Robb's Will- Does it matter?

[Luddagain]

People

This is the Game of Thrones.

Every claimant grasps at a shred of "legitimacy": based on some long dead ancestor or some shred of legal fiction on which to make a claim. With their figleaf of a claim they seek allies, military and political. Here are some of the GENUINE legitimacy issues that were imortant in medieval England and Scotland

1. Women were usually passed over for other male relatives. This was the basis of the long battle between Stephen and Matilda, which GRRM has used for his Dance of Dragons battle. Part of the problem was that in NORMANDY and hence in England women were allowed to succeed but not in France or many other areas. It is still the case in most middle eastern monarchies.

2. People with any bodily injury eg loss of limb or eye were often NOT acceptable as overlords, especially in Celtic cultures. Now we are talking the North here ie first men who are roughly based on the people of Scotland. There are some elements of the famous stories in Jaime ie Nuada silver hand etc. Anyway the point is that Nuada resigned as chief when he lost his hand, but reclaimed it when he was restored ( I think with a silver hand but nt quite sure of the detail)

3. Matrilineal succession. This has NOT been raised yet in the story but I think it is important, especially in Jon's Arc. I suspect that Jon IS ALREADY King of Winter a title based on very old law which he inherited FROM HIS MOTHER. This was the REAL story of MacBeth King of Scotland

4. Imposters: The story of Bran and Rickon is OBVIOUSLY drawn from the Princes in the Tower, believed to be dead but who apparently resurfaced later. While some believed in "perkin Wal;becK" they never won the throne. Who knows if they lived or died.

5. Rights of bastards - well start with William Bastardus Duke of Normandy whop became William I of England.

6. The VERY distant heir story is probably going to be drawn from the story of Henry Tudor who inherited the Crown via some distant BASTARD ancestor (a daughter of the bastard but legitimizeds Beaumont)

7. Claims that kings were really bastards or the offspring of bastards - was made and still is for many especially in relation to Edward IV. Saw a funny little docu a month r two ago which set out to prove that the legal King of England lives in outback Australia in a small bungalow. Probably quite valid claim, but he did not seem to want to claim his inheritance.

[Luddagain]

Raksha

You see things in today's terms

If Sansa had a child it would be a LANNISTER not a Stark and allowing Sansa to inherit would mean GIVING the North to the Lannisters. The child would be influenced by LANNISTER uncles or cousins, even if he grew up in the North. Additionally as Bolton pointed out child Lords are a problem for a house, because the various powers squabble to influence the young child. there are current of future husbands of the Queen and men will fight for her, them there are competing uncles, cousins and advisors.

Also you must recognise that at the time MILITARY prowess was essential in being a good Lord or King. Queens and child Lords were pretty useless at that side and risked being manipulated by others.

Now had Sansa been married to a Northern Lord of Robb's choosing, then I have little doubt that he would have placed her ahead of Jon.

ALSO what did Robb know of "there must always be a Stark at Winterfell mean. A child of Sansa's WOULD NOT be a Stark.

[BRANDON GREYSTARK]

Don't know probably not Jon will say that it belongs to Sansa or Arya. People seem to forget why he turned down Winterfell because Melisandre wanted him to burn the weirwoods and accept R'hllor as his god but Winterfell and Jon belongs to the old gods.

[Bael's Bastard]

Maybe not a Stark in name, but neither is Jon, and there are a couple implications that all Starks after a certain point may be descended from a Stark female.

[The Broke Howard Hughes]

Based on the wording of the will's attempt to disinherit Sansa none of this may matter. A simple phrase like before any living sibling, or ONLY heir solves this problem for us and given the nature of the books a seemingly careless phrase could have a HUGE impact.

[Mithras]

“The road to Casterly Rock does not go through Dorne, my little friend. Nor does it run beneath the Wall. Yet there is such a road, I tell you.”

“I am an attainted traitor, a regicide, and kinslayer.”

“What one king does, another may undo.”

I don’t think the wording matters. It all ends up in Jon and how he will react to the Will. Jon will know that he is a Targaryen. Rickon will soon come. He might learn that Bran is also alive. He will not usurp his cousins’ birthrights.

I think being the King in the North makes much of the R+L=J story redundant. If Jon will be a king, he should be the King of the Andals and the First Men as his patrilineal progenitors.

[The Bittersteel]

People

This is the Game of Thrones.

Every claimant grasps at a shred of "legitimacy": based on some long dead ancestor or some shred of legal fiction on which to make a claim. With their figleaf of a claim they seek allies, military and political. Here are some of the GENUINE legitimacy issues that were imortant in medieval England and Scotland

1. Women were usually passed over for other male relatives. This was the basis of the long battle between Stephen and Matilda, which GRRM has used for his Dance of Dragons battle. Part of the problem was that in NORMANDY and hence in England women were allowed to succeed but not in France or many other areas. It is still the case in most middle eastern monarchies.

2. People with any bodily injury eg loss of limb or eye were often NOT acceptable as overlords, especially in Celtic cultures. Now we are talking the North here ie first men who are roughly based on the people of Scotland. There are some elements of the famous stories in Jaime ie Nuada silver hand etc. Anyway the point is that Nuada resigned as chief when he lost his hand, but reclaimed it when he was restored ( I think with a silver hand but nt quite sure of the detail)

3. Matrilineal succession. This has NOT been raised yet in the story but I think it is important, especially in Jon's Arc. I suspect that Jon IS ALREADY King of Winter a title based on very old law which he inherited FROM HIS MOTHER. This was the REAL story of MacBeth King of Scotland

4. Imposters: The story of Bran and Rickon is OBVIOUSLY drawn from the Princes in the Tower, believed to be dead but who apparently resurfaced later. While some believed in "perkin Wal;becK" they never won the throne. Who knows if they lived or died.

5. Rights of bastards - well start with William Bastardus Duke of Normandy whop became William I of England.

6. The VERY distant heir story is probably going to be drawn from the story of Henry Tudor who inherited the Crown via some distant BASTARD ancestor (a daughter of the bastard but legitimizeds Beaumont)

7. Claims that kings were really bastards or the offspring of bastards - was made and still is for many especially in relation to Edward IV. Saw a funny little docu a month r two ago which set out to prove that the legal King of England lives in outback Australia in a small bungalow. Probably quite valid claim, but he did not seem to want to claim his inheritance.

I see validity in some of your list but points 5-7 are bogus.

5. William won the throne through right of conquest and claimed the throne was promised to him by first cousin once removed edward the confessor, him being a bastard is irrelevant. He wasn't claiming it through blood relation.

6. Henry Tudor didn't 'inherit' the throne. He too won it through conquest, as was acknowledged in parliament. The beauforts were legitimized but barred from claiming the throne of england by law by Henry IV. Henry knew his claim was weak so didn't rely on it when it came to consolidating his rule, hence his marriage so that his dynasty could claim the throne through blood.

7. I've seen this documentary but as Henry claimed the throne through right of conquest as is the case with Robert Baratheon the throne passed to his line meaning that chap isn't the rightful king. If your arguing that the documentary disagrees that right of conquest is valid it still wouldn't work because it includes William the Conqueror's right of conquest.

[LordQorgyle]

By the end of the series it will apparent why Jon let the Wildlings into the North.

The will was signed/ witness by Robb's closest Generals and Advisers, many of which died with him at the Red Wedding, the family of those men who are now the heads of those Houses will be honor bound to follow the Will from the King in the North as well as their fathers and brothers.

Now its you that is assuming things by the time that the will was made Jon, hadn't made the huge mistake to let the wildlings go to the southside of the that will not be well seen by for example the Umbers and the mountain clans, and seeing that Jon has been stabbed to dead by his own subbordinates and don't see him as a good commander, besides if Jon is dead and going to be ressurected i don't think the Northern Lords as the BWB i highly doubt they would follow a ressurected King that most likely will marry aWildling girl

[sj4iy]

Now its you that is assuming things by the time that the will was made Jon, hadn't made the huge mistake to let the wildlings go to the southside of the that will not be well seen by for example the Umbers and the mountain clans, and seeing that Jon has been stabbed to dead by his own subbordinates and don't see him as a good commander, besides if Jon is dead and going to be ressurected i don't think the Northern Lords as the BWB i highly doubt they would follow a ressurected King that most likely will marry aWildling girl

He didn't make a mistake letting them through. Whatever the Northern lords think of it, it's still not a mistake.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

He didn't make a mistake letting them through. Whatever the Northern lords think of it, it's still not a mistake.

Agree. If you want to be able to survive during LN2.0 the greenlanders will need help and who is better to help them than the Free Folk who literally have lived with the Others for years and they know what they supposed to do.

[Bael's Bastard]

Also, better a hundred thousand Wildlings than a hundred thousand more wights (or however many were let through).

[the conquoring bastard25]

I see validity in some of your list but points 5-7 are bogus.

5. William won the throne through right of conquest and claimed the throne was promised to him by first cousin once removed edward the confessor, him being a bastard is irrelevant. He wasn't claiming it through blood relation.

6. Henry Tudor didn't 'inherit' the throne. He too won it through conquest, as was acknowledged in parliament. The beauforts were legitimized but barred from claiming the throne of england by law by Henry IV. Henry knew his claim was weak so didn't rely on it when it came to consolidating his rule, hence his marriage so that his dynasty could claim the throne through blood.

7. I've seen this documentary but as Henry claimed the throne through right of conquest as is the case with Robert Baratheon the throne passed to his line meaning that chap isn't the rightful king. If your arguing that the documentary disagrees that right of conquest is valid it still wouldn't work because it includes William the Conqueror's right of conquest.

1) William the bastard may have won the right to rule England through rights of conquest but he did start out as Edward the Confessor's heir. He was known to be the heir for some time only when Endward died he supposedly named another cousin and that's why William had to fight. If not then he would have claimed England under blood claim not war. So you are wrong.

2) You are sort of right and sort of wrong. Tudor once his uncle Henry VI died and the yorks were back into place Henry felt as though he had inherited the Lannicaster claim. Even though the Tudors and Beauforts (which is where he gets his English royal blood) as his mother was the great granddaughter of John Gruant, whom if you don't know was the fourth son of a king. On the other side he was related to the French monarchy but as it's through the female line he would have been barred from the line of succession. Yes he did claim the crown through a fight but he did have a blood right to the throne. So sorry it's not B.S. don't believe me check wiki, but I wouldn't bother I'm an English History Major and could probably do mental back flips around people with the information that I know about the Tudor dynasty. IT's not everyday that a bastard line takes the crown and then founds a dynasty.

If you really want to know whom should have ruled over England after the battle of Bosworth? I'll tell you the dukes of Buckingham as they are decended from the 6 son of king Edward III Thomas Woodstock.

Unlike the Yorks whom died out when Richard III was killed. Weren't disinherited on the grounds of being a bastard like the Lancaster line after Henry VI dies and still has the connection to all of the royal bloodlines that flowed through Henry Tudor's VIII and still had more royal blood. The real claim should have been the Son of the Woodstock.

[The Bittersteel]

1) William the bastard may have won the right to rule England through rights of conquest but he did start out as Edward the Confessor's heir. He was known to be the heir for some time only when Endward died he supposedly named another cousin and that's why William had to fight. If not then he would have claimed England under blood claim not war. So you are wrong.

2) You are sort of right and sort of wrong. Tudor once his uncle Henry VI died and the yorks were back into place Henry felt as though he had inherited the Lannicaster claim. Even though the Tudors and Beauforts (which is where he gets his English royal blood) as his mother was the great granddaughter of John Gruant, whom if you don't know was the fourth son of a king. On the other side he was related to the French monarchy but as it's through the female line he would have been barred from the line of succession. Yes he did claim the crown through a fight but he did have a blood right to the throne. So sorry it's not B.S. don't believe me check wiki, but I wouldn't bother I'm an English History Major and could probably do mental back flips around people with the information that I know about the Tudor dynasty. IT's not everyday that a bastard line takes the crown and then founds a dynasty.

If you really want to know whom should have ruled over England after the battle of Bosworth? I'll tell you the dukes of Buckingham as they are decended from the 6 son of king Edward III Thomas Woodstock.

Unlike the Yorks whom died out when Richard III was killed. Weren't disinherited on the grounds of being a bastard like the Lancaster line after Henry VI dies and still has the connection to all of the royal bloodlines that flowed through Henry Tudor's VIII and still had more royal blood. The real claim should have been the Son of the Woodstock.

So many incorrect facts in this post.

1. It is unknown for certain who Edward the Confessor declared as his heir but the best blood relation by far was Edgar the Atheling, William could not have claimed blood superiority over him. As Harold Godwinson was selected by the Witenagamot, William was only left with right of conquest. Your incorrect about him being able to claim by blood.

2. Henry claimed he had inherited the claim but as I've said legally it's irrelevant. His hounding of surviving Yorkists throughout his reign, marriage and the 1485 parliament bill (which mentions nothing of his genealogical right to the throne) all but confirm his personal insecurities about this. Your incorrect about him being able to 'inherit' the throne at all.

3. The House of York didn't die out with the death of Richard III.... how could you not know this despite your knowledge of the Tudors? I'm also a history degree student who has a particular interest in the War of the Roses and have a familial connection, I'm descended from the Beauforts.

[Hypnomagica]

Many people seem to consider this as a real game changer, with Robb naming Jon as his heir being very significant but I'm not sure if I see why.

Firstly, although the idea of the kingdom of the North is still clearly alive and well in the minds of some (Manderlys, Mormonts etc) many of it's strongest supporters are dead or imprisoned. There doesn't seem to be anything left to 're-create' the kingdom as it were, with manpower and support massively reduced during the war. If anything the Riverlands territories are in an even worse state.

Secondly, the will was made with the assumption that Bran and Rickon were dead. If Rickon shows up is Jon still the heir?

Thirdly, Jon has already refused an offer of legitimisation and the North from Stannis, will the will really change his mind?

I guess I just don't see this being that important in the grand scheme of things, what does it change?

I don't necessarily think that the will has to lead to Jon taking up the mantle as heir to his brother but I think that it must have some significance to the overall plot or else its very existence in the books loses all purpose.

[LordQorgyle]

As you said for the readers it's not a bad decision but for the northern lords of course it is

[Hippocras]

I don't necessarily think that the will has to lead to Jon taking up the mantle as heir to his brother but I think that it must have some significance to the overall plot or else its very existence in the books loses all purpose.

I think it is key to the Northern Lords accepting Jon in any leadership role even if not King in the North. Robb's will legitimized Jon and proved that their chosen king thought of him as a brother and trusted him. That will matter a great deal.

[OldGimletEye]

I can't remember, but did Robb ever make it known to any of his bannerman what his plans were with regard to John? It seems to me an important detail, since it would be harder to question Robb's will if some the Northern lords had personal knowledge of Robb's intent.

[Hippocras]

I can't remember, but did Robb ever make it known to any of his bannerman what his plans were with regard to John? It seems to me an important detail, since it would be harder to question Robb's will if some the Northern lords had personal knowledge of Robb's intent.

Edmure was there. Edmure had a night to chat with Blackfish before Blackfish snuck out of Riverrun. Blackfish is a contender for the Hooded Man at Winterfell (lots of Freys to kill there, and he needed to bring word to the North) so the Northerners might know now via the Hooded Man.

[OldGimletEye]

Edmure was there. Edmure had a night to chat with Blackfish before Blackfish snuck out of Riverrun. Blackfish is a contender for the Hooded Man at Winterfell (lots of Freys to kill there, and he needed to bring word to the North) so the Northerners might know now via the Hooded Man.

Thanks. I forgot about that.

[Bael's Bastard]

I can't remember, but did Robb ever make it known to any of his bannerman what his plans were with regard to John? It seems to me an important detail, since it would be harder to question Robb's will if some the Northern lords had personal knowledge of Robb's intent.

They all affixed their seals to Robb's will as witnesses.