Robb's Will- Does it matter?

[Brock00]

Yes. If Jon is legitimized, he comes before Rickon. Catelyn points out that it would take the birthright from Arya, but Robb is pragmatic about it. He believes that Jon is the only brother who remains to him, and he wants to make sure that it passes to his brother. Now, if Rickon showed up, would Jon deny him Winterfell? I seriously doubt it. He's always believed that is trueborn brothers and sisters inherit before him, and if one of them were to show up to claim Winterfell, I cannot see Jon refusing them, even if he had a higher claim than they did because of Robb's decree.

I disagree - what would Eddard Stark do? He would honor the will. Jon will do the same. Even if Rickon or Bran popped up he wouldn't automatically swear fealty, and I doubt Bran would demand Winterfell from Jon, Rickon may when be ages a bit, but Bran is his senior and would demand Rickon honored their brother's wishes. As long as Bran lives Jon rules as the Stark liege without any problem within the family, well maybe a Littlefinger fueled Sansa claim.

[Brock00]

I disagree - what would Eddard Stark do? He would honor the will. Jon will do the same. Even if Rickon or Bran popped up he wouldn't automatically swear fealty, and I doubt Bran would demand Winterfell from Jon, Rickon may when be ages a bit, but Bran is his senior and would demand Rickon honored their brother's wishes. As long as Bran lives Jon rules as the Stark liege without any problem within the family, well maybe a Littlefinger fueled Sansa claim.

In fact I believe Jon's response to the will would be parallel to Eddard's response to Robert's will. He will honor it to the letter.

[Ser Yo of House Lo]

Even if Jon becomes the Kitten (KiTN I know, but it just looks weird, so I call it Kitten), what state is the North in? I mean, the entire Northern Host (Minus the Boltons and their allies) must be what? 15,000? Not to mention the West where the Ironborn ironborned the crap out of it.

Anybody?

[Ser Eric]

No, it doesn't matter. The will, will never be seen again.

RIP Robb Stark!

[Talking Hodor]

Robb's will will be rendered null and void by both the existence of Bran and Rickon and by the fact that Jon is the son of Rhaegar and Lyanna, which Howland Reed might decide to reveal when he sees the will. This could motivate the North to support Jon nonetheless as claimant to the IT, with either Rickon or Bran becoming Lord of Winterfell.

His oath to the NW will most likely be lifted by the fact that the Others are going to roll over the NW and wipe them out. The remainder of Westeros will have to become de facto Nights Watchmen, of which Jon would be a clear choice as leader.

Also, he ain't dead. Those thick furs, and possibly some light armor, made sure that those daggers merely nicked him. Wun Wun is about to hulk smash the stabbers.

[fuem]

If Jon is truly The Dragons son why wouldn't Highgarden etc that supported the dragon to the bitter end and then some declare for him? Also with the Highgarden trying to get Sansa why wouldn't they flowers fight for the wolf/dragon

[Hippocras]

If Jon is truly The Dragons son why wouldn't Highgarden etc that supported the dragon to the bitter end and then some declare for him? Also with the Highgarden trying to get Sansa why wouldn't they flowers fight for the wolf/dragon

The Tyrells were also Blackfyre supporters in the past. IMO they would lean Aegon, not Jon.

[sj4iy]

Robb's will will be rendered null and void by both the existence of Bran and Rickon and by the fact that Jon is the son of Rhaegar and Lyanna, which Howland Reed might decide to reveal when he sees the will. This could motivate the North to support Jon nonetheless as claimant to the IT, with either Rickon or Bran becoming Lord of Winterfell.

His oath to the NW will most likely be lifted by the fact that the Others are going to roll over the NW and wipe them out. The remainder of Westeros will have to become de facto Nights Watchmen, of which Jon would be a clear choice as leader.

Also, he ain't dead. Those thick furs, and possibly some light armor, made sure that those daggers merely nicked him. Wun Wun is about to hulk smash the stabbers.

Robb named Jon heir. That puts him in front of all of his 'siblings' for succession: otherwise, it would have defeated the purpose of the will, which was to cut Sansa out of succession.

[King Viserys Targaryen IV]

The Will, just like Rickon is a distraction from GRRM

[RainGhost]

I disagree - what would Eddard Stark do? He would honor the will. Jon will do the same. Even if Rickon or Bran popped up he wouldn't automatically swear fealty, and I doubt Bran would demand Winterfell from Jon, Rickon may when be ages a bit, but Bran is his senior and would demand Rickon honored their brother's wishes. As long as Bran lives Jon rules as the Stark liege without any problem within the family, well maybe a Littlefinger fueled Sansa claim.

But the key point is that Robb made the will believing Bran and Rickon were dead. If they were truly dead (or if they do die) I would agree with you. And Jon also has vows to honour to the NW (unless it no longer exists after the incident). Robb would not have needed to name Jon heir if his younger brothers were alive and would never have intended to take away their rights. Jon would know this and would not usurp his brothers. You do his character disservice to believe he would.

[UnmaskedLurker]

I think the Will will matter in the following sense. Jon eventually needs to get people in Westeros to start paying attention to the war against the Others. If the Will is revealed, and if Jon puts down the Boltons, the Will gives Jon the moral authority to bring the men of the North to his aid in battling the Others. Eventually, Jon may abdicate in favor of Rickon. But for purposes of fighting the war, Jon needs to have a way to start getting people to listen to him.

I also agree that naming by Robb naming Jon as Robb's heir, Jon comes ahead of any other siblings. HOWEVER, given that Robb thought Bran and Rickon were dead, I think a claim by one of them could be brought to something like a Grand Council which could overrule the Will and turn the seat over to one of the "legitimate" sons of Ned. I agree also that if one of them pressed the claim, it likely would not go to a a council as Jon would abdicate in his favor. But the in-story importance will be rallying the North to the cause of the war against the Others.

[AryaNymeriaVisenya]

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.

Henry VII married the heir. Edwards daughter Elizabeth. Niece of Richard III. After the boys died the throne should have been hers. That was why he did it. Margaret Beaufort and Elizabeth woodville planned it together. Henry had an army, Elizabeth had the claim. He declared right of conquest otherwise his wife would have been queen and him her consort. Only William of orange has ever ruled through a female claimant in Britain because she asked him too and had no interest in ruling. The Tudors were a bastard line will no inheritance, everybody knew it but most of the candidates were dead. Elizabeth was the York heir. There was never a bar on female inheritance. His blood was only relevant as the only drop of Lancaster blood left. Nobody thought it was a serious claim, not even Henry. There was no choice.

[The Bittersteel]

Henry VII married the heir. Edwards daughter Elizabeth. Niece of Richard III. After the boys died the throne should have been hers. That was why he did it. Margaret Beaufort and Elizabeth woodville planned it together. Henry had an army, Elizabeth had the claim. He declared right of conquest otherwise his wife would have been queen and him her consort. Only William of orange has ever ruled through a female claimant in Britain because she asked him too and had no interest in ruling. The Tudors were a bastard line will no inheritance, everybody knew it but most of the candidates were dead. Elizabeth was the York heir. There was never a bar on female inheritance. His blood was only relevant as the only drop of Lancaster blood left. Nobody thought it was a serious claim, not even Henry. There was no choice.

I'm not sure if some this post is entirely accurate. Difficult to say who Richard's heir would have been after his death but Edward Earl of Warwick seems to have just as strong a claim as hers in light of circumstances (Edward's children via Woodville declared illegitimate, Clarence's tainting). I believe the prevailing law at this time in England was that although females could transmit claims to their children they could not hold power alone themselves. I believe therefore that Henry's marriage to Elizabeth was more to secure the throne properly for his son by uniting the claims rather than the threat of Elizabeth alone. By the time of William of Orange we'd already had two Queens who'd ruled independently and that was only because of a lack of any other viable option. I do agree with your bit about his lack of a blood claim though. Henry himself clearly didn't believe in it's strength.

[Brock00]

But the key point is that Robb made the will believing Bran and Rickon were dead. If they were truly dead (or if they do die) I would agree with you. And Jon also has vows to honour to the NW (unless it no longer exists after the incident). Robb would not have needed to name Jon heir if his younger brothers were alive and would never have intended to take away their rights. Jon would know this and would not usurp his brothers. You do his character disservice to believe he would.

I believe being stabbed, with the intent being to death, will serve as a way out of the NW for Jon. I'm working on writing up along-form theory/prediction for what happens to Jon/what leads up to his march to Winterfell (with a nice sized army :) )

He would not be usurping his brothers, if he is legitimized by Robb then he is the heir to the North. It is as plain as that. If he took up Stannis' offer to claim Winterfell he would've been usurping his brothers.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

I think that if it didn't matter, it would have not mattered by now. As in, it would've been settled, out in the open and dismissed. Like Robert's will. That it's still hanging around in the ether without any definitive action yet suggests that something will happen with it.

[Sophist]

I wish threads like this could be more precise. I know everybody likes to call it "Robb's Will", but tze pointed out some time ago that it's almost certainly NOT a will. If it were a will, there'd be major legal problems with it (search the term "pretermitted heir"). It's most likely a decree of legitimation. That itself has all kinds of interesting potential consequences, but making Jon "legitimate" (quotes because he most likely already is), even if valid, wouldn't alone make him the Stark in Winterfell -- his NW vows preclude that. That leaves Arya and Rickon still in line, plus Sansa if Robb made her right conditional in some way.

[Hippocras]

I wish threads like this could be more precise. I know everybody likes to call it "Robb's Will", but tze pointed out some time ago that it's almost certainly NOT a will. If it were a will, there'd be major legal problems with it (search the term "pretermitted heir"). It's most likely a decree of legitimation. That itself has all kinds of interesting potential consequences, but making Jon "legitimate" (quotes because he most likely already is), even if valid, wouldn't alone make him the Stark in Winterfell -- his NW vows preclude that. That leaves Arya and Rickon still in line, plus Sansa if Robb made her right conditional in some way.

Good point.

From Robb's perspective, legitimizing Jon when the rest of his father's sons were believed dead was all that was needed to make him heir. So the document is mainly a legitimization, which will matter.

I believe a King would have the power to free Jon from his Watch vows. Stannis thought he had that authority. Robb could do that as King in the North, so that part might be relevant as well, particularly since Jon was attacked.

[I'm the Party Pooper]

I wish threads like this could be more precise. I know everybody likes to call it "Robb's Will", but tze pointed out some time ago that it's almost certainly NOT a will. If it were a will, there'd be major legal problems with it (search the term "pretermitted heir"). It's most likely a decree of legitimation. That itself has all kinds of interesting potential consequences, but making Jon "legitimate" (quotes because he most likely already is), even if valid, wouldn't alone make him the Stark in Winterfell -- his NW vows preclude that. That leaves Arya and Rickon still in line, plus Sansa if Robb made her right conditional in some way.

That's inaccurate.

Robb Stark knew that Jon Snow couldn't inherit the Kitten title simply through a legitimization as Jon Stark.

Hence, he must have also decreed that Jon Stark is freed of his vows in case of his (Robb's) death.

Otherwise, exactly for the point you make, it makes absolutely no sense to write down any post-mortem will.

Since we know he had the same knowledge we have on inheritance of titles/legitimization, we must assume he has taken proper steps to go around it if that's the direction he wanted to take.