Quick question about Robbs will

[Adam Yozza]

2 hours ago, zandru said:

This was a maybe unfounded assumption that I made. I figured Robb would send a copy of this important document to the Citadel, for archival and safekeeping. But it's an open question to me: what did Robb do with his will? Who has it? Are there multiple copies? Were all copies destroyed in Walder Frey's little blood-fest? Do you know? Any ideas?

Well IIRC correctly he sends it with Galbart and Maege but I may be mistaken.

[ravenous reader]

If you're interested in a novel take on Robb's will, this is an entertaining thread (disregard that it was closed prematurely -- it's that edgy, that it had to be censored!  )

 

[Darion Storm]

As far as I know even a legitimised bastard comes after his trueborn siblings regardless of age (not sure if he would be before or after the girls). So legitimisation or not Rickon would be considered the rightful Lord, with Jon as his heir apparent.

[Adam Yozza]

Just now, Darion Storm said:

As far as I know even a legitimised bastard comes after his trueborn siblings regardless of age (not sure if he would be before or after the girls). So legitimisation or not Rickon would be considered the rightful Lord, with Jon as his heir apparent.

That's true if he just gets legitimized. However, Robb's Will not only gave Jon the Stark name but also declared him Robb's heir.

[300 H&H Magnum]

13 hours ago, Orphalesion said:

The "king" also never was a king. He was a rebel who unlawfully rose up against his rightful liege. and since said rebellion failed and he never got to consolidate his claimed title, he was never king.

So really,if the will is found all we'd have would be the will of a man who was declared traitor and who's house was stripped of power.

Right on.  Robb had no right to legitimize a bastard.  It is also likely that the boy on the iron throne and his government took Winterfell and the north away from the Starks to punish them for rebellion.  So Robb cannot even Will anything to Jon.  Consider too that Jon is a sworn brother of the night's watch.  Those vows are not to be taken lightly.  Robb's Will is not worth the parchment it's written on. 

[300 H&H Magnum]

2 hours ago, Adam Yozza said:

That's true if he just gets legitimized. However, Robb's Will not only gave Jon the Stark name but also declared him Robb's heir.

The governing monarch and his council made Roose Bolton the Warden of the North and more than likely also gave him Winterfell.  Robb's Will cannot give to Jon what doesn't belong to the Starks.

[The Fattest Leech]

10 minutes ago, 300 H&H Magnum said:

The governing monarch and his council made Roose Bolton the Warden of the North and more than likely also gave him Winterfell.  Robb's Will cannot give to Jon what doesn't belong to the Starks.

Everything from King's Landing, to the bastard incest boy on the throne, to Roose, Ramsay, and fArya is all staged and fake from there to Winterfell. This is all about to be exposed in the books for a reason, and it sure as hell isn't to help save the Boltons or Lannisters, etc.

The northern people chose Robb as king. GRRM even confirms this. And a king can make an heir. GRRM confirms this.

You are prejudiced against Jon and the Starks and you confirmed this. So how is what you offer not biased?

"I know, I am prejudiced against the Starks because I don't like Sansa and Jon."

 

[divica]

7 minutes ago, 300 H&H Magnum said:

Right on.  Robb had no right to legitimize a bastard.  It is also likely that the boy on the iron throne and his government took Winterfell and the north away from the Starks to punish them for rebellion.  So Robb cannot even Will anything to Jon.  Consider too that Jon is a sworn brother of the night's watch.  Those vows are not to be taken lightly.  Robb's Will is not worth the parchment it's written on. 

Robb's will is valid for his followers. Like jon is legitimized for his followers who believed he was their king. 

[300 H&H Magnum]

19 minutes ago, The Fattest Leech said:

Everything from King's Landing, to the bastard incest boy on the throne, to Roose, Ramsay, and fArya is all staged and fake from there to Winterfell. This is all about to be exposed in the books for a reason, and it sure as hell isn't to help save the Boltons or Lannisters, etc.

The northern people chose Robb as king. GRRM even confirms this. And a king can make an heir. GRRM confirms this.

You are prejudiced against Jon and the Starks and you confirmed this. So how is what you offer not biased?

"I know, I am prejudiced against the Starks because I don't like Sansa and Jon."

 

I have read many of your posts before.  I can ask the same question of you.  You are fond of the Starks, so how is what you offer not biased towards them?

I am biased against the Starks.  You are right about that one thing.  That is why we disagreed on many topics here before. 

The northern people are subjects of the iron throne.  They do not have the right to make Robb their king.  This is not a democracy.  You know, even if that boy king Tommen is proven to not have the rights to sit on that throne, that still doesn't mean the northern people are independent. 

[Adam Yozza]

44 minutes ago, 300 H&H Magnum said:

The governing monarch and his council made Roose Bolton the Warden of the North and more than likely also gave him Winterfell.  Robb's Will cannot give to Jon what doesn't belong to the Starks.

Except they reject the governing monarch, never mind that said monarch has no right to the throne anyway. So the people who would try and enforce Robb's Will are the exact same people who don't give a flying rats arse what an eight year old inbred bastard on an ugly iron chair and his mad mother a thousand miles away have to say about it.

And the Bolton's are gonna end up with their heads on spikes within a book so they're really a non issue either.

[The Fattest Leech]

2 hours ago, 300 H&H Magnum said:

I have read many of your posts before.  I can ask the same question of you.  You are fond of the Starks, so how is what you offer not biased towards them?

Because the author has put forth that what is needed to be chosen king is for your lords to follow you, bow to you, anoint you, or whatever the regional process is required. Torrhen and Aegon the Conq made a pact that brought the north into the fold and follow of the throne. Aerys broke that pact when he, as GRRM puts it, murdered Rickard and what's his face. And because GRRM is known to have said Robb's men chose him as king, and only a king can legitimize a bastard- which is hilariously the exact opposite of what "legit" stuff we see going on down in the corrupt King's Landing. It is the story, not character favoritism. 

And please do show me when I ever claimed that the Starks are without a smear on their honor. Ever. I'll be right here waiting. The difference between you and I is that I am not a blind to the transgressions of any one character.

Robb getting trapped in the conspiring between Tywin, Roose, and Walder Frey and then Robb following his "honor" over vows was a major F-up of Robb politically. But that does not mean Robb was not a chosen king. It means that characters like Robb are following the author's intent of telling a story about the heart.

Quote

I am biased against the Starks.  You are right about that one thing.  That is why we disagreed on many topics here before. 

I don't recall anything in particular with you, but ok, I guess.

Quote

The northern people are subjects of the iron throne.  They do not have the right to make Robb their king.  This is not a democracy.  You know, even if that boy king Tommen is proven to not have the rights to sit on that throne, that still doesn't mean the northern people are independent. 

Aerys broke a pact much, much larger than a ploy to make a random Frey girl a Stark bride/queen.

The feudal contract is a real thing. There are mutual obligations and duties. A failure by one side constitutes cause to seek redress. The realm does not have formal, explicit mechanisms, no, but the realm lacks formal, explicit mechanisms for almost everything. This does not mean it is lawless or that it is a tyrannical. The realm is far more dependent on negotiation between parties than you give it credit for. That's it is not an absolute monarchy devoted to preserving tyranny. Aegon and his followers recognized that they did not exist in a vacuum.

And you are correct, there is not an actual, legit king on the throne as of right now and since Robert was killed. Which when paired with the broken northern peace pact, the north most likely did have the right to cede back into their own independent kingdom. Any declarations since Robert's death are null and void. Poor Ramsay Bolton Snow .

[The Fattest Leech]

21 hours ago, Ralphis Baratheon said:

After Zombie Catelyn gets tired of killing Freys she's going to head North to find Robb's Will and tear it up faster then Cersei tore up Bobby B's Will. 

I don't know if this will happen in the books, but give it to me in the comic version and I will buy issue right quick!

[Alexis-something-Rose]

1 hour ago, 300 H&H Magnum said:

Right on.  Robb had no right to legitimize a bastard.  It is also likely that the boy on the iron throne and his government took Winterfell and the north away from the Starks to punish them for rebellion.  So Robb cannot even Will anything to Jon.  Consider too that Jon is a sworn brother of the night's watch.  Those vows are not to be taken lightly.  Robb's Will is not worth the parchment it's written on. 

That may be true enough, but I think Robb's intent for Jon is what will matter to him. Robb didn't see Jon as less because he was a bastard and he wanted to legitimize him and have him lead the north. In the end, I think Robb's intentions are going to matter to Jon a great deal more than the outcome of his decision. I don't think we can underestimate the emotional impact this may have. Maybe that's the reason we don't have Jon find out about Robb's death on page. 

The northmen are fighting to put a Stark back in Winterfell. They aren't bowing down to Roose Bolton who was named Warden of the North by the Iron Throne. I think that says everything about the respect they have for the people ruling Westeros.

[Sophist]

There are lots of unstated assumptions in this thread. I'd like to try to make them explicit and deal with them from a legal perspective (after all, as a matter of practicalities, lots of things might happen).

Let's start with the basics: did Robb write an actual will? Without seeing the document, we don't know this for sure. It's possible that it's simply a decree of legitimation for Jon, with Robb simply assuming the consequences of that.

I'll start with option 2 and assume that Robb declared Jon legitimate but nothing else. Here are the possibilities:

1. Jon is already legitimate because R+L married or otherwise legitimated him. If this comes to light before Robb's decree, then the decree is irrelevant. Jon would have no claim to Winterfell in this case because he's not Ned's son, unless no other candidates remain alive. Nor would a meaningless decree of legitimacy, standing alone, have any impact on the succession to the KitN.

2. Jeyne is pregnant. In this case, legitimating Jon would have no effect on the succession to KitN -- children come before brothers (and see #2 below) -- but could affect his status as Lord of Winterfell assuming that case #1 remains unknown.

3. As a legitimated claimant to Winterfell, Jon might have to contest claims by Bran, Arya, and Sansa (see below). If the decree becomes public at a time when everyone thinks Bran and Arya are dead, and Sansa is missing, then Rickon might contest his claim.

Now let's assume that Robb wrote a will in which he BOTH (a) legitimated Jon; and (b) named him his heir to either or both of KitN and Winterfell. Here are the options; bear in mind the options above because some of the problems may come into play below too:

1. If Jon is a trueborn son of R+L, then the will is moot. Jon is the heir to Westeros and wouldn't need a separate kingdom.

2. If Robb assumed that Bran, Arya, and Rickon were dead, and Sansa missing, he might not have mentioned them. If he didn't mention them, then there'd be what at common law was called a "pretermitted heir" issue. Simplifying, if the maker of a will doesn't know about the existence of an heir and therefore doesn't mention him/her, that heir still has a claim regardless of the terms of the will. We'd need to know the exact terms of the will in order to determine if this is a problem.

3. While it seems that Kings can name their heirs, that's much less clear for lesser titles. Without detailing the reasons for this, I think everyone can recognize that having estates transfer by decree rather than by law would be problematic and likely to be contested. In this situation, Robb might be able to designate Jon as his heir as KitN, but not to Winterfell (assuming anyone else is alive to make a claim).

In short, unless someone is willing to state explicitly all the conditions in which the decree/will would operate, plus the exact terms of the document, it's impossible to make any definitive statements about it.

[Ralphis Baratheon]

1 hour ago, Adam Yozza said:

So the people who would try and enforce Robb's Will are the exact same people who don't give a flying rats arse what an eight year old inbred bastard on an ugly iron chair and his mad mother a thousand miles away have to say about it.

While this may be true it's still a little harsh on Tommen for me. He seems like a sweet kid despite having grown up with Cersei and Joff. It's not his fault that he's a bastard and that his chair is as ugly as his mother's soul. I bet if given the choice between his cats and the Throne he'd choose his kittens. Sure, he'd miss stamping his seal on wax but I'd bet he'd happily ride off into the sunset with Ser. Pounce and Lady Whiskers. Boots will probably have to stay back and sacrifice himself in battle against Balerion.

2 hours ago, 300 H&H Magnum said:

  It is also likely that the boy on the iron throne and his government took Winterfell and the north away from the Starks to punish them for rebellion.

Eh, Tommen would probably give the Starks back the North if they supported his bill to outlaw beets.

1 hour ago, The Fattest Leech said:

I don't know if this will happen in the books, but give it to me in the comic version and I will buy issue right quick!

While it probably won't happen in the books I don't think it will be in Jon's best interest to cross paths with Zombie Cat. I'm not going to lie she scares the crap out of me.  So if Catelyn made Jon uncomfortable before she was a zombie who knows how'd he react to her now. I certainly wouldn't think less of him if he fled upon seeing her in her current stoneheart state.

[Ralphis Baratheon]

1 hour ago, Sophist said:

If Robb assumed that Bran, Arya, and Rickon were dead, and Sansa missing, he might not have mentioned them

IIRC Sansa was not missing at the time Robb was writing his Will. She was still in King's Landing under Lannister control which is why Robb wants to skip her in favor of Jon. He did not want the North go to one of his enemies through a marriage with Sansa. Which is what upset Catelyn.

[zandru]

3 hours ago, 300 H&H Magnum said:

The northern people are subjects of the iron throne.  They do not have the right to make Robb their king.  This is not a democracy. 

No. It's closer to an oligarchy, with the lords deciding who they will follow as king. A dude can have a suitable birthright to sit the throne, but if none of "his" lords will support him as king, he's just a well bred nobleman, and lucky if his family has a castle he can run to.

51 minutes ago, Ralphis Baratheon said:

[Tommen] seems like a sweet kid despite having grown up with Cersei and Joff. It's not his fault that he's a bastard

Irrelevant to Tommen's claim to the Iron Throne. The 7 kingdoms are swarming with "sweet kids." Also bastards. But none of them have any particular right to rule the continent. (Excepting possibly Jon "Snow." Who is currently presumed dead.) Tommen's disposition and baby-like innocence are not qualifications.

I like the Sophist's legalistic point by point breakdown of possibilities. Clearly, we need more information.

[Foot_Of_The_King]

Someone has probably already said this but, in a case like this, it would most likely come down to what the great lords and "powers that be" want. 

[Ralphis Baratheon]

4 hours ago, zandru said:

Tommen's disposition and baby-like innocence are not qualifications.

I never said they were. I only feel it's relevant in the event that he is ever overthrown and taken hostage, he should not be dealt with in the same manner as a Joffrey. Tommen has never used his position to be cruel or hurt innocents. Plus as far as he knows he is the rightful King of Westeros and is just doing what he thinks is the right thing because all of the adults in his life are telling him they are.

[Adam Yozza]

5 hours ago, Ralphis Baratheon said:

While this may be true it's still a little harsh on Tommen for me. He seems like a sweet kid despite having grown up with Cersei and Joff. It's not his fault that he's a bastard and that his chair is as ugly as his mother's soul. I bet if given the choice between his cats and the Throne he'd choose his kittens. Sure, he'd miss stamping his seal on wax but I'd bet he'd happily ride off into the sunset with Ser. Pounce and Lady Whiskers. Boots will probably have to stay back and sacrifice himself in battle against Balerion.

Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with Tommen and would be more than happy if his fate was simply to wait out his life raising cats on a little plot of land behind Casterly Rock; though a happy end for him is unlikely. I'm just calling it like the North see's it at the moment.