Jon snow will not be lord of winterfell

[locke and key]

Am I the only one who gets really annoyed when people in forums go on about how jon will inherit winterfell and become king in the north.

• for one this would be completely inconsistent with his story so far, jon has gone and joined the nights watch barring him from inheriting and even when he was offered this by stannis he turned it down.
  
• It doesn't make sense within the world we already know, the only legitimised bastard to become an heir is ramsay and that's because he was the only son roose had left. If we look back at the world correctly we know that legitimisation never really helps bastards and it still puts them behind in line of succession to other siblings, and rickon and sansa will soon reveal themselves to the world. and even as a legitimised bastard he is stuck in the nights watch.
  
• because of R+L=J as lyanna was younger than ned and a girl he's behind all the remaining stark children and benjen as well in the line fo succesion.
  
• It doesn't work in the story jon is part of the side story about the nights watch not a player in the main story of the game of thrones, his role is to be our eyes in the nights watch and ultimately play a big role in the fight against the others.
  

I know this is a pretty dis-organised thread and comes off more as a rant than anything else. But, does anyone else agree with me that jon's role in the story is not to become lord of winterfell but to lead the nights watch through the long night, and get really annoyed when other users think he's gonna end up king in the north.

Ramsay Gimp

Posted 03 March 2013 - 08:26 PM

Apple Martini, on 03 March 2013 - 08:20 PM, said:

1. It depends on how the will was worded, as I've said before and will probably end up sayingagain. If Robb thought that Arya, Rickon and Bran were dead and actively moved to disinherit Sansa, then the will might very well say, "I name Jon Snow my heir," period. In which case, yes, it's Jon. Why would Robb include people in his will if he was sure they were dead? While it's true that the will was made under false assumptions, that doesn't change the meat of it. And as I said above, the underlying evidence suggests that the northerners are in fact aiming for Jon and not one of his siblings.

I haven't examined your Northern conspiracy ideas fully (I mean to eventually), but I disagree with the bolded part. Kings can't just name anyone their heir and expect everyone to go along with it. Are you saying that Bran/Rickon's claims are voided by the will?

Edit: this quote explains quite well what I'm trying to say, i'd also add to it that the only people who actually know the contents of the will are robb and Cat and maege and galbart; All of whom are either dead or stuck in greywater watch so seeing as the northern lords don't actually know robbs wishes i doubt they'd break a black brother out if his vows just for this considering the deep respect they have for the NW

[The Scabbard Of the Morning]

You're right he's going to hold the Iron Throne instead.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

And it's never occurred to you that the main story is what's going on with the Night's Watch and the Others, and that it's the game of thrones that's the real distraction/"side story"?

If Robb's will explicitly says, "I name Jon Snow as my heir," then that's how it is. I think there's plenty of underlying evidence, mainly in ADWD, that the northerners are preparing to make a play with Jon at its center. Regarding the Watch, if GRRM wants him to be free of it, that's how he'll write it.

I also don't see how leading the fight against the Others and becoming King in the North are mutually exclusive.

[Lyanna Stark]

I know this is a pretty dis-organised thread and comes off more as a rant than anything else. But, does anyone else agree with me that jon's role in the story is not to become lord of winterfell but to lead the nights watch through the long night, and get really annoyed when other users think he's gonna end up king in the north.

How are these things mutually exclusive? You may be ever so annoyed, but there is nothing I can see that makes these things impossible to combine. In fact, being King in the North, or at least Lord Stark would assist Jon in gathering as many forces as he could against the Others. What makes the Nights Watch so unique that nobody else is needed to fight off the Others?

[Juan_Snow]

Considering Robb legitimized Jon and named him his heir, becoming King in the North seems pretty likely for Jon. It's certainly not the only outcome on the table, but it's a real possibility.

[TalalOfDorne]

I dont know if he wont but I honestly wouldn't like it.

[Ice Turtle]

Lyanna's children would come after Benjen's children, but as far as we know he doesn't have any.

In the middle of the war, civil war and at the beginning at the new war for the down, wild six years old isn't the leader North needs, Jon on the other hand though still young is rather experienced and adult by Westerosi standards

Jon done for the Watch what he could, it's time to move on, he is climbing a ladder so becoming ruler of the North is totally consistent with his story so far

I think he won't leave NW, he will be fired

[Michael Snow]

Am I the only one who gets really annoyed when people in forums go on about how jon will inherit winterfell and become king in the north.

• for one this would be completely inconsistent with his story so far, jon has gone and joined the nights watch barring him from inheriting and even when he was offered this by stannis he turned it down.
  
• It doesn't make sense within the world we already know, the only legitimised bastard to become an heir is ramsay and that's because he was the only son roose had left. If we look back at the world correctly we know that legitimisation never really helps bastards and it still puts them behind in line of succession to other siblings, and rickon and sansa will soon reveal themselves to the world. and even as a legitimised bastard he is stuck in the nights watch.
  
• because of R+L=J as lyanna was younger than ned and a girl he's behind all the remaining stark children and benjen as well in the line fo succesion.
  
• It doesn't work in the story jon is part of the side story about the nights watch not a player in the main story of the game of thrones, his role is to be our eyes in the nights watch and ultimately play a big role in the fight against the others.
  

I know this is a pretty dis-organised thread and comes off more as a rant than anything else. But, does anyone else agree with me that jon's role in the story is not to become lord of winterfell but to lead the nights watch through the long night, and get really annoyed when other users think he's gonna end up king in the north.

Why should that make you 'really annoyed'? It's not like it's crackpot. Do you remember Robb's will? Making Jon legit and his heir? No? Well, that happened. I don't think Jon is going to go on to become King in the North, no, but there's no reason why someone suggesting it should make you 'really annoyed'. It's a lot more likely than a lot of the other theories floating around - go hate on one of those.

[Addam of Hull]

If only Robb's Will hadn't legitimized Jon and named heir, then you might have a leg to stand on. Unfortunately for you, Jon is the most likely candidate to not only become Lord of Winterfell, but King in the North at the moment. And there's no better way for him to prepare the North for the War of the Dawn 2.0 (if such a thing occurs). The Night's Watch is falling apart and it can't hold back the Others. He can do a lot more good as King than he can in trying to cling to an outdated institution that has no real leaders left in it and much less than a thousand men. Granted, there are no guarantees that he'll go down this path, but it's a viable one and it is one he can take with the intention to protect the realm.

[Ned's Epic Beard]

Jon comes after bran, rickon, sansa and arya. So no he can't become lord of winterfell. Robb made him his heir because he thought that bran and rickon were dead. He is legitimized but comes after bran and rickon.

If he is targ then he can't rule north/winterfell at all. Only a stark can rule winterfell.

[Ramsay Gimp]

I agree that taking Robb's will at face value is a mistake too many readers make. "Well, if Robb named him heir than of course he is the heir." It's actually a bit more complicated than that.

For one, the will was made under false assumptions. Everyone believed Rickon and Bran to be dead. Second, Robb was way too flippant about the implications of Jon leaving the Watch to take Winterfell. Think of the precedent it would set - how could Jon ever execute deserters himself after doing that (without being a massive hypocrite)? Lastly, it goes against Jon's character to take Winterfell before his trueborn siblings.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Jon comes after bran, rickon, sansa and arya. So no he can't become lord of winterfell. Robb made him his heir because he thought that bran and rickon were dead. He is legitimized but comes after bran and rickon.

If he is targ then he can't rule north/winterfell at all. Only a stark can rule winterfell.

1. It depends on how the will was worded, as I've said before and will probably end up sayingagain. If Robb thought that Arya, Rickon and Bran were dead and actively moved to disinherit Sansa, then the will might very well say, "I name Jon Snow my heir," period. In which case, yes, it's Jon. Why would Robb include people in his will if he was sure they were dead? While it's true that the will was made under false assumptions, that doesn't change the meat of it. And as I said above, the underlying evidence suggests that the northerners are in fact aiming for Jon and not one of his siblings.

2. So long as Jon is the product of a legitimate marriage between Lyanna and Rhaegar (and evidence and logic overwhelmingly suggest that yes, he is), then he would still be in the ordinary Winterfell succession and yes he could still rule Winterfell.

[Beric Zoolander]

Jon said no to this when Stannis asked this of him. Why should it be any different if Robb had?

Also I see Jon reacting the same way Aemon did if it ever comes to that. Just because you're the heir doesn't mean you have to accept it. And I don't think Jon will.

[Runaway Penguin]

And it's never occurred to you that the main story is what's going on with the Night's Watch and the Others, and that it's the game of thrones that's the real distraction/"side story"?

Frankly, no. Because the "side story" is so elaborate that it would be a terrible waste to concentrate all conclusions just to the NW and Others arc.

Same way as for LotR, war in Rohan or siege of Minas Tirith are not "just side stories". Same as in Babylon 5, where the "rebellion against Earth" story arc is as important as the galaxy-spanning war between the mighty powers...

Game of Thrones IS important. The Winter is important as well. Even the Essos arc is in the end important.

[Runaway Penguin]

Jon said no to this when Stannis asked this of him. Why should it be any different if Robb had?

Because Robb is family and "There always must be a Stark in Winterfell".

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Jon said no to this when Stannis asked this of him. Why should it be any different if Robb had?

People keep asking this and they're not even remotely the same thing. For one, Stannis' offer came with huge strings attached, namely, Jon had to burn and turn his back on his family's gods. Jon also thought of Winterfell's as not Stannis' to give. But if the offer came from Robb, his brother and Winterfell's rightful ruler, without Jon having to disown the old gods, then yes I'd think he'd consider it.

Stannis' offer and Robb's legitimization have very little in common and I'm baffled as to why so many people think that if Jon turned down Stannis he'd turn down Robb.

Frankly, no. Because the "side story" is so elaborate that it would be a terrible waste to concentrate all conclusions just to the NW and Others arc.

I think the point is that the game of thrones is an empty, vacuous, meaningless waste of time while people could be focusing on more important things, like saving the world from darkness and ice zombies. One of the biggest reasons why I fully expect the Iron Throne (as an instutition) to not exist in the end.

[Ramsay Gimp]

1. It depends on how the will was worded, as I've said before and will probably end up sayingagain. If Robb thought that Arya, Rickon and Bran were dead and actively moved to disinherit Sansa, then the will might very well say, "I name Jon Snow my heir," period. In which case, yes, it's Jon. Why would Robb include people in his will if he was sure they were dead? While it's true that the will was made under false assumptions, that doesn't change the meat of it. And as I said above, the underlying evidence suggests that the northerners are in fact aiming for Jon and not one of his siblings.

I haven't examined your Northern conspiracy ideas fully (I mean to eventually), but I disagree with the bolded part. Kings can't just name anyone their heir and expect everyone to go along with it. Are you saying that Bran/Rickon's claims are voided by the will?

[The She Wolf]

I feel like it would be out of character for him to accept this role, seeing as he already declined the offer when Stannis gave him the chance. I definitely see the possibility of him being offered the role again by the other Northerners considering Robb's will, Sansa's marriage to a Lannister and disappearance, and "Arya"'s marriage to the bastard of Bolton. The only thing that complicates this is Manderly and possibly other Northerners' knowledge of Rickon's survival.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

I haven't examined your Northern conspiracy ideas fully (I mean to eventually), but I disagree with the bolded part. Kings can't just name anyone their heir and expect everyone to go along with it. Are you saying that Bran/Rickon's claims are voided by the will?

I'm not saying they're completely voided by the will, I'm saying that a king (or lord) could in theory name whoever he wanted to, it just happens that it usually falls to the oldest son or next-oldest brother, etc. This is true in real life, too. The Queen of England could, theoretically, name whatever heir she pleased. If Robb explicitly named Jon in his will, that's who the heir is and if you read the GNC stuff, the underlying movements in the North strongly imply that the northerners are acting under the assumption that Jon's their guy. So the "expect everyone to go along with it" thing seems moot in this case because ... they are going along with it. Whether he accepts it or acts as regent for Rickon, who's to say. I also think it's possible that the North will eventually be in a federation of sorts with the Vale and the Riverlands, with one main king/queen and normal lords in Winterfell, Riverrun and the Eyrie.

[Runaway Penguin]

They would be. However Jon can turn the will down - esp. if he learns he wasn't Ned's, but Lyanna's, as it would be a bit dishonorable to jump the queue.

What is harder is how to get him out of NW, but then maybe it is found that NW knows "honorable discharge" after all. Robb was willing to trade 100 men for the Watch for Jon, and Jon himself added to the Watch at least as many new men - and women.