Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Agent 326

Who did Robb name as his heir?

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Trigger Warning said:

I doubt that it would be Arya, she's presumed dead by basically everybody. 

Then why didn't Robb name her among his dead siblings?

There is purposeful ambiguity in that whole scene.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Horse of Kent said:

You are missing someone from your list. The second most likely choice as well.

Most likely it is Jon, but the only other probable option is that Arya is heir if she returns and Jon if she does not. It would fit with LS' determination to find her and the recovery of Robb's crown from the Freys.

Precisely. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, zandru said:

Right. We don't need to "speculate"; it's right there in the text. And, as an added note, Sansa Lannister was removed from the line of succession entirely. Robb had multiple copies made of the document, signed and witnessed, and sent one copy to Oldtown on the same ship that carried Theon back "home" to the Iron Isles.

 

I cannot understand why this terrible idea retains any supporters at all. Why do you think sending an important document into the heart of enemy territory is a good idea? Only bad things can come of sending the will there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is zero point in speculating. There is an entire chapter devoted to Robb discussing this issue in Storm. He chooses Jon. He believes Bran, Rickon and Arya to be dead and removes Sansa from line of succesion because of her marriage to Tyrion. Catelyn brings up the cousins in the Vale and is rejected by Robb, who says the King in the North should be someone who knows the North, not some valeman who's never set foot there. In the end, he chooses Jon and has all his remaining Lords sign a document to confirm it. That document went to Greywater Watch with Galbart Glover and Maege Mormont.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also think that on the basis of the text of the book it is pretty clear that Robb decides that Jon Snow (legitimized as Jon Stark) will be his heir if and only if he dies childless.

It is  also clear that Robb believes his other brothers dead. He does not seem to hope that Arya is alive - and anyway, naming a little girl who is either dead or a captive held by the enemy or simply lost as his heir in wartime when the country needs a real leader wouldn't solve the problem of succession. (Just imagine: Arya is somehow accepted as Queen in the North in her absence and then suddenly she emerges from the dungeons of King's Landing and signs a letter dictated by Tywin in which she orders her subjects to surrender and hand over the North and the Riverlands to the Lannisters. No lord in his right mind would willingly take such a risk in Robb's position.) We also know that Robb is determined not to allow Sansa (as Lady Lannister) to inherit anything. Choosing Catelyn would be at best a very temporary solution - no Stark heirs and maybe no heirs at all, as others have mentioned. Besides, choosing a woman as the supreme commander in the middle of a war would be a controversial issue at the very least. 

Jon is a bastard, but Robb as king can legitimize him, and a legitimized bastard is practically not a bastard any longer. It probably wouldn't be the first time in the long history of the Starks that a bastard is legitimized so he could carry on the family name and inherit the lordship. Other noble families have probably had similar situations in their family history, too, and the lords who are present will know that. Jon is of Stark blood with the Stark looks and Eddard Stark's acknowledged son brought up in Winterfell, receiving the same (or almost the same) education as Robb. He has also received military training, and he is alive and can be found.

Regarding the issue of the Night's Watch:

6 hours ago, Maxxine said:

I've always wondered about this. Assuming for a moment that the Grand Northern Conspiracy is true and almost everyone is working to crown Jon, it has always bothered the Northerners were just cool with him betraying his vows even if Robb did release him especially considering how important the NW is supposedly to the North. Seems like there would at least be some muttering about it even if they accepted it.

One of the things we can learn from ASOIAF is that every rule can be bent for practical reasons. The Northern lords are reasonable enough to recognize the hierarchy of interests and to know when to be flexible. What I mean is this: The Night's Watch has been traditionally very important in the North, and no watchmen are allowed to break their oaths for any random reason; however, the question of succession in noble families (and especially so with great lords or kings) is perhaps the single most important issue that the head of the family is duty-bound to solve. We hear it all the time how important heirs are to various lords all over the Seven Kingdoms, even when the heir is not a son but another relative. Therefore every single lord would understand the need to provide a (preferably male) suitable heir for the family.

In the 8000-year-old history of the Night's Watch, there must have been quite a few occasions when a lord suddenly found that his only surviving family member is a man serving in the Night's Watch, and if the family was important enough, it was probably possible for the lord to find a way to honorably have the man released from the NW. Even if some people whispered things behind the new lord's back, others probably accepted that he had simply taken on a duty that no one else in the whole world could have done instead of him (while practically anyone could be a man of the NW). Since any lord can find himself in a situation where he has to find an heir of his own blood and name at any cost, they will probably understand some other lord bending the rules for this particular reason, except perhaps those who would benefit from the extinction of the family in question. 

A war is going on and everyone thinks that the majority of the Starks are dead. It is precisely the kind of situation where smooth succession is of vital importance, and where a local (in this case Northern and one of Winterfell) male heir with military experience would generally be considered preferable to any female ("old", very young, lost or married to the enemy) family members, or to distant relations whose background and allegiance are hardly known. Compared to those drawbacks, being a bastard and a member of the NW are relatively easily solvable problems. 

Of course, Robb wanted most of all his own child to inherit after him, so Jon would only inherit the crown if Robb died childless. But even if Robb had a young child when he died, the child would need a regent or Lord Protector, and I think Robb probably regarded Jon as the most suitable person for this job - he would rule in the child's name as an adult Stark until the child was old enough to rule, and Robb could be sure that Jon would never harm his child. (In this scenario, Jon could even return to the NW eventually.) Being a Northerner would make Jon a more suitable Lord Protector for Robb's child (he could also pass on the traditional Stark values to him) than the Blackfish, who would probably be needed to assist Edmure in the Riverlands (which would also be Robb's child's inheritance). 

It is also possible (though it's only a guess) that in the will Robb ordered his bannermen as well as his Lady Mother to support and assist Jon Stark to the best of their abilities, which might explain why Catelyn felt trapped after hearing the clauses of the will - how could she go against the last will of his son if he was dead and she survived? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Adam Yozza said:

That document went to Greywater Watch with Galbart Glover and Maege Mormont.

I'm skeptical of that because of Robb's order moments before. Maege and/or Galbart can certainly tell Howland of Robb's decision, however.

Quote

Lord Jason hesitated. "A dozen streams drain the wetwood, all shallow, silty, and uncharted. I would not even call them rivers. The channels are ever drifting and changing. There are endless sandbars, deadfalls, and tangles of rotting trees. And Greywater Watch moves. How are my ships to find it?"

"Go upriver flying my banner. The crannogmen will find you. I want two ships to double the chances of my message reaching Howland Reed. Lady Maege shall go on one, Galbart on the second." He turned to the two he'd named. "You'll carry letters for those lords of mine who remain in the north, but all the commands within will be false, in case you have the misfortune to be taken. If that happens, you must tell them that you were sailing for the north. Back to Bear Island, or for the Stony Shore." (ASOS Catelyn V)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, DutchArya said:

Then why didn't Robb name her among his dead siblings?

There is purposeful ambiguity in that whole scene.  


It's one thing to hope she's alive it's another to name someone your heir that no one has seen in over a year. 

Unless someone has informed Robb of Arya's survival unbeknown to us readers it would be absurd for him to name her his heir. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Agent 326 said:

Would it though? Honestly we saw how Cat acted after Robb's death. She started tearing at her face. Also why name Cat and not someone like Wyman Manderly or Edmure Tully or Brynden Tully or what the hell if Steveron Frey didn't die he would've been an option, or Howland Reed or Galbart Glover or so many others who would have the respect that Cat wouldn't have and could agree with Robb. My personal choice would be Brynden Tully because he is a skilled warrior, battle commander and isn't the complete idiot that Cat is.

I'm not saying it was actually the best choice, just that in Robb's mind she was the best choice. Robb wanted WF and the north to be controlled by someone loyal to House Stark. Cat is definitely the most loyal person out of anyone, and she maintains control of the Riverlands if she is regent, AND she is guaranteed to act in the best interest of Robb's child. Additionally, Robb's heir has to be politically practical, and Cat is the only person who would maintain the political status quo in the North. If you name someone like Wyman Manderly you are both handing him huge power while at the same time pissing off all his rivals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Trigger Warning said:


It's one thing to hope she's alive it's another to name someone your heir that no one has seen in over a year. 

Unless someone has informed Robb of Arya's survival unbeknown to us readers it would be absurd for him to name her his heir. 

That's why it is likely that if Arya is named there would be another option if she was not found alive and free. Robb loses nothing by putting Arya first with those stipulations - in his mind it would likely revert to Jon anyway, but he does appease Cat somewhat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Horse of Kent said:

That's why it is likely that if Arya is named there would be another option if she was not found alive and free. Robb loses nothing by putting Arya first with those stipulations - in his mind it would likely revert to Jon anyway, but he does appease Cat somewhat.

I don't know. Alive and free would not exclude the possibility of being the wife of some Lannister cousin. Wives, technically, aren't captives. Regarding in what circumstances Arya might turn up, the possibilities are endless. Why would Robb risk such a scenario? There is also the question how long they would have to be looking for Arya if Robb died childless, before they could crown Jon. And what if Arya turned up afterwards? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Nittanian said:

I'm skeptical of that because of Robb's order moments before. Maege and/or Galbart can certainly tell Howland of Robb's decision, however.

 

My mistake then. In that case I'm not sure where the Will ended up but the fact remains that Robb quite clearly states that Jon is his heir. As such, all the speculation on who he might have named and whether or not he thought Arya was dead is pointless

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Horse of Kent said:

That's why it is likely that if Arya is named there would be another option if she was not found alive and free. Robb loses nothing by putting Arya first with those stipulations - in his mind it would likely revert to Jon anyway, but he does appease Cat somewhat.

I feel Robb would have wanted the North someone to lead and rally behind. He knows from personal experience just how difficult it was to gain the respect of the liege lords. Naming a ten year old girl (roughly at time of the will) who is presumed dead, is just asking for uncertainty and chaos...which was exactly what Robb wanted to avoid.

I mean what happens when Robb dies? How long do they look for Arya before they decide to turn to Jon? When exactly does the royal decree remove the bastard status?

I think it is Jon and I think Robb decreed him to be legitimate then and there with nothing to do with being named as his heir. From a story point of view it explains things about certain actions northern lords have taken. It also gives meaning to Jons need for acceptance and his memories of when he accidentally claimed to be the Lord of Winterfell in their pretend fights. It will mean a massive amount to Jon for Robb to do this. Naming Arya would add more uncertainty to the story, but George really needs to move it forward and start wrapping things up.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, zandru said:

Right. We don't need to "speculate"; it's right there in the text. And, as an added note, Sansa Lannister was removed from the line of succession entirely. Robb had multiple copies made of the document, signed and witnessed, and sent one copy to Oldtown on the same ship that carried Theon back "home" to the Iron Isles.

 

Here's the passage:

 

A Storm of Swords - Catelyn V

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."
 
 
That's all pretty unambiguous. He specifically cut Sansa out because of her marriage, and he thinks that Arya, Rickon and Bran are dead.
 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Makk said:

I feel Robb would have wanted the North someone to lead and rally behind. He knows from personal experience just how difficult it was to gain the respect of the liege lords. Naming a ten year old girl (roughly at time of the will) who is presumed dead, is just asking for uncertainty and chaos...which was exactly what Robb wanted to avoid.

I've been bringing up the possibility of Robb having mentioned Arya somehow in his will for a long time. When Robb is talking to Mormont, Mallister, Glover, the Greatjon, and Edmure (am I forgetting anyone?), the fact that he doesn't mention Arya at all is extremely conspicuous imo. Of course, it could be just a silly mistake, Martin simply forgot to add her name. But I don't think so... this is not the gender of a horse, it's much more important, plot wise. 

But here it is. 

(Sorry, just jumped in and haven't read the whole thread, don't know if it's been posted already)

ASoS, Catelyn

 

“I left my wife at Riverrun. I want my mother elsewhere. If you keep all your treasures in one purse, you only make it easier for those who would rob you. After the wedding, you shall go to Seagard, that is my royal command.” Robb stood, and as quick as that, her fate was settled. He picked up a sheet of parchment. “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.”

And I think it's possible he added Arya's name in some way exactly because he thinks she's probably dead. So, it wouldn't change anything, Jon would still be his heir, but this way he appeases Cat a little. 

 

1 hour ago, Makk said:

I mean what happens when Robb dies? How long do they look for Arya before they decide to turn to Jon? When exactly does the royal decree remove the bastard status?

I think it is Jon and I think Robb decreed him to be legitimate then and there with nothing to do with being named as his heir. From a story point of view it explains things about certain actions northern lords have taken. It also gives meaning to Jons need for acceptance and his memories of when he accidentally claimed to be the Lord of Winterfell in their pretend fights. It will mean a massive amount to Jon for Robb to do this. Naming Arya would add more uncertainty to the story, but George really needs to move it forward and start wrapping things up.

I don't think they'd look for Arya at all. She's either there or nor, and I don't really expect conflict between Jon and Arya over this. It may even be that he mentions Arya in the will without making her his heiress. And I agree, I think Robb did legitimise Jon before anything else. He had to, right? First make Jon legitimate, and then name him heir. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

I've been bringing up the possibility of Robb having mentioned Arya somehow in his will for a long time. When Robb is talking to Mormont, Mallister, Glover, the Greatjon, and Edmure (am I forgetting anyone?), the fact that he doesn't mention Arya at all is extremely conspicuous imo. Of course, it could be just a silly mistake, Martin simply forgot to add her name. But I don't think so... this is not the gender of a horse, it's much more important, plot wise. 

But here it is. 

(Sorry, just jumped in and haven't read the whole thread, don't know if it's been posted already)

ASoS, Catelyn

 

“I left my wife at Riverrun. I want my mother elsewhere. If you keep all your treasures in one purse, you only make it easier for those who would rob you. After the wedding, you shall go to Seagard, that is my royal command.” Robb stood, and as quick as that, her fate was settled. He picked up a sheet of parchment. “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.”

And I think it's possible he added Arya's name in some way exactly because he thinks she's probably dead. So, it wouldn't change anything, Jon would still be his heir, but this way he appeases Cat a little. 

 

I completely agree! Not only appeasing Cat but it could also explain why LSH is so actively looking for Arya in later books. I don't think it will interfere with Jon's being named the heir either. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/5/2017 at 6:13 AM, Julia H. said:

Jon is a bastard, but Robb as king can legitimize him, and a legitimized bastard is practically not a bastard any longer.

Sorry Julia, but Robb does not have the right authority to make a bastard legit.  Robb was a rebel hoping to make the north independent from the rest of the kingdom.  He failed.  Thus, he never had the right to make such a change.  Would he try?  Did he try?  Perhaps, but his decree is worth no more than the booger Arya picked from her nose and snacked on.  And likely didn't last even as long. 

[   This is Arya after that snack -> :P     ]

Let us say the people supporting Robb and liked him believed he had that right because they believed they had the right to take lands away from the kingdom.  It doesn't mean it's legal.  The fact that king appointed Roose as the new Warden of the North tells you that they consider the north part of the kingdom.  Robb's decree holds no value.  Robb even lost the north!!!!! To the Ironborn.  So he was trying to make independent a land that he had no control over.  Add to this, Jon was already a sworn brother of the Night's Watch.  Very well, to oathbreakers like Robb and Jon those oaths mean nothing.  However, there are better people out there who believe oaths should be honored and they will not let Jon off so easily. 

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

Sorry Julia, but Robb does not have the right authority to make a bastard legit.  Robb was a rebel hoping to make the north independent from the rest of the kingdom.  He failed.  Thus, he never had the right to make such a change.  Would he try?  Did he try?  Perhaps, but his decree is worth no more than the booger Arya picked from her nose and snacked on.  And likely didn't last even as long. 

[   This is Arya after that snack -> :P     ]

Let us say the people supporting Robb and liked him believed he had that right because they believed they had the right to take lands away from the kingdom.  It doesn't mean it's legal.  The fact that king appointed Roose as the new Warden of the North tells you that they consider the north part of the kingdom.  Robb's decree holds no value.  Robb even lost the north!!!!! To the Ironborn.  So he was trying to make independent a land that he had no control over.  Add to this, Jon was already a sworn brother of the Night's Watch.  Very well, to oathbreakers like Robb and Jon those oaths mean nothing.  However, there are better people out there who believe oaths should be honored and they will not let Jon off so easily. 

:D

I know what the Lannisters would think of Robb's decree about legitimizing Jon. However, the topic of this thread is what Robb's plan may have been, what he may have wanted to do, and not how his plans and actions were viewed by the enemy or what became of them later. I think we have sufficient evidence that he considered himself a legal, rightful king, chosen by his people, and he did have plans to legitimize Jon. Obviously, the North had to win the war and to successfully establish an independent country in order for anyone to remain the rightful King-in-the-North and to be able to keep up their own laws, and - surprise, surprise - that is exactly what Robb was planning to do. 

This may be new information to you, but successful wars of independence in real history created perfectly legal states and heads of states out of people who would be called rebels by their enemies. This is the reason why the US is not a colony of Britain today - some rebels decided to put an end to the law that made them a property of the mother country. Several present-day countries in Europe used to be parts of a large empire at an earlier period in their history and became independent because they fought for their independence, which always included rebelling against their rulers and making decisions on their own. When the fight for independence failed, the fighters were considered rebels and outlaws by the conquerors. That was always part of the risk. When the rebels won, their new state and its laws were just as legal as any other independent country and its laws.  

Robb is a king chosen and crowned by his own people, and the North is like many countries in real history that decided to get rid of an essentially foreign power ruling them and to win their independence. Sure, those in King's Landing think otherwise. (You know, "it's all in where you're standing".) This thread happens to focus on Robb and his point of view.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Julia H. said:

However, the topic of this thread is what Robb's plan may have been, what he may have wanted to do, and not how his plans and actions were viewed by the enemy or what became of them later.

Under this limitation the answer is yes, he could have named Jon his heir.  No regards for the consequences.  He just made the choice.  You are correct in that Robb could have chosen Jon.  He could have done better and named Hodor who was slightly more capable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

Sorry Julia, but Robb does not have the right authority to make a bastard legit.  Robb was a rebel hoping to make the north independent from the rest of the kingdom.  He failed.  Thus, he never had the right to make such a change.  Would he try?  Did he try?  Perhaps, but his decree is worth no more than the booger Arya picked from her nose and snacked on.  And likely didn't last even as long. 

[   This is Arya after that snack -> :P     ]

Let us say the people supporting Robb and liked him believed he had that right because they believed they had the right to take lands away from the kingdom.  It doesn't mean it's legal.  The fact that king appointed Roose as the new Warden of the North tells you that they consider the north part of the kingdom.  Robb's decree holds no value.  Robb even lost the north!!!!! To the Ironborn.  So he was trying to make independent a land that he had no control over.  Add to this, Jon was already a sworn brother of the Night's Watch.  Very well, to oathbreakers like Robb and Jon those oaths mean nothing.  However, there are better people out there who believe oaths should be honored and they will not let Jon off so easily. 

:D

 

LMAO

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Julia H. said:

I know what the Lannisters would think of Robb's decree about legitimizing Jon. However, the topic of this thread is what Robb's plan may have been, what he may have wanted to do, and not how his plans and actions were viewed by the enemy or what became of them later. I think we have sufficient evidence that he considered himself a legal, rightful king, chosen by his people, and he did have plans to legitimize Jon. Obviously, the North had to win the war and to successfully establish an independent country in order for anyone to remain the rightful King-in-the-North and to be able to keep up their own laws, and - surprise, surprise - that is exactly what Robb was planning to do. 

This may be new information to you, but successful wars of independence in real history created perfectly legal states and heads of states out of people who would be called rebels by their enemies. This is the reason why the US is not a colony of Britain today - some rebels decided to put an end to the law that made them a property of the mother country. Several present-day countries in Europe used to be parts of a large empire at an earlier period in their history and became independent because they fought for their independence, which always included rebelling against their rulers and making decisions on their own. When the fight for independence failed, the fighters were considered rebels and outlaws by the conquerors. That was always part of the risk. When the rebels won, their new state and its laws were just as legal as any other independent country and its laws.  

Robb is a king chosen and crowned by his own people, and the North is like many countries in real history that decided to get rid of an essentially foreign power ruling them and to win their independence. Sure, those in King's Landing think otherwise. (You know, "it's all in where you're standing".) This thread happens to focus on Robb and his point of view.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       

 

Robb would choose Jon.  He had no other choice. 

4 hours ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

Under this limitation the answer is yes, he could have named Jon his heir.  No regards for the consequences.  He just made the choice.  You are correct in that Robb could have chosen Jon.  He could have done better and named Hodor who was slightly more capable.

But I agree that Hodor would make a better lord than Jon. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×