuss it. In which case, unless someone had a strong reason to not want Bran, who would even raise the issue that maybe Jon legally had a better claim than Bran? (Although, as you say, once Sansa and the Vale and LF are involved, there might be someone who wants to press a different competing claim, even if their pretender is reluctant.)

Of course it might be interesting a few decades later. Some Maester writing up the history would probably find it an interesting footnote to discuss (although only as a footnote, because of course Bran, whose heir is now sitting on the throne down the hall, was obviously the legal king). And someone has to decide whether Jon actually was king for a few weeks until Bran returned, or if he was just a steward during that time even though nobody knew it yet. And if Jon later becomes some kind of great hero in the Battle of the Dawn, many singers will insist that he was the rightful king but gave it up out of humility/generosity/an even greater destiny/whatever, just because that makes a better story.

 

[Kytheros]

3 hours ago, SirArthur said:

Legally speaking having more support will not lead to a rightful succession. The fault could fade with time. However, in case of other claimants (especially Bran), we are in a legal limbo. I would strongly argue a great council (like in 101, 136, 233) is required to solve the issue and the will is not enough to overrule the succession of a child.

In the case of Bran neither being a cripple (Doran Martell) nor having a bad record is any issue within a legal feudal system. It creates problems but those problems result from the very design of the feudal system.

And speaking of Jon, it is not even clear if a resurrected Jon can have children nor if Bran can or can't have children. 

As I said, it's unclear what would happen if Robb's Will were in play and then Bran or Rickon reappeared.

If there were to be a Council of Northern Lords, not a Great Council, to decide who to support as the Stark of Winterfell, support does matter.

The Will explicitly names Jon as Robb's Heir in absence of Robb having a Heir of Body (Child). That's an override of the normal order of succession. If the Will had only legitimized Jon, Jon's position in the succession would be a lot murkier, but it didn't. The Will doesn't just legitimize Jon, it legitimizes Jon and then explicitly names Jon as Robb's Heir in absence of a Heir of Body (which means child).

 

Doran Martell has extremely bad, to the point of crippling, gout in one leg. And that got bad only after he'd already sired children.

Bran, however, had both legs shattered, his back broken, and is possibly somewhat paralyzed below the waist. And he's not yet a teenager. Bran has sired no children. His injuries make it questionable as to whether or not he is capable of siring children. It's a worrying question, because if he cannot, then when he dies, there's another succession crisis.

 

At the moment, it's not clear as to whether or not Jon is dead; and if alive, it's unclear how he'll be healed, if dead, it's unclear how he'll be brought back. Personally, I'm more inclined towards Jon undergoing a very near death experience, ala Bran, and coming out more magically awakened and with a more wolflike, ruthless personality, rather than Jon actually dying and being resurrected/reanimated.

 

3 hours ago, falcotron said:

It's possible that Jon would not only be willing, he'd give the crown to Bran and start acting as regent instead of king before anyone could even discuss it. In which case, unless someone had a strong reason to not want Bran, who would even raise the issue that maybe Jon legally had a better claim than Bran? (Although, as you say, once Sansa and the Vale and LF are involved, there might be someone who wants to press a different competing claim, even if their pretender is reluctant.)

Of course it might be interesting a few decades later. Some Maester writing up the history would probably find it an interesting footnote to discuss (although only as a footnote, because of course Bran, whose heir is now sitting on the throne down the hall, was obviously the legal king). And someone has to decide whether Jon actually was king for a few weeks until Bran returned, or if he was just a steward during that time even though nobody knew it yet. And if Jon later becomes some kind of great hero in the Battle of the Dawn, many singers will insist that he was the rightful king but gave it up out of humility/generosity/an even greater destiny/whatever, just because that makes a better story.

 

Bran's biggest obstacle to being a Lord, much less the Stark of Winterfell, assuming we disregard any potential personality changes or side effects from training with Bloodraven, such as the way the show changed Bran, is the fact that Bran's ability to sire children of his own is questionable, on account of his injuries. And that's a fairly significant obstacle in a feudal aristocratic society, because if he cannot sire children - heirs - of his own, then when he dies, there's probably another succession crisis, and absolutely nobody wants that.

Depending on what happens to/with Rickon and the other Stark children ... if the Will were in play, Bran reappeared, and Jon stepped aside for Bran, it's entirely possible that in a few decades when Bran dies, or steps down to turn into a tree or whatever, Jon winds up being Bran's heir and successor

Even should he step aside for one of the Stark siblings, Jon would almost certainly still be their heir, at least for a while anyway. For years, most likely, until there were heirs of body (children) or another Stark sibling showed up.

 

[falcotron]

10 minutes ago, Kytheros said:

Bran's biggest obstacle to being a Lord, much less the Stark of Winterfell, assuming we disregard any potential personality changes or side effects from training with Bloodraven, such as the way the show changed Bran, is the fact that Bran's ability to sire children of his own is questionable, on account of his injuries.

Agreed completely.

But if Jon and Bran are the only Starks anyone knows to be alive, and Jon has just gladly handed the crown off to Bran as soon as he returned home, I think it would be very hard to motivate people to fight for an alternative to Bran. Especially since, as you suggest later, Jon is Bran's most obvious heir presumptive, and they could even make that official if they wanted to, which solves the succession problem just as well as making Jon take the crown back.

If Manderly knows about Rickon in this scenario (I'm losing track of exactly what scenario we're discussing here…), that's even better. Once Bran is king, he can fetch and reveal Rickon, and now he's got the heir presumptive as his ward. Meanwhile, everyone who isn't in on his knowledge can waste their time and political capital scheming to uselessly marry their daughters to Bran.

Of course there is one slight problem: Is there any precedent that says a king stops being king when he turns into a tree? What happens if Bran does that without abdicating first? The North could well end up with a millennium of Starks who descend from Jon or Rickon or whoever who aren't technically kings, but only regents to the living Bran tree in the godswood. And when he finally dies, how do you determine primogeniture for tree descendants?

[Wild Bill]

2 hours ago, falcotron said:

Of course there is one slight problem: Is there any precedent that says a king stops being king when he turns into a tree? What happens if Bran does that without abdicating first? The North could well end up with a millennium of Starks who descend from Jon or Rickon or whoever who aren't technically kings, but only regents to the living Bran tree in the godswood. And when he finally dies, how do you determine primogeniture for tree descendants?

A tree is a lot better than a stone! A tree grows, it propagates itself. It... is the forest.

I foresee the future. All is foretold, and these last days on earthWesteros will be of great misery to the common folk, as well as the noble folk who are dupes of the prophecies of the great prophesier's, who propagate their palpable, parsimonious and perfidious, ptheories...

Seven Kingdoms of lore.

Five Kings at war.

Three rings to rule us all... (oops, wrong soothsaying, and a slight mistatement... desperate for a rhyme... the Red Door (etc. and lets not get into kumquats...)

One Stark to rule... who could ask for anything more?

[apologies to falcotron who is an innocent dupe in my my revelation, and... who is the Stark? [start evil laughter] I will reveal that...

[the fire, the pain, the pain, the pain...]

 

Edit: an error about the LoTR rings...

 

[Joso'sLeftOne]

Is it possible we put too much stock in Robb's will? 

Like could it just be something grrm threw in to show Robb was thinking about succession without it actually being something that's going to play a major (if any) role in the later books. 

[Kytheros]

2 hours ago, falcotron said:

Agreed completely.

But if Jon and Bran are the only Starks anyone knows to be alive, and Jon has just gladly handed the crown off to Bran as soon as he returned home, I think it would be very hard to motivate people to fight for an alternative to Bran. Especially since, as you suggest later, Jon is Bran's most obvious heir presumptive, and they could even make that official if they wanted to, which solves the succession problem just as well as making Jon take the crown back.

If Manderly knows about Rickon in this scenario (I'm losing track of exactly what scenario we're discussing here…), that's even better. Once Bran is king, he can fetch and reveal Rickon, and now he's got the heir presumptive as his ward. Meanwhile, everyone who isn't in on his knowledge can waste their time and political capital scheming to uselessly marry their daughters to Bran.

Of course there is one slight problem: Is there any precedent that says a king stops being king when he turns into a tree? What happens if Bran does that without abdicating first? The North could well end up with a millennium of Starks who descend from Jon or Rickon or whoever who aren't technically kings, but only regents to the living Bran tree in the godswood. And when he finally dies, how do you determine primogeniture for tree descendants?

Eh, I'd be inclined to say that with Robb's Will in play and/or Bran returned to the North, Manderly wouldn't be able to hold onto Rickon as his ward. Rickon would be turned over to Bran and/or Jon. That's not to say Manderly wouldn't get to benefit immensely from having been the one to find and recover Rickon, it's just that Manderly can't keep control of Rickon unless Rickon is the only Stark in play (including Jon as a Stark for this purpose).

With Robb's Will in play and Bran returned to the North ... the lords would mostly be trying to marry their daughters to Jon, not Bran. They might consider spending a younger daughter on Bran, but Jon is by far the more valuable marriage prospect in light of Bran's injuries. If Rickon gets found and recovered, then he's also a more valuable marriage prospect than Bran, but Manderly probably does have an advantage on betrothing a daughter of his house to Rickon, by virtue of being the one to find and recovering Rickon (albeit by proxy/agents)

I think we're not talking about a specific scenario, but more a range of possible scenarios. Maybe. Not totally sure.

 

Hmmm. I feel like Tree-Bran wouldn't have acceptable descendants/heirs of body/children, if there were any. As such, Tree-Bran's heirs would be the descendants serving as regents. In addition, Tree-Bran's tree-self?tree-ness?, tree-essence, his tree-essence would be that of a Weirwood, and weirwoods live forever unless killed, and then petrify instead of rot, and therefore, unless someone went to kill him, Tree-Bran would live forever.

Besides, I'd expect that Tree-Bran wouldn't care to retain the Stark titles, and so would pass those along soon after, if not before, embracing Treedom.

[falcotron]

27 minutes ago, Joso'sLeftOne said:

Is it possible we put too much stock in Robb's will? 

Like could it just be something grrm threw in to show Robb was thinking about succession without it actually being something that's going to play a major (if any) role in the later books. 

I think it's there for more reason than that. There's a whole chapter devoted to the will, the argument with Cat, the specific people who were there (including one who's sent out of the room), where they're all going, etc. GRRM wanted us to think about the will.

But that doesn't necessarily mean it's the key to the future of the North. There are ways it could turn out to be that key, but there are ways it could be a red herring, and even ways it could be tragically ironic.

For an example of how it could be just a macguffin: One possibility for where the will went (I don't think it's the best one, but it is probably the most popular among fandom) is that Maege and Galbart took it into the Neck. Howland Reed gets it and realizes that he has to go to Winterfell and let everyone in on some info Robb didn't know about Jon, before anyone sees the will. The contents of the will turn out to have no effect, only getting it to Reed did.

[falcotron]

26 minutes ago, Kytheros said:

With Robb's Will in play and Bran returned to the North ... the lords would mostly be trying to marry their daughters to Jon, not Bran.

Well, yeah, but that won't do them any more good if Rickon ends up as the heir presumptive, already engaged to… I don't know, Wylla Manderly's a bit old. Maybe he has a grandniece via Marlon or something?

26 minutes ago, Kytheros said:

I think we're not talking about a specific scenario, but more a range of possible scenarios. Maybe. Not totally sure.

Yes, it gets confusing. Things like what happens if Jon hands the seat over to Bran depend on whether Bran returns before or after the will, whether someone's agreed to bend the knee to Stannis or even Aegon or Dany (who knows how late all this stuff will happen), etc.

26 minutes ago, Kytheros said:

Hmmm. I feel like Tree-Bran wouldn't have acceptable descendants/heirs of body/children, if there were any. As such, Tree-Bran's heirs would be the descendants serving as regents. In addition, Tree-Bran's tree-self?tree-ness?, tree-essence, his tree-essence would be that of a Weirwood, and weirwoods live forever unless killed, and then petrify instead of rot, and therefore, unless someone went to kill him, Tree-Bran would live forever.

Besides, I'd expect that Tree-Bran wouldn't care to retain the Stark titles, and so would pass those along soon after, if not before, embracing Treedom.

Well, Tree-Bran has bigger things on his mind. He's learned to see beyond the weirwoods, and into the future as easily as the past, and into alternate histories, even really implausible ones where the wars never happened and he grew up into a knight, or where Jon led a mission to capture a wight for some reason.

When it comes time to become a tree, Bran doesn't remember telling everyone he was abdicating at this moment in his history, so he doesn't do it, even though he does remember later regretting not having done so. (The tenses make more sense when you're a tree, but I'm not, so forgive me.)

Anyway, weirwoods must be able to reproduce somehow, and why wouldn't that count as heirs of the wooden body? Say Arya takes some Bran-acorns with her when she becomes First Sword of Braavos and plants them in the Sealord's secret tree garden next to the lemon tree. Bran now has a son. Well, maybe son isn't the right word, because with many tree species, each tree has both sexes—but I think that's still male enough to inherit. So, if someone later kills Tree-Bran, why wouldn't that son be King in the North, and Rickon's great^14-grandson still be regent, instead of becoming king? Although I suppose it's possible they wouldn't know about Braavosi Tree-Bran-Jr.

Meanwhile, if Bran doesn't die, this seems like a great setup for an eventual democratic constitutional monarchy on the British model. Tree-Bran can do a great job representing the dignity of the kingdom without interfering with its efficiency.

[SirArthur]

@ original post:

We are talking "rightful" here, not practical. The OP was unclear in that regards. The rightful was the last question in the OP. However I do not know if the thread creator is so deep into the difference or if the answer "Arya would totally kill everyone and thus she is the reightful heir TM badass motherfucker" is also sufficient. 

 

Could you clarify @Clegane'sPup ? 

[LynnS]

2 hours ago, falcotron said:

Anyway, weirwoods must be able to reproduce somehow, and why wouldn't that count as heirs of the wooden body? Say Arya takes some Bran-acorns with her when she becomes First Sword of Braavos and plants them in the Sealord's secret tree garden next to the lemon tree. Bran now has a son. Well, maybe son isn't the right word, because with many tree species, each tree has both sexes—but I think that's still male enough to inherit. So, if someone later kills Tree-Bran, why wouldn't that son be King in the North, and Rickon's great^14-grandson still be regent, instead of becoming king? Although I suppose it's possible they wouldn't know about Braavosi Tree-Bran-Jr.

Meanwhile, if Bran doesn't die, this seems like a great setup for an eventual democratic constitutional monarchy on the British model. Tree-Bran can do a great job representing the dignity of the kingdom without interfering with its efficiency.

LOL!

[Kytheros]

8 hours ago, Joso'sLeftOne said:

Is it possible we put too much stock in Robb's will? 

Like could it just be something grrm threw in to show Robb was thinking about succession without it actually being something that's going to play a major (if any) role in the later books. 

No, it'll come up again. It's going to play a role in something, although its importance may not be straightforward.

There are at least three or four people/places where Robb's intentions would be known who weren't at the Red Wedding. Lord Jason Mallister at Seaguard, Maege Mormont, and Galbart Glover; Mormont and Glover were making for Greywater Watch, and they doubtlessly would have told Howland Reed. Edmure Tully was present, and may well have told the Blackfish and the two Tully men-at-arms who took the Black. In addition, Lady Stoneheart knows, although she's a wildcard of sorts.

7 hours ago, falcotron said:

I think it's there for more reason than that. There's a whole chapter devoted to the will, the argument with Cat, the specific people who were there (including one who's sent out of the room), where they're all going, etc. GRRM wanted us to think about the will.

But that doesn't necessarily mean it's the key to the future of the North. There are ways it could turn out to be that key, but there are ways it could be a red herring, and even ways it could be tragically ironic.

For an example of how it could be just a macguffin: One possibility for where the will went (I don't think it's the best one, but it is probably the most popular among fandom) is that Maege and Galbart took it into the Neck. Howland Reed gets it and realizes that he has to go to Winterfell and let everyone in on some info Robb didn't know about Jon, before anyone sees the will. The contents of the will turn out to have no effect, only getting it to Reed did.

Agreed, there's enough going on with the will and those present and where some of them were dispatched to that the will more or less has to come up again in some manner. It's not like everybody who knew about it is dead or captured, although most of them are, several who were present and witnessed it were explicitly sent away.

The will absolutely could serve as a catalyst, even if it doesn't amount to much directly.

For that matter, even though Jon rejected Stannis's offer to make him Lord of Winterfell, it'd be a whole lot harder for Jon to reject Robb's will, to refuse his brother's last wishes.

As for where the will is/who has it, well, assuming the will wasn't lost at the Red Wedding, which I suppose is possible, but there are several witnesses who are on the loose, so Robb's intentions could still be made known, the will might actually be with Lady Stoneheart, or Edmure could've told the Blackfish about it and where to find it.

7 hours ago, falcotron said:

Well, yeah, but that won't do them any more good if Rickon ends up as the heir presumptive, already engaged to… I don't know, Wylla Manderly's a bit old. Maybe he has a grandniece via Marlon or something?

Yes, it gets confusing. Things like what happens if Jon hands the seat over to Bran depend on whether Bran returns before or after the will, whether someone's agreed to bend the knee to Stannis or even Aegon or Dany (who knows how late all this stuff will happen), etc.

Well, Tree-Bran has bigger things on his mind. He's learned to see beyond the weirwoods, and into the future as easily as the past, and into alternate histories, even really implausible ones where the wars never happened and he grew up into a knight, or where Jon led a mission to capture a wight for some reason.

When it comes time to become a tree, Bran doesn't remember telling everyone he was abdicating at this moment in his history, so he doesn't do it, even though he does remember later regretting not having done so. (The tenses make more sense when you're a tree, but I'm not, so forgive me.)

Anyway, weirwoods must be able to reproduce somehow, and why wouldn't that count as heirs of the wooden body? Say Arya takes some Bran-acorns with her when she becomes First Sword of Braavos and plants them in the Sealord's secret tree garden next to the lemon tree. Bran now has a son. Well, maybe son isn't the right word, because with many tree species, each tree has both sexes—but I think that's still male enough to inherit. So, if someone later kills Tree-Bran, why wouldn't that son be King in the North, and Rickon's great^14-grandson still be regent, instead of becoming king? Although I suppose it's possible they wouldn't know about Braavosi Tree-Bran-Jr.

Meanwhile, if Bran doesn't die, this seems like a great setup for an eventual democratic constitutional monarchy on the British model. Tree-Bran can do a great job representing the dignity of the kingdom without interfering with its efficiency.

Wylla Manderly isn't excessively old for an arranged marriage, even with Rickon. To be sure, age differences are usually the other way around. It's also possible that she's got an even younger sister, who wasn't present. Alternatively, with Wyman's son and heir returned to him, it's possible that Wylis will father a daughter who could be betrothed to Rickon.

Manderly is one of the strongest Northern Houses, and would have (presumably) been the ones to find and recover Rickon. That's significant and warrants a suitable reward.

For the time being, I think whomever would be the Stark of Winterfell must deal with Stannis first, probably kneel to him, and then follow his policy with Aegon and Daenerys, which is unclear. Aegon's busy in the Stormlands and fighting the Lannisters, I think it unlikely that any Stark would be forced to deal with him anytime soon, and even then, he can largely be ignored by the North - Aegon lacks a fleet and winter means winter storms even if he had a fleet, and marching an invading army into the North is nearly impossible at the best of times, and the beginning of a long winter is very much not the best of times. Daenerys is in Essos, although once she arrives, she'll have her dragons, and so cannot be ignored the way Aegon can be.

 

Tree-Bran, well, any "children" would be trees, and most likely indistinguishable from other weirwoods, and as such, nobody would be able to tell if they were of Tree-Bran or some other weirwood. Also, even if they could, they'd probably pretend that they couldn't, on account of having another tree-lord instead of a human lord would complicate things.

After all, being a tree would impose significant constraints on one's abilities to do the sorts of things Lords are required to do.

[Clegane'sPup]

10 hours ago, SirArthur said:

@ original post:

We are talking "rightful" here, not practical. The OP was unclear in that regards. The rightful was the last question in the OP. However I do not know if the thread creator is so deep into the difference or if the answer "Arya would totally kill everyone and thus she is the reightful heir TM badass motherfucker" is also sufficient. 

 

Could you clarify @Clegane'sPup ? 

I laid out some bare bones of Martin’s ASOIAF story in the OP as it relates to his characters involved in the northern story line. The two questions I asked were, “Who do you think is the rightful Lord of WF and why? When winter is over and spring arrives who will be Lord of WF and why?”

The discussion has been going rather well with people sharing their thoughts and ideas. There really aren’t any wrong or right answers as no one knows where Martin is going to take the story.

As of the end of DwD Bolton holds WF. Ramsey’s claim to WF is through fArya. fArya according to the pink/bastard letter is missing. Call it wishful thinking but I think the Bolton’s are going to be ousted from WF.

Both Tywin and Roose wanted their sons to get their wives preggers preferably with a male child.

Manderly calls Rickon his liege yet he knows that Bran is alive.

A number of characters have/has/had an interest in who controls WF. For some reason unbeknownst to me Martin has yapped about the importance of having a Stark in WF in the early books..I assume that plays an important part in his story.

It all comes back to the Varys riddle about where the characters think power resides. Me, personally, I think if Robb made a will it will have no bearing.  Robb had been declared the King of the North making his wife  the Queen of the North. That is one of the reasons she is being kept under wraps ---- in case she produces an heir.

My opinion is that Bran is the Lord of WF. I think Jon will see that done. Bran will not hold Eddard’s title of Warden of the North however.

If I haven't answered your question let me know and I will try to clarify better.

[falcotron]

7 hours ago, Kytheros said:

For that matter, even though Jon rejected Stannis's offer to make him Lord of Winterfell, it'd be a whole lot harder for Jon to reject Robb's will, to refuse his brother's last wishes.

Yeah—and that brings up yet another way it could be important without being directly relevant to driving the plot: Stannis conquers Winterfell, Jon comes back from the dead with a vision of himself leading the North against the Others, Stannis makes the same offer again, Jon accepts it… and then the will shows up.

7 hours ago, Kytheros said:

Wylla Manderly isn't excessively old for an arranged marriage, even with Rickon. To be sure, age differences are usually the other way around. It's also possible that she's got an even younger sister, who wasn't present. Alternatively, with Wyman's son and heir returned to him, it's possible that Wylis will father a daughter who could be betrothed to Rickon.

Well, Wylla is 11 years older than Rickon. By the time he's 16, she'll be 27, nearing the end of her prime heir-producing years. There's still a good chance of getting a Stark-Manderly grandson as heir, but it may be safer to use a younger granddaughter or even a grandniece or something, assuming he has one.

7 hours ago, Kytheros said:

For the time being, I think whomever would be the Stark of Winterfell must deal with Stannis first, probably kneel to him…

Anyway, I agree that whatever happens, there's a good chance they won't have to deal with Aegon until Dany arrives and makes him irrelevant. But beyond that, there are so many possibilities, each of which leads to a different result with Stannis, that I wouldn't want to predict. For just one example, if Stannis loses and dies—or just appears to as far as anyone knows, or appears to as far as anyone but Manderly knows and he's keeping quiet for the time being—and the North overthrows the Boltons on their own, they're not going to go looking for Shireen to bend the knee.

2 hours ago, Clegane'sPup said:

As of the end of DwD Bolton holds WF. Ramsey’s claim to WF is through fArya

Ramsay's claim to Winterfell is being granted it by Lord Paramount Roose Bolton. Marrying fArya is a way to unite two claims, and make Ramsay's lordship more palatable to the other lords who don't wholeheartedly accept Roose's authority, or who just want a Stark in Winterfell and think this is the best they can get.

2 hours ago, Clegane'sPup said:

Manderly calls Rickon his liege yet he knows that Bran is alive.

Does he? I thought he only knows that Bran was still alive and went north of the Wall? In that case, it would be reasonable to assume than even if Bran isn't dead he's probably lost and unlikely to be recovered in the foreseeable future, so it's reasonable to call Rickon the heir.

2 hours ago, Clegane'sPup said:

Robb had been declared the King of the North making his wife  the Queen of the North. That is one of the reasons she is being kept under wraps ---- in case she produces an heir.

The two original main reasons for this fan theory—the discrepancy in Jeyne's hips, and the discrepancy in her sister's age—have been confirmed to be errors, not clues.

Also, the predominant original version of the theory had Jeyne secretly taking fertility herbs, but we now know that she was actually taking anti-conception herbs given by her mother Sybell as part of her plot with Tywin.

That doesn't necessarily mean it's not true. There are other theories that could work (e.g., Sybell was surprised to learn her daughter was pregnant, the Blackfish showed up and spirited Jeyne away before Sybell could do anything, and then Sybell had to lie to Jaime to cover up), but they don't have any more textual support than all kinds of other theories (e.g., Jeyne wasn't pregnant, the Blackfish showed up and spirited her away anyway, and he got her pregnant with a fake Robb heir). And when a theory's original motivation and original mechanism both turn out to be wrong, reaching for another way the theory could be true anyway starts to feel like wishful thinking.

[SirArthur]

Isn't Arya's claim a double loophole ?

1. it requires a legal and accepted will that declares Sansa for not worthy

2. it requires a long thought about the Lannister claim through Sansa while at the same time the Lannisters suggest a marriage with fArya. (if I recall correctly). Granted, Sansa is searched for crimes she did not commit (play A-Team sound here) but she is still a valuable Lannister asset through marriage.