Who did Robb name as his heir?

[kissdbyfire]

14 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

This is such an inane argument. Those who support Robb will continue to believe in his authority, and those who don't, will not. As Martin said. Power resides where men believe it does.

All you are saying is that there are a whole bunch of guys in the rest of Westeros who don't believe it resides with the King in the North. To his supporters, however, it very much does. You're not saying anything controversial or particularly revealing, here.

Exactly! I don't understand what's so hard to understand. The crown won't accept/acknowledge Robb's will same as they didn't his kingship, but the northern lords will and have, Roose being the WotN for the time being doesn't mean jack.

[The Fattest Leech]

49 minutes ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

That was what they were trying to do but they failed.  Robb and the Starks were soundly defeated.  King's Landing named Roose Bolton the new warden of the north.  What passes for nobles in the north bent their knees to the ruler in King's Landing and formally accepted Roose.  Robb's will has nothing to stand on.  

Sure. Robb failed. But since the north took itself back and acknowledged their own king again, and now that king is dead, there is an open spot. It's a good thing there are five other Stark kids who can step up to the duty when the story require it so. 

[The Commentator]

1 hour ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

This is such an inane argument. Those who support Robb will continue to believe in his authority, and those who don't, will not. As Martin said. Power resides where men believe it does.

 

All you are saying is that there are a whole bunch of guys in the rest of Westeros who don't believe it resides with the King in the North. To his supporters, however, it very much does. You're not saying anything controversial or particularly revealing, here.  

 

There is no such person as a "king in the north."  There is a lord of Winterfell and his name is Ramsay Bolton.  There is a Warden of the North named Roose Bolton.  Robb's supporters do not get to make the laws.  They are subjects of the person whose rear sits atop the iron throne and they are bound to obey.   I am sure they don't like it but it doesn't mean they're willing to go to war again just so Robb's will can have some authority.   And they have to actually win that war before that will can have any power. Trying doesn't count.  This is not a grade school report card where they get credit for effort.  Besides, the north has already surrendered after the shellacking they got at the red wedding.  

It matters not what the north believe in.  It takes more than belief. The north follows the laws dictated to them by the iron throne.  The Starks lost Winterfell and it is no longer Robb's to dispose of at his pleasure.  And the right to legitimize a bastard was never Robb's to begin with.  You have to be a king first before you do something that only a king has the power to do.  Robb was in rebellion to win independence for the north and he failed.  

[Dorian Martell's son]

2 hours ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

Robb failed to win independence from the rest of the kingdom.  The men who raised him king had no right to do so.  Thus, Robb was not a king but a "hopeful".  A wannabe that didn't get what he wanted.

His vassals swore fealty to him. The North and The Riverlands. He wore a crown, he executed men for treason, he had a queen. He was a king. Not for very long mind you, but Joff wasn't king for long either 

[Free Northman Reborn]

1 hour ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

There is no such person as a "king in the north."  There is a lord of Winterfell and his name is Ramsay Bolton.  There is a Warden of the North named Roose Bolton.  Robb's supporters do not get to make the laws.  They are subjects of the person whose rear sits atop the iron throne and they are bound to obey.   I am sure they don't like it but it doesn't mean they're willing to go to war again just so Robb's will can have some authority.   And they have to actually win that war before that will can have any power. Trying doesn't count.  This is not a grade school report card where they get credit for effort.  Besides, the north has already surrendered after the shellacking they got at the red wedding.  

It matters not what the north believe in.  It takes more than belief. The north follows the laws dictated to them by the iron throne.  The Starks lost Winterfell and it is no longer Robb's to dispose of at his pleasure.  And the right to legitimize a bastard was never Robb's to begin with.  You have to be a king first before you do something that only a king has the power to do.  Robb was in rebellion to win independence for the north and he failed.  

Hmmm.Doesn't look like I'm getting through here (or going to get through, for that matter). Nevertheless, let's make the effort anyway.

Dany's not Queen according to the current rulers on the Iron Throne. She hasn't even set foot in Westeros. And yet, to her followers, she is. And if she names an heir, her followers will accept her decree.

Euron's not a King according to the Iron Throne. That doesn't stop his followers from viewing him as such, based on a Kingsmoot that means something only to the Ironborn. If you tried to go with what the majority of people in Westeros believe, then Euron is the least legitimate king of all, since the Ironborn number only a fraction of the population of any of the other Seven Kingdoms. However, Westeros is not a democracy, and kings are not chosen by a general Westerosi election. So the number of supporters of any particular King matters squat. His legitimacy is determined among his followers. If Robb's will is accepted by the Northmen, then Jon will be their next King. Whether he is accepted by the rest of Westeros or not. Whether the rest of Westeros is then able to take his crown from him, well, that is a different matter. And irrelevant to the issue of Robb's will having authority in the North or not.

Aegon's not a king according to the Iron Throne either. And yet...you get my drift.

Fact is, there is no "law" as such in Westeros. There are only different factions with different levels of support, different aims and different claims to authority. And the Northmen (and Rivermen for that matter) freely swore their fealty to House Stark. Currently they are defeated. But if a Stark declares himself in the North in the next book most of the North would rise for him. And to THEM, Robb's will matters. And that is really all that matters.

[Ser_Jon_General]

3 hours ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

Robb failed to win independence from the rest of the kingdom.  The men who raised him king had no right to do so.  Thus, Robb was not a king but a "hopeful".  A wannabe that didn't get what he wanted.

 

ADWD - Jaime I

Quote

Past time this was ended, thought Jaime Lannister. With Riverrun now safely in Lannister hands, Raventree was the remnant of the Young Wolf's short-lived kingdom. Once it yielded, his work along the Trident would be done, and he would be free to return to King's Landing. To the king, he told himself, but another part of him whispered, to Cersei.

Jaime Lannister believes that Robb was King.  If the illegitimate father of the current ruler of the seven kingdoms and Lord Commander of the Kingsguard thinks that Robb was a king then that should be good enough for anyone.

[Prof. Cecily]

21 hours ago, Cron said:

VERY interesting.  Sounds like Margaery was NOT crossed off cuz the actress wanted out early, though.  Sounds like she asked to be released, they told her no, but as it turned out she was released not too long after that anyway (cuz Margaery was destined to die at the Green Trial)

Wow, you must be extremely well learned on that period!!  I'm impressed!!  Too bad you haven't watched it all, if you had it would have been great fun for me to watch it (maybe episode by episode) and discuss it with someone who knows that era so well, but oh well.

Hey, it warms my heart that there are more people out there than just me who do NOT view book-Margaery as some underdeveloped, hollow shell, which seems to be the prevailing view!!  I really don't understand why more people don't see her the way we do!!  

 

16 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

It is of course known from another source too. Howland Reed. Who has been hanging out with Maege Mormont and Gallbart Glover at Greywater Watch for a couple of books now. Howland knows all about Jojen's visions - and in fact sent him on his mission to take Bran to the Three eyed Crow north of the Wall. He knows Jojen's visions ALWAYS come true. So he knows Bran at least did not die at Winterfell.

That means Maege Mormont and Gallbart Glover likely know that too, by now. And this puts young Lyanna Mormont's fierce statement that Bear Islands know only one king in the North and his name is Stark in a whole new light, doesn't it.

Indeed.

My only concern is the timeline- did the news of Bran's and Rickon's escape get around the Northern courts 

13 hours ago, Ferocious Veldt Roarer said:

It could be true - now and in the North. However, I was talking about the time and place when and where Robb got to writing his testament. Neither he nor Cat did get any news permitting a tiniest bit of hope regarding Bran and Rickon, and if anyone else did, they hid it darn well from the protagonists.

Quite.

That is the question- just what are the Northern lords up to?

[marsyao]

Rob cannot name a heir without regarding the law of land, so unless Jeyne Westerling gave him a child which we all know would not happens, the order of inheritance of his title and lands would be Bran, Rickon, Sansa, Anya, Jon, if none of above produce their own children when they died

[Makk]

3 minutes ago, marsyao said:

Rob cannot name a heir without regarding the law of land, so unless Jeyne Westerling gave him a child which we all know would not happens, the order of inheritance of his title and lands would be Bran, Rickon, Sansa, Anya, Jon, if none of above produce their own children when they died

Leaving aside the fact that I'm not convinced Robb can't name whoever he wants, I was under the impression that If Jon is legitimised, he comes before all the others in the typical chain of succession since he is the oldest?

[marsyao]

Just now, Makk said:

Leaving aside the fact that I'm not convinced Robb can't name whoever he wants, I was under the impression that If Jon is legitimised, he comes before all the others in the typical chain of succession since he is the oldest?

No legitimised bastard son would be at the end of the inheritance line, of course Robb could name whoever he wanted, as long as he did not care of the possibility of the civil war

[Makk]

7 minutes ago, marsyao said:

No legitimised bastard son would be at the end of the inheritance line, of course Robb could name whoever he wanted, as long as he did not care of the possibility of the civil war

You didn't present a source for that so I looked up to see if I could anything and lo and behold GRRM actually wrote quite a bit of it outside the literature

Quote

 

Well, the short answer is that the laws of inheritance in the Seven Kingdoms are modelled on those in real medieval history... which is to say, they were vague, uncodified, subject to varying interpertations, and often contradictory.

A man's eldest son was his heir. After that the next eldest son. Then the next, etc. Daughters were not considered while there was a living son, except in Dorne, where females had equal right of inheritance according to age.

After the sons, most would say that the eldest daughter is next in line. But there might be an argument from the dead man's brothers, say. Does a male sibling or a female child take precedence? Each side has a "claim."

What if there are no childen, only grandchildren and great grandchildren. Is precedence or proximity the more important principle? Do bastards have any rights? What about bastards who have been legitimized, do they go in at the end after the trueborn kids, or according to birth order? What about widows? And what about the will of the deceased? Can a lord disinherit one son, and name a younger son as heir? Or even a bastard?

There are no clear cut answers, either in Westeros or in real medieval history. Things were often decided on a case by case basis. A case might set a precedent for later cases... but as often as not, the precedents conflicted as much as the claims.

In fact, if you look at medieval history, conflicting claims were the cause of three quarters of the wars. The Hundred Years War grew out of a dispute about whether a nephew or a grandson of Philip the Fair had a better claim to the throne of France. The nephew got the decision, because the grandson's claim passed through a daughter (and because he was the king of England too). And that mess was complicated by one of the precedents (the Salic Law) that had been invented a short time before to resolve the dispute after the death of Philip's eldest son, where the claimants were (1) the daughter of Philip's eldest son, who may or may not have been a bastard, her mother having been an adulteress, (2) the unborn child of the eldest son that his secon wife was carrying, sex unknown, and (3) Philip's second son, another Philip. Lawyers for (3) dug up the Salic Law to exclude (1) and possibly (2) if she was a girl, but (2) was a boy so he became king, only he died a week later, and (3) got the throne after all. But then when he died, his own children, all daughters, were excluded on the basis of the law he's dug up, and the throne went to the youngest son instead... and meanwhile (1) had kids, one of whom eventually was the king of Navarre, Charles the Bad, who was such a scumbag in the Hundred Years War in part because he felt =his= claim was better than that of either Philip of Valois or Edward Plantagenet. And you know, it was. Only Navarre did not have an army as big as France or England, so no one took him seriously.

The Wars of the Roses were fought over the issue of whether the Lancastrian claim (deriving from the third son of Edward III in direct male line) or the Yorkist claim (deriving from a combination of Edward's second son, but through a female line, wed to descendants of his fourth son, through the male) was superior. And a whole family of legitimized bastard stock, the Beauforts, played a huge role.

And when Alexander III, King of Scots, rode over a cliff, and Margaret the Maid of Norway died en route back home, and the Scottish lords called on Edward I of England to decide who had the best claim to the throne, something like fourteen or fifteen (I'd need to look up the exact number) "competitors" came forward to present their pedigrees and documents to the court. The decision eventually boiled down to precedence (John Balliol) versus proximity (Bruce) and went to Balliol, but those other thirteen guys all had claims as well. King of Eric of Norway, for instance, based his claim to the throne on his =daughter=, the aforementioned Maid of Norway, who had been the queen however briefly. He seemed to believe that inheritance should run backwards. And hell, if he had been the king of France instead of the king of Norway, maybe it would have.

The medieval world was governed by men, not by laws. You could even make a case that the lords preferred the laws to be vague and contradictory, since that gave them more power. In a tangle like the Hornwood case, ultimately the lord would decide... and if some of the more powerful claimants did not like the decision, it might come down to force of arms.

The bottom line, I suppose, is that inheritance was decided as much by politics as by laws. In Westeros and in medieval Europe both.

 

GRRM, October 25, 1999

He leaves the order about legitimised bastards ambiguous, it certainly doesn't back up the certainty you believe has been established. And he says it basically comes down to politics. The Lords were commanded to fix their seals to what Robb proclaimed, and they were happy to do so. Do you really believe that one of the other Stark kids will kick up a stink at the choice? The only possible spanner in the works would be Catelyn, and even then would any northern lord support her?

 

[Lord Freypie]

On 06/07/2017 at 6:40 PM, Widowmaker 811 said:

There is no such person as a "king in the north."  There is a lord of Winterfell and his name is Ramsay Bolton.  There is a Warden of the North named Roose Bolton.  Robb's supporters do not get to make the laws.  They are subjects of the person whose rear sits atop the iron throne and they are bound to obey.   I am sure they don't like it but it doesn't mean they're willing to go to war again just so Robb's will can have some authority.   And they have to actually win that war before that will can have any power. Trying doesn't count.  This is not a grade school report card where they get credit for effort.  Besides, the north has already surrendered after the shellacking they got at the red wedding.  

It matters not what the north believe in.  It takes more than belief. The north follows the laws dictated to them by the iron throne.  The Starks lost Winterfell and it is no longer Robb's to dispose of at his pleasure.  And the right to legitimize a bastard was never Robb's to begin with.  You have to be a king first before you do something that only a king has the power to do.  Robb was in rebellion to win independence for the north and he failed.  

 May have been correct in the show universe where northmen seem to have more limited memory and fighting spirit, looking a bit like scottish lords in Braveheart, not in the books.

Book situation is 1 or 2 major houses have accepted to support the Boltons due to their grudges against the Starks (Karstark + perhaps the lady of Barrowtown), a few because the Boltons looked like the only ones able to defeat the ironborn (until Stannis proved it wasn't the case) or because of Frey's hostages, and some, probably most, are only feigning support but look decided to betray the Boltons as soon they can.

No house took any decision due to "the iron throne told us that". No northern lord is seen saying things like "we remember our duty to serve the IT", what we see are northmen remembering their rulers of the past 5000+ (8000) years, the Starks, and Robb's Kingdom of the North, was the last form of their rule.

Even the few who seem to be really supporting the Boltons give a big importance to see Ramsay marrying a Stark, because marrying a Stark is the only source of legitimacy after the THOUSANDS of years of Stark rule in the north (just put this in your mind, the Starks were the eternal rulers of the north, thousands of years before the 7 kingdoms even existed, and the north joined Aegon's kingdom because the Stark decided to accept, unlike the Tully, Baratheon and Tyrels their legitimacy isn't coming from the IT).

Finally consider that as soon there was a pretext to do so northern lords suggested to the Stark heir to break with the Iron Throne and crown himself, speaks volume about northern independantism and starkism imo.

[Buried Treasure]

On 7/7/2017 at 3:08 AM, marsyao said:

Rob cannot name a heir without regarding the law of land, so unless Jeyne Westerling gave him a child which we all know would not happens, the order of inheritance of his title and lands would be Bran, Rickon, Sansa, Anya, Jon, if none of above produce their own children when they died

You have the order right, but the problem Robb was facing was:

Bran - to Robb's knowledge, dead

Rickon -  to Robb's knowledge, dead

Sansa

Arya -  to Robb's knowledge, dead

Jon - as a bastard not in the succession by default, and in the the NW anyway

Robb's only remaining heir (to his knowledge!) was unsuitable by dint of her Lannister marriage. I don't think anyone would dispute that a king can strike a particular heir from their line of succession for cause, like treason, and Sansa was almost be described as unwilling traitor by virtue of her forced marriage to Robb's enemies.

If Robb had disowned Sansa and had Arya by his side, or Uncle Benjen (if he had never joined the NW), or Jon (if he was a legitimate cousin and had not joined the NW), then that would have been his next heir by default - Robb would not get free choice of who to name. It is the fact that Robb had reason to disown Sansa and then had no other direct successors that make it such an open question of who he would name to succeed him.

[Julia H.]

On 2017. 06. 09. at 0:56 PM, Free Northman Reborn said:

No need to state that it was Jon, that is a foregone conclusion. More interesting is the whereabouts of the will, and the weight it will carry when it is revealed. For reference, I note Doran's betrothal agreement between Viserys and Arrianne. Clearly there is precedent in the series  for documents to be dredged up from seemingly nowhere for dramatic purposes.

In Robb's case, the will was witnessed and signed by a number of noble lords, so there can be no question about its authenticity. Now, for it to have authority, the Starks would have to have gained back the North - and presumably the Riverlands - so that the authority of a Stark king carries weight. And I foresee that happening fairly soon - probably by the end of Winds. Jon will help Rickon to win back Winterfell, but not as heir. The Will will not be revealed before then. So Jon will act as regent most likely, for Rickon.

And THEN the Will will make its appearance. Now, maybe Rickon dies at that point, leaving Jon no choice but to assume the Throne of the North, or maybe Jon's identity as a Targaryen is revealed. Or maybe Jon just accepts the legimitization offered by Robb, but stands back to Rickon's superior claim. But I am quite certain that Jon will not usurp Rickon's right to rule

I agree that an outcome like this is absolutely possible. There are few things I feel quite sure about regarding the books, but among those are the following: 1. Robb's will is going to turn up and play a role in the plot. 2. Jon will find out that Robb made him a legitimate son of Eddard Stark. It may or may not have political relevance at the moment when Jon finds it out, but Robb's decision will have a huge significance for Jon personally. We know that, as a child, he used to dream about being made legitimate by the king and then felt bad about it because it seemed he was betraying his brothers. He also remembers Robb, as a child, telling him he could never be Lord of Winterfell because he was a Snow, not a Stark. Not letting him find out that he has indeed been made a trueborn son of Eddard Stark by the king - and that the king was Robb Stark - would be a terrible waste. 3. Jon will face another difficult decision when he learns about Robb's will. 4. Whatever is in the will, Jon will never knowingly usurp Rickon's or even Bran's right to rule. 

It is also my favourite theory that Jon will find out about his true parentage in private. He will struggle with the idea and he will keep it secret (because that will be the wise thing to do). Then he will find out about Robb's will and perhaps it will be a moment when he has the chance to fulfill the will - Rickon may be already dead or still missing, along with Bran, I don't know - but Jon would have to accept what is offered to him in the knowledge that he is not really Eddard Stark's son. Can he do it? But then he would also know that the North needs him... This could be another bittersweet moment in the plot. 

 

Regarding the debate about the legitimacy of Robb's will, yes Robb was elected and crowned a king and he had every right to make a will or to make a bastard legitimate and, in general, to rule. His rule was not accepted as legitimate by his enemies, whose interest dictated the opposite. That is not surprising. But then those who supported the independent kingdom of the North and considered it their right to elect and crown their own king regarded King's Landing as the seat of an invading, foreign power. The fact that the Lannisters crushed the Northern war of independence does not make them any less foreign. From the moment the North decided to be independent and chose their own king, the only right the Lannisters had in the North could be the right of conquest. Considering that Cersei had happily torn up the will of her own husband and king - a totally criminal action, which worked perfectly for her - there is not much point in talking about right and legality when it comes to Lannister power. They won the war and forced their own "Lord of Winterfell" on the North. However, the right of conquest lasts only as long as the conquest lasts. A crushed rebellion can be revived. For example, if the North becomes independent or just starts a new war of independence, Robb will be openly honoured again as a former rightful King-in-the-North. Or, if the rule changes in the South, and a non-Lannister South and a pro-Stark North become equal partners and allies, Robb will be acknowledged as a former king even by the southern half of the continent. Of course, as long as the North accepts the situation in which they are the defeated subjects of King's Landing, Robb's will cannot be fulfilled. That has nothing to do with legality though, only with the force of arms. (For comparison, take the situation where someone steals your car and starts using it. You are still the rightful owner of the car even if you are unable to exercise your rights of ownership.) Northerners have to be ready to defend their right to be independent for Robb's will to take effect, but that does not make the will any less legal.  

[ser gerold]

I think a copy of robbs will is with Howland reed, as he arranged someone to carry it to him in the books. So with Howland knowing about jons parentage, it should be interesting how he reacts that if robb named jon his heir.

[kissdbyfire]

4 hours ago, ser gerold said:

I think a copy of robbs will is with Howland reed, as he arranged someone to carry it to him in the books. So with Howland knowing about jons parentage, it should be interesting how he reacts that if robb named jon his heir.

Robb didn't arrange for anyone to carry the will though, that's an assumption many make. He sent Maege and Glover to be found by the crannogmen carrying papers w/ false intel, in case they were captured. It's never mentioned whether the will was with them as well. Maybe it was, maybe not. But if Robb was at least considering the possibility of Maege and Mormont being captured, I think it's unlikely that he would send the will w/ them. 

[The Sleeper]

1 hour ago, kissdbyfire said:

Robb didn't arrange for anyone to carry the will though, that's an assumption many make. He sent Maege and Glover to be found by the crannogmen carrying papers w/ false intel, in case they were captured. It's never mentioned whether the will was with them as well. Maybe it was, maybe not. But if Robb was at least considering the possibility of Maege and Mormont being captured, I think it's unlikely that he would send the will w/ them. 

That is a good question. Where is the will? Presumably more than one copy would have been made and sent to places Robb considered relatively safe. One candidate would be Seagard as it was relatively far from the fighting. Unfortunately the Twins would be a candidate as well. I think he would have sent a copy to Riverrun as the Blackfish was his sort of unofficial right hand.

Robb's problem is that he doesn't really have suitable heirs. Only his siblings stand any real chance of being acceptable to both the North and the Riverlands. But none of them are available. And even if they were none of them are adult, able bodied males. He should also have made provision for the possibility that Jayne was pregant. The same is true for Arya. Whether he considered her dead or not the fact remains that if she turnred up alive she would throw any arrangements he had made of the rails. This is not something that he could afford. For these two contigencies, it seems to me imperative that he would have to make provisions for a regent.

ETA Come to think of it, another reason that Jon's legitimization necessary is for the Stark line to continue in some capacity, whether he ended up as king or not.

[Lord Freypie]

Out of the usual suspects, Jon and Cat, there's a fun crackpot theory where (f)Aegon was accidently named in Robb's will.

Requires Eddard + Ashara = Aegon, with the son of Eddard and the other Aegon/Jon being exchanged at Starfall (Ashara faking death, giving the baby to Varys and becoming septa Lemore), then Robb using "the bastard of Eddard Stark" instead of "Jon" in his Will.

Would make anyone already thinking there are two much hidden heirs in the serie, completely mad (especially if added to A + J = T being true) but who knows. It would create an amusing parallel between Jon and (f)Aegon, and completely unexpected developments with (f)Aegon having a true claim but only on the north.

(no I don't really believe it will happen but would be fun to read the reactions)

[kissdbyfire]

42 minutes ago, The Sleeper said:

That is a good question. Where is the will? Presumably more than one copy would have been made and sent to places Robb considered relatively safe. One candidate would be Seagard as it was relatively far from the fighting. Unfortunately the Twins would be a candidate as well. I think he would have sent a copy to Riverrun as the Blackfish was his sort of unofficial right hand.

I'm not so sure about copies... maybe, but I tend to think not. But we have five people who are alive (as far as we know) who know about the will and its contents: Mallister, Mormont, Glover, the Greatjon, and Edmure. I'm not counting Cat because it's not clear whether she saw the contents of the will. Edmure has probably told the BF, so there's at least 6 people out there who know who is Robb's heir. Jaime told Edwyn Frey to inform Walder Frey that he's to send the RW prisoners to KL, so the Greatjon may be on his way, and who knows what can happen between the Twins and KL... Maege and Glover are either w/ Reed or elsewhere after having met Reed. Maybe they're dead but I don't think so. Jason Mallister is a prisoner at Seagard. Many possibilities there...  not necessarily that one of them has the actual will, but they all know what it says since they all signed it. 

Quote

Robb's problem is that he doesn't really have suitable heirs. Only his siblings stand any real chance of being acceptable to both the North and the Riverlands. But none of them are available. And even if they were none of them are adult, able bodied males. He should also have made provision for the possibility that Jayne was pregant. The same is true for Arya. Whether he considered her dead or not the fact remains that if she turnred up alive she would throw any arrangements he had made of the rails. This is not something that he could afford. For these two contigencies, it seems to me imperative that he would have to make provisions for a regent.

Yes, and that's one of the reasons why Jon is, without a doubt, his best option. That said, I have thought for the longest time that Robb did make some sort of provision regarding Arya...

Before Robb writes the will he has that tense convo w/ Cat He wants to name Jon, and Cat begs him not to. She brings up his sisters, saying Winterfell should not go to Tyrion, and then mentions Arya.

“Jon would never harm a son of mine.”
“No more than Theon Greyjoy would harm Bran or Rickon?”
Grey Wind leapt up atop King Tristifer’s crypt, his teeth bared. Robb’s own face was cold. “That is as cruel as it is unfair. Jon is no Theon.”
“So you pray. Have you considered your sisters? What of their rights? I agree that the north must not be permitted to pass to the Imp, but what of Arya? By law, she comes after Sansa . . . your own sister, trueborn . . . ”
“ . . . and dead. No one has seen or heard of Arya since they cut Father’s head off. Why do you lie to yourself? Arya’s gone, the same as Bran and Rickon, and they’ll kill Sansa too once the dwarf gets a child from her. Jon is the only brother that remains to me. Should I die without issue, I want him to succeed me as King in the North. I had hoped you would support my choice.”
“I cannot,” she said. “In all else, Robb. In everything. But not in this . . . this folly. Do not ask it.”
“I don’t have to. I’m the king.” Robb turned and walked off, Grey Wind bounding down from the tomb and loping after him.”

As far as they know, Bran and Rickon are dead, there's not a shadow of a doubt. The same goes for Sansa and Tyrion, they're married and that's it. But Arya is a different case. Robb clearly thinks she is dead, but there's no proof, no one has seen her die, no one has seen her dead body, there's no talk whatsoever. No one has seen her or heard of her since Ned died, that's all the info they have. 

And Robb's convo w/ Cat ends with him telling her that he doesn't need her support, he is the king. He know Cat has hopes, however faint, that Arya may have escaped somewhow. And I think he may have put some sort of provision in the will to appease Cat, not b/c he actually believed Arya might be alive. Look at what he says when he talks to Mormont, Glover, Mallister, the Greatjon and Edmure  will:

“One more matter. Lord Balon has left chaos in his wake, we hope. I would not do the same. Yet I have no son as yet, my brothers Bran and Rickon are dead, and my sister is wed to a Lannister. I’ve thought long and hard about who might follow me. I command you now as my true and loyal lords to fix your seals to this document as witnesses to my decision.”

I find it very strange that he doesn't mention Arya at all. "My sister is wed to a Lannister", but Robb has two sisters. 

[The Sleeper]

9 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

I'm not so sure about copies... maybe, but I tend to think not. But we have five people who are alive (as far as we know) who know about the will and its contents: Mallister, Mormont, Glover, the Greatjon, and Edmure. I'm not counting Cat because it's not clear whether she saw the contents of the will. Edmure has probably told the BF, so there's at least 6 people out there who know who is Robb's heir. Jaime told Edwyn Frey to inform Walder Frey that he's to send the RW prisoners to KL, so the Greatjon may be on his way, and who knows what can happen between the Twins and KL... Maege and Glover are either w/ Reed or elsewhere after having met Reed. Maybe they're dead but I don't think so. Jason Mallister is a prisoner at Seagard. Many possibilities there...  not necessarily that one of them has the actual will, but they all know what it says since they all signed it. 

Yes, and that's one of the reasons why Jon is, without a doubt, his best option. That said, I have thought for the longest time that Robb did make some sort of provision regarding Arya...

Before Robb writes the will he has that tense convo w/ Cat He wants to name Jon, and Cat begs him not to. She brings up his sisters, saying Winterfell should not go to Tyrion, and then mentions Arya.

“Jon would never harm a son of mine.”
“No more than Theon Greyjoy would harm Bran or Rickon?”
Grey Wind leapt up atop King Tristifer’s crypt, his teeth bared. Robb’s own face was cold. “That is as cruel as it is unfair. Jon is no Theon.”
“So you pray. Have you considered your sisters? What of their rights? I agree that the north must not be permitted to pass to the Imp, but what of Arya? By law, she comes after Sansa . . . your own sister, trueborn . . . ”
“ . . . and dead. No one has seen or heard of Arya since they cut Father’s head off. Why do you lie to yourself? Arya’s gone, the same as Bran and Rickon, and they’ll kill Sansa too once the dwarf gets a child from her. Jon is the only brother that remains to me. Should I die without issue, I want him to succeed me as King in the North. I had hoped you would support my choice.”
“I cannot,” she said. “In all else, Robb. In everything. But not in this . . . this folly. Do not ask it.”
“I don’t have to. I’m the king.” Robb turned and walked off, Grey Wind bounding down from the tomb and loping after him.”

As far as they know, Bran and Rickon are dead, there's not a shadow of a doubt. The same goes for Sansa and Tyrion, they're married and that's it. But Arya is a different case. Robb clearly thinks she is dead, but there's no proof, no one has seen her die, no one has seen her dead body, there's no talk whatsoever. No one has seen her or heard of her since Ned died, that's all the info they have. 

And Robb's convo w/ Cat ends with him telling her that he doesn't need her support, he is the king. He know Cat has hopes, however faint, that Arya may have escaped somewhow. And I think he may have put some sort of provision in the will to appease Cat, not b/c he actually believed Arya might be alive. Look at what he says when he talks to Mormont, Glover, Mallister, the Greatjon and Edmure  will:

“One more matter. Lord Balon has left chaos in his wake, we hope. I would not do the same. Yet I have no son as yet, my brothers Bran and Rickon are dead, and my sister is wed to a Lannister. I’ve thought long and hard about who might follow me. I command you now as my true and loyal lords to fix your seals to this document as witnesses to my decision.”

I find it very strange that he doesn't mention Arya at all. "My sister is wed to a Lannister", but Robb has two sisters. 

I am not thinking it in terms of the text so much as what he would need to address in order to avoid chaos. Jon is undoubtedly the best option for the North, not so much for the Riverlands. He has no ties whatsoever to the Riverlands and he is the bastard brother of their king. The only thing that would make him king of the riverlords is that they sworn to a Stark and after his legitimization he would be one. But that is not good enough.

Robb after all is third in the line of succession for the Riverlands himself at the time, so it is not much of a stretch for the riverlords to see him as their overlord. With Jon they would be ruled by a foreigner.

It is undisputable Robb wants Jon. He is a Stark in his mind in all but name and he trusts him implicitely. Getting the Riverlands to accept him is another matter. This is I think the whole point of his discussion with his mother at Oldstones. He was getting to see if she would back him up. Because she wouldn't, he cut her out of the discussions about the will entirely.

Suppose Jeyne was pregant at the time he left Riverrun. For all he knows she might have gotten pregnant the last time they had sex. Unlikely as it is he can't ignore the possibility. He can't have a named heir while his own legitimate child shows up. It is a recipe for a civil war. The same applies to Arya. Assuming she is dead is one thing. Knowing it is another. Her showing up would allow for the possibility of the riverlands seceding entirely and even undermine Jon's rule. Think fArya. The same would apply with the real article even in case of Jon's ascension.

He also has to make dipensation for his queen and his mother. Catelyn could very well be considered the Lady of the North. After all there is the precedent of Barbrey Dustin. I believe sending her to Seaguard was part of that dispensation and that he was planning to marry her off to Jason Mallister to keep her out of the way. The same applies to Jeyne. I don't think she could have claimed much authority, but without him she would have been essentially homeless. He would need to assign a trustworthy guardian and provider.

The point is that the will would have needed to be about alot more than Jon becoming his heir, nor do I believe he could have made him so unconditionally. I do think it would include his legitimization regardless because of the reason I mentioned in my previous post, but Robb would also need to ensure that the riverlanders would follow Jon. The most obvious way would be a stipulation about Jon marrying someone prominent from the Riverlands. Or possibly Jeyne. And he would have to assign a regent for either a potential child of Jeyne's or in case Arya showed up. And there would need to be subclauses regarding Jeyne's potential baby being male or female and what condition Arya could turn up in.

The point is that the will would have to be about a lot more than just who inherits and yes I am quite sure there would be a physical will in at least two copies, one in a known location and one in a secret one.