Jump to content

Sophist

Members
  • Content count

    75
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Sophist

  • Rank
    Sellsword

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

704 profile views
  1. Sophist

    Quick question about Robbs will

    We know that Wyman's son is "home". I don't know if he traveled with Wyman. I'm sure others trickled home too, but we aren't told that as far as I can remember.
  2. Sophist

    Quick question about Robbs will

    Well, the legal issues related to the effect of a document are mostly semantic, so it's fair to treat those as important here. For example, the "pretermitted heir" concept applies to wills, but not to, say, contracts. It would not apply to a simple declaration (a document that's not a will) regarding the order of succession. So yeah, I think word choice is important for that reason at least. But it's also important because we're missing key facts about the document. We don't know what it says. We don't know its form. Under these circumstances, we have to consider all the logical possibilities. That makes it not so much a semantic issue as a logical one.
  3. Sophist

    Quick question about Robbs will

    The passage you quote implies that it's a will, but doesn't expressly say so. In fact it rather oddly uses the more cumbersome phrase "this document". There are "documents" other than wills which could declare the succession, and we need to consider them as logically possible since we've never seen the original.
  4. Sophist

    Quick question about Robbs will

    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.
  5. Sophist

    What was the best scene from the books in your opinion?

    I don't think anyone has mentioned this yet: Arya killing The Tickler. "Is there gold in the village?" She was so traumatized by having to watch his torture and this was both justice and an emotional release which really moved me. I wouldn't rate it as highly as the funeral pyre scene, but it's damn good.
×