Cat is definitely the heir named in Robb's will

[sweetsunray]

10 minutes ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

go ahead and quote that part of the text for me that said Robb wanted a male heir

I'm sorry you only think women capable of inheriting boxes of jewelry...

Robb makes it clear by his words about Sansa. Women get married off in his society and the bloodline and castle and lands usurped by the husband, and by talking of Ned having had four "sons".

Straw man. That's not what I personally think. What I personally think of the abilities and capabilities of a woman is irrelevant. It's the reality for Robb, who wants to preserve his kingdom and Stark lineage. Other houses try to acquire castles, lands and realms by marrying the woman of a bloodline. It happens over and over and over, and not just the Starks. What happens to Sansa, what later happens to fArya is something he knows would happen to his mother too. Making her heir and marrying her to Jason Mallister, basically means he's giving Winterfell to House Mallister and making Mallisters the Kings in the North. Robb's not going to do that, because it explicitly goes against his feudal goals for his House.

BTW as for the non-aSoIaF series..he doesn't pull a white rabbit out of his hat just to dazzle the reader with "gotcha!" thre either. He writes from character-logic within the logic of that world, not plotzee, even when there is a surprise for the careless reader.

Anyway, I'm done. It's clear that you do not wish to consider actual feudal context, ignore all of Robb's own arguments, ignore the direwolf, and think Cat is a cool choice, because none of us other readers would ever consider her... "Surprise!" There's no reasoning with you over this.

Only shows that my original short response of "Just, no!" is the most sensible reply in terms of energy conservation.

[teej6]

9 hours ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

I did not "go to lengths to find a hidden meaning" in anything here. The situation is very straightforward. Cat declares that she has been successfully trapped by Robb, and we clearly see the trap unfold over the course of that chapter. Your explanation, that Robb "trapped" Cat by commanding her to obey him, is ridiculous. That isn't a trap at all, because she has to obey him. He is the king, as he said.

The only situation that "clearly unfolds" is that Robb asked his couselors to attest to his will, which we are told earlier in the very same chapter entails Robb naming Jon his heir, which Cat opposes. And in doing this Cat feels Robb has trapped her because she cannot raise any opposition in that setting. No need to twist into a pretzel or imagine things from thin air that have no textual basis to explain trapped in this situation. 

On the matter of naming Jon Robb's heir, Cat refuses to obey Robb and clearly states that to Robb. Well this is the exchange between Robb and Cat: 

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.

So Cat is refusing to support Robb to which Robb responds that he doesn't need her support in the matter. But Robb is still her son and inspite of releasing Jamie behind his back, Robb relies on his mother's counsel. Even in this case we see him asking her for advice. There's no other trap here plain and simple. Cat is against his decision to name Jon heir and Robb traps her by doing just that surrounded by his men so she is unable to raise any opposition. 

As to your theory that Robb named Cat his heir, there's no textual hints to back that, and as a poster above said it makes no narrative sense.

[Ygrain]

30 minutes ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

But there was no need to get her to agree that the sky was blue beforehand. She has to be duty first and obey Robb's commands. She has no power to undermine Robb's decision. That's not much of a trap in any case, certainly one I wouldn't think comparable to Robb's future tactics at Moat Cailin.

Duty or not, she was going to totally hate the decision that Robb had made, and she was bound to be very bitter about it. He talked to her about it in privacy so that she voiced her objections solely to him, and not before the Lords, in case she was unable to control her emotions at the shock, and then she appeared as supporting Robb's decision, without showing any resentment. It's a pretty clever psychological maneuver on Robb's part - he gets her to voice an agreement, and only then he reveals what her agreement actually entails. That's your trap - being tricked into giving an agreement without realizing what you are agreeing to. It's a pretty common motive, for example in fairy tales ("you will give me that which you don't expect at home"); don't you think that the persons were here tricked into agreeing to something else than they had expected?

[St Daga]

2 hours ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

And yeah, you could argue that the Stark heir should be a Stark. But there are no Starks left. If you don't name Jon because he is a bastard in the NW, ultimately it is impossible for Winterfell to go to a Stark,

Jon has Stark blood if not the name. Whether Robb knew or suspected Bran, Rickon or Arya were alive or not, the fact is, they are alive, and they all have Stark blood, Catelyn does not! The Bael the Bard tale tells us that a Stark bastard descended from the female line can inherit and become Lord of Winterfell.

2 hours ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

Was Robb really supposed to force Jon on people? And then NO ONE EVER TOLD JON??!!!

I don't even know if I think Robb named Jon his heir but for the sake of the argument, if Robb did name Jon, and the lords in the room agreed to Jon as Robb's heir, then it's not force. Or the argument is no different than if those same lords in that same room accepted Catelyn as a non-Stark Stark heir! And it's more plausible to me than Cat! If this turns out to be the case, I will admit that I would be pretty confused as to GRRM's methods. I see no logic in it, and I actually see logic in things in the story that I hate, like Tywin orchestrating the Red Wedding or Littlefinger's betrayal of Ned.

As to your idea that Jon must be notified about this before Robb could name him heir, who says he needs to be notified? If Jon hates the idea, then he can refuse. At least he was given the option! And he would know that Robb did think Jon could be Lord of Winterfell, after Robb had told him when he was a boy that Jon could NEVER be lord. That is some important closure for Jonno and Robb's story!

2 hours ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

As for your horses, you are correct that there was no trickery involved yet you still trapped them, and that's because it was a purely physical trap.

As for my horses, if you have ever had horses follow you, with no halter. no lead or no rope, and go where you want them to be and not where they want to be, you would appreciate that is very mental and not very physical. The corral is physical, not the getting them to the corral!

Nice debate! Cheers!

[sweetsunray]

On 8/6/2017 at 10:50 PM, HoboJed said:

I suspect her current goal (other than killing Freys) is to get a hold of Jeyne Westerling in the hope she will have a male child and then crown him before someone tries to crown Jon).

I do like this speculation on LSH in relation to Jon having been named heir. Not only Jeyne Westerling, but she has also learned that Arya was actually alive and in the Riverlands, seeking to rejoin them at the Twins or earlier in Riverrun. Months have passed by the end of aFfC to have LS suspect that Jeyne isn't pregnant. But she may very well regard Arya as her sole possibility to prevent the Northern Lords to declare for Jon. Is that why she sent some of the BwB into the neck after the hanging of Merrett? To instruct the lords and Greycastle there to hold back on revealing the will? To give her time to find the real Arya and make her Robb's heir and thus prevent Jon from being declared heir? 

While I think it's a surety that Robb barred Sansa from inheriting anything, I'm not sure that Robb would have done so for Arya, exactly because he believed her dead already. That makes her interest in finding Arya, but not Sansa at present quite mercenary, no?  

[James West]

The will would fall apart because Bran, Rickon, Sansa, and Arya are alive.  The conditions under which the will was crafted no longer apply.  Bran, Arya, and Rickon will get Winterfell before Jon. 

[kissdbyfire]

7 hours ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

But there was no need to get her to agree that the sky was blue beforehand. She has to be duty first and obey Robb's commands. She has no power to undermine Robb's decision. That's not much of a trap in any case, certainly one I wouldn't think comparable to Robb's future tactics at Moat Cailin.

She could undermine Robb by speaking vehemently against his choice of heir in front of everyone. She doesn't have the power to overturn any of his decisions, but that's a different thing.

[40 Thousand Skeletons]

5 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

She could undermine Robb by speaking vehemently against his choice of heir in front of everyone. She doesn't have the power to overturn any of his decisions, but that's a different thing.

OK, I'll grant you that. But really why should anyone including Robb care if Cat speaks out against it? She spoke against being sent to Seagard and Robb dealt with her complaints swiftly and easily, with no political consequences due to her "undermining". What would have happened politically if Robb named Jon heir and Cat spoke against it in the meeting? Everyone should already assume that Cat would be angered by the choice of Jon. I just don't see the logic in going to so much effort (and GRRM spending so much of that chapter) to "trap" Cat into being quiet during the meeting. I will be severely disappointed if this turns out to be the case.

[40 Thousand Skeletons]

13 hours ago, Ygrain said:

Duty or not, she was going to totally hate the decision that Robb had made, and she was bound to be very bitter about it. He talked to her about it in privacy so that she voiced her objections solely to him, and not before the Lords, in case she was unable to control her emotions at the shock, and then she appeared as supporting Robb's decision, without showing any resentment. It's a pretty clever psychological maneuver on Robb's part - he gets her to voice an agreement, and only then he reveals what her agreement actually entails. That's your trap - being tricked into giving an agreement without realizing what you are agreeing to. It's a pretty common motive, for example in fairy tales ("you will give me that which you don't expect at home"); don't you think that the persons were here tricked into agreeing to something else than they had expected?

I see what you are saying now. I guess my main issue with this explanation is that I don't see how Cat speaking out during the meeting would cause a problem. It would reveal to the other lords that Cat does not support naming Jon heir, something they should have assumed already. Who cares if she complains about it in front of them? She complained about being sent to Seagard and it was inconsequential.

[40 Thousand Skeletons]

13 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

Robb makes it clear by his words about Sansa. Women get married off in his society and the bloodline and castle and lands usurped by the husband, and by talking of Ned having had four "sons".

Straw man. That's not what I personally think. What I personally think of the abilities and capabilities of a woman is irrelevant. It's the reality for Robb, who wants to preserve his kingdom and Stark lineage. Other houses try to acquire castles, lands and realms by marrying the woman of a bloodline. It happens over and over and over, and not just the Starks. What happens to Sansa, what later happens to fArya is something he knows would happen to his mother too. Making her heir and marrying her to Jason Mallister, basically means he's giving Winterfell to House Mallister and making Mallisters the Kings in the North. Robb's not going to do that, because it explicitly goes against his feudal goals for his House.

BTW as for the non-aSoIaF series..he doesn't pull a white rabbit out of his hat just to dazzle the reader with "gotcha!" thre either. He writes from character-logic within the logic of that world, not plotzee, even when there is a surprise for the careless reader.

Anyway, I'm done. It's clear that you do not wish to consider actual feudal context, ignore all of Robb's own arguments, ignore the direwolf, and think Cat is a cool choice, because none of us other readers would ever consider her... "Surprise!" There's no reasoning with you over this.

Only shows that my original short response of "Just, no!" is the most sensible reply in terms of energy conservation.

No, Robb never said he wanted a male heir, just that he specifically didn't want Tyrion claiming WF through Sansa. That is a huge leap in logic you are making to say Robb wanted a male heir.

And yes, Robb would basically be giving Winterfell up to another house in the north, but that is basically guaranteed to happen if you choose anyone other than Jon, and Jon is a bastard in the NW and therefore not a fantastic choice. I don't think Robb cares that much about "preserving his lineage". Why should he really? He cares about who is the best choice to take over his kingdom and Winterfell. I don't see any evidence that he cares as much about Stark blood as most readers care about it.

I agree, GRRM doesn't pull rabbits out of hats, and I don't think this is an example of that.

I'm done too. It's clear you do not wish to consider viewpoints that you have previously and perhaps erroneously dismissed as tinfoil. There's no reasoning with you over this.

Actually, not responding to my OP at all would have been your most sensible reply in terms of energy conservation.  

[40 Thousand Skeletons]

7 hours ago, Peter Peckerton said:

The will would fall apart because Bran, Rickon, Sansa, and Arya are alive.  The conditions under which the will was crafted no longer apply.  Bran, Arya, and Rickon will get Winterfell before Jon. 

LOL very likely, but this is not the discussion at hand  

[40 Thousand Skeletons]

11 hours ago, St Daga said:

Jon has Stark blood if not the name. Whether Robb knew or suspected Bran, Rickon or Arya were alive or not, the fact is, they are alive, and they all have Stark blood, Catelyn does not! The Bael the Bard tale tells us that a Stark bastard descended from the female line can inherit and become Lord of Winterfell.

I don't even know if I think Robb named Jon his heir but for the sake of the argument, if Robb did name Jon, and the lords in the room agreed to Jon as Robb's heir, then it's not force. Or the argument is no different than if those same lords in that same room accepted Catelyn as a non-Stark Stark heir! And it's more plausible to me than Cat! If this turns out to be the case, I will admit that I would be pretty confused as to GRRM's methods. I see no logic in it, and I actually see logic in things in the story that I hate, like Tywin orchestrating the Red Wedding or Littlefinger's betrayal of Ned.

As to your idea that Jon must be notified about this before Robb could name him heir, who says he needs to be notified? If Jon hates the idea, then he can refuse. At least he was given the option! And he would know that Robb did think Jon could be Lord of Winterfell, after Robb had told him when he was a boy that Jon could NEVER be lord. That is some important closure for Jonno and Robb's story!

As for my horses, if you have ever had horses follow you, with no halter. no lead or no rope, and go where you want them to be and not where they want to be, you would appreciate that is very mental and not very physical. The corral is physical, not the getting them to the corral!

Nice debate! Cheers!

 

Yes, Jon has Stark blood. And obviously Bran, Rickon, and Arya are alive, but Robb doesn't know that so it's irrelevant to his will. And Robb would definitely be "forcing" Jon on some large portion of northerners, even if the lords in that meeting agreed to it. Jon would forever be considered a bastard and a NW deserter by many people, and they would never view him or his descendants as legitimate kings. My point was that many people assume Robb couldn't pick Cat because she lacked Stark blood, but by that logic Jon is the only viable choice, and Jon is a horrible choice. I think it is much more likely that Robb was simply willing to let the Stark bloodline die out in the event he died childless and allow Winterfell to be inherited by Cat's children by a new (northern) husband.

I just don't think you can make great argument that Jon is a better choice than Cat, though most people will disagree with me. Cat has previously been left in charge of governing the north by Ned. She had 5 Stark children. She comes across generally as a strong and intelligent person and has known most of the northern lords for many years now. And perhaps most importantly, Cat is the only choice that would preserve the newly created and fragile political status quo in the north and riverlands. Any other choice for an heir or a regent would be pissing someone off, no matter who you choose. The only person who would be super mad about Cat being chosen is Rickard Karstark, and he was decapitated. Jon, on the other hand, is a bastard in the NW and a horrible choice just based on those facts alone. In order to feasibly rule the north and command the loyalty of his northern subjects, Jon would have to do something insane, like rise up from the dead Jesus-style and be worshiped as a demi-god or something...

As for notifying Jon, most people who assume Jon was named heir also assume that there is some sort of conspiracy going on in the north to crown Jon King in the North, possibly involving the Pink Letter. But if there is a conspiracy to make Jon king, it would be weird and fucking idiotic to not tell Jon about it, or get his opinion on the prospect of being king. What if they successfully executed a crazy complicated and impressive conspiracy to crown Jon only for him to say, "Sorry I'm staying Lord Commander." In fact, Stannis already offered Jon release from his vows, a hot wildling wife, and the Lordship of Winterfell, and Jon refused. So if there is a conspiracy to crown Jon, it is a pretty stupid one in my opinion.

LOL when you "trapped" your horses, it was in a physical trap, i.e. a physical contraption that cannot be escaped from. You may have needed to mentally convince your horses to follow you, but I doubt you actively deceived them in any way. Cat, on the other hand, was not physically trapped. She was standing in a tent, unrestrained, moving about freely. You could say that later she will be physically trapped at Seagard, but Cat was not referring to being trapped at Seagard later. She was referring to the figurative trap in which Robb had "just caught her". So there must have been some sort of deception on Robb's part based on Cat's figurative use of the word "trap". Just like Robb is planning on deceiving the defenders at Moat Cailin by pretending to launch a full-on assault from the south by having the Greatjon attack ferociously up the causeway while his other forces ambush the ironmen from the rear.  LOL asoiaf english discussions

[40 Thousand Skeletons]

14 hours ago, teej6 said:

The only situation that "clearly unfolds" is that Robb asked his couselors to attest to his will, which we are told earlier in the very same chapter entails Robb naming Jon his heir, which Cat opposes. And in doing this Cat feels Robb has trapped her because she cannot raise any opposition in that setting. No need to twist into a pretzel or imagine things from thin air that have no textual basis to explain trapped in this situation. 

On the matter of naming Jon Robb's heir, Cat refuses to obey Robb and clearly states that to Robb. Well this is the exchange between Robb and Cat: 

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.

So Cat is refusing to support Robb to which Robb responds that he doesn't need her support in the matter. But Robb is still her son and inspite of releasing Jamie behind his back, Robb relies on his mother's counsel. Even in this case we see him asking her for advice. There's no other trap here plain and simple. Cat is against his decision to name Jon heir and Robb traps her by doing just that surrounded by his men so she is unable to raise any opposition. 

As to your theory that Robb named Cat his heir, there's no textual hints to back that, and as a poster above said it makes no narrative sense.

Robb did not ask her for advice here. He was just manipulating her for a whole conversation. He correctly anticipated everything she would say.

Like I said to other people making this argument, that just isn't much of a trap. Robb "trapped" Cat into not objecting out loud in the meeting? That seems quite unnecessary. Everyone should already assume Cat would never support the choice of Jon as heir. Why should Robb care if she objects in the meeting? She objected about being sent to Seagard, and it wasn't a problem. And again, if preventing vocal objections was Robb's goal here, why wouldn't he also talk to her about being sent to Seagard beforehand? The logic there is inconsistent.

[Ygrain]

3 hours ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

I see what you are saying now. I guess my main issue with this explanation is that I don't see how Cat speaking out during the meeting would cause a problem. It would reveal to the other lords that Cat does not support naming Jon heir, something they should have assumed already. Who cares if she complains about it in front of them?

Now, I cannot claim this was definitely the reason because it's never stated on page, but if the lords see that Robb's own mother, who would have the biggest reason to oppose, supports the decision for the good of the realm, they would be less likely themselves to grumble about a bastard becoming an heir, no? Note how Robb also plays on duty and loyalty with them to coax them into putting their seals on the will. If Cat started sowing dissent, it might have caused opposition to form. Robb is still very young, after all, he has lost the North - his position and his authority are weakened

3 hours ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

She complained about being sent to Seagard and it was inconsequential.

See how clever Robb was to have discussed the matter of succession with her in private beforehands?

Besides, Cat being sent to Seagard is rather inconsequential in the matters of the realm and has no potential to cause contention, unlike the above

[Lord Corlys Velaryon]

Quote

Along the way, he concludes that he must make sure Winterfell has an heir should anything happen to him, and over Catelyn's objections legitimizes Jon Snow and names him his heir ... He signs the decree naming Jon his heir, then sends Galbart Glover and Maege Mormont on longships to seek out the crannogmen and prepare them for the coming battle.

(A World of Ice and Fire app, Robb Stark)

 

[kissdbyfire]

6 hours ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

OK, I'll grant you that. But really why should anyone including Robb care if Cat speaks out against it? She spoke against being sent to Seagard and Robb dealt with her complaints swiftly and easily, with no political consequences due to her "undermining". What would have happened politically if Robb named Jon heir and Cat spoke against it in the meeting? Everyone should already assume that Cat would be angered by the choice of Jon. I just don't see the logic in going to so much effort (and GRRM spending so much of that chapter) to "trap" Cat into being quiet during the meeting. I will be severely disappointed if this turns out to be the case.

Well, she didn't raise hell about being sent to Seagard, and to be honest she didn't really complain. Upon hearing the news, she asks to be sent to Riverrun instead. And when Robb explains why he doesn't want her there, she remains quiet and accepts his decision. That's very different from voicing misgivings about something as crucial as the line of succession and therefore questioning Robb's ability to lead and make decisions on his own. 

[Bernie Mac]

Cat was not named Robb's heir. Robb and Cat fell out precisely because Robb wanted Sansa replaced as his heir, Cat was aghast at this. Cat as ruler as of the North (and with all her other children dead like Robb thought) this would once again make Sansa the heir of the North. 

 

 

[St Daga]

8 hours ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

And Robb would definitely be "forcing" Jon on some large portion of northerners, even if the lords in that meeting agreed to it.

This statement applies just as much to Catelyn as it does with Jon.

8 hours ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

Cat has previously been left in charge of governing the north by Ned.

Just because Ned left her in charge of guiding Robb, does not mean she actually did a good job of it. As a matter of fact, when Ned left Winterfell and Catelyn was placed in the position of regency, the North effectively fell apart. It was a lot of instances combined that caused the collapse, but Catelyn played a large part in that. I just don't think Robb is blind to that. Catelyn's judgement is questionable and her actions have caused more turmoil than not, up to this point. Maybe Robb did name Catelyn his heir, but as I stated before, it don't see that it makes much sense to the story.

And Cateyn Tully Stark is dead, and whatever has risen in her place will not rule the north or the riverlands, although she is doing a good job of terrorizing the countryside.

Let us agree to disagree, and see where the story actually takes us, if we ever get anymore of the story. Here's to hoping!

[a black swan]

1 hour ago, Bernie Mac said:

Cat was not named Robb's heir. Robb and Cat fell out precisely because Robb wanted Sansa replaced as his heir, Cat was aghast at this. Cat as ruler as of the North (and with all her other children dead like Robb thought) this would once again make Sansa the heir of the North. 

That's not what happened.  

Cat agreed with Robb and that the North should never pass to Sansa.

Quote

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? - Catalyn 

Catelyn was against Jon being named heir Bd legitimised.

Robb also said Arya was as dead as Rickon and Bran... yet he never included her among his dead siblings at the Sealing. George never mentions Jon or Arya in that scene in front of his witnesses.

[Trigger Warning]

Hold my beer whilst I end my 8,000 year old dynasty.