Quick question about Robbs will

[Wolf's Bane]

On 12/27/2017 at 6:06 AM, Orphalesion said:

The "king" also never was a king. He was a rebel who unlawfully rose up against his rightful liege. and since said rebellion failed and he never got to consolidate his claimed title, he was never king.

So really,if the will is found all we'd have would be the will of a man who was declared traitor and who's house was stripped of power.

This is true.  Robb can't go from being lord to king without first winning the rebellion.  He can't claim the title of king until he has won independence for the north.  He failed; therefore, he was not a king.  He and the men who wanted to make him king were in the middle of rebellion.  Any decree by Robb has no ground to stand on.  The north lost and they have now made peace with the government in King's Landing so that puts an end to whatever decree that Robb Stark may have written.  Robb Stark's will was written during a time when he had no authority to make those changes.  He was hoping to win the rebellion so his will can have legitimacy and the power to back it up.  None of which he got. 

In my opinion Bran is the heir to Winterfell but he's not Warden of the North unless the king in King's Landing says he is.  The position of King in the North and the right of the Starks to rule the north as kings ended when Torrhen Stark bowed to Aegon.  There is no such thing as King in the north. 

[Wolf's Bane]

11 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

Tell that to all the northerners who fought and died at Robb's side, and who made him their king in the first place.

The argument is utterly preposterous, but will be parroted ad nauseam by rabid Jon/Stark haters.

 

They had no right to choose a king.  There hasn't been a king in the north since Torrhen Stark bowed to Aegon Targaryen. 

[Bernie Mac]

1 minute ago, Wolf's Bane said:

They had no right to choose a king.  There hasn't been a king in the north since Torrhen Stark bowed to Aegon Targaryen. 

In actual fact the North did not choose a King, the 5-6,000 Northern soldiers with Robb did. The majority of the Northern Lords were not even consulted on it.

[Varysblackfyre321]

5 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

In actual fact the North did not choose a King, the 5-6,000 Northern soldiers with Robb did. The majority of the Northern Lords were not even consulted on it.

But the right ones did and that's good enough!  I have to say given Jon was never released from his vows by NW up to his death he legally couldn't be considered Robb's heir whether you'd even give Rob the authority.

[Foot_Of_The_King]

8 hours ago, Nevets said:

Much to my surprise, that has not yet happened.  It is almost as if readers have forgotten George's commentary Varys's soliloquy on the nature of power.  "Power resides where men believe it resides."

It feels as though everyone on this thread is expecting a panel of men in black robes to hear both sides, consult their law books, and issue a ruling from on high which will be uniformly accepted. That's not gonna happen.

The effect of the various parts of Rob's will will be whatever the powers in charge (most likely the Northern lords) want to give them. There is enough ambiguity in the laws and enough problems with the will itself that whatever gets decided will probably be permitted under the laws and/or the will's provisions (whatever they are).

Sansa, for example, has almost certainly been disinherited.  This will provide a convenient excuse to keep her from power, especially if she is perceived as being under the control of another e.g., Baelish, Aegon, Tyrion, etc. However, if they want her, they will find a way to disregard the will.  The same thing essentially applies to Jon.  

.The only fortunate thing is that it is unlikely that the Starks will fight among themselves over who rules the North.  Although proxies could and very well might (especially for or against Starks perceived under control, like Sansa or Rickon might be).

Robb's will may well have an impact, just not as much of one as Robb or many readers expect

My guess is that if Rickon came back into the picture he would be made KITN or Lord of Winterfell. Probably because he is young so the great lords could rule through him. It would be easy for them to rationalize since when Rob wrote his will, he did so under the assumption that his true born brothers were dead. On the other hand, if the lords think they need a Stark in charge right now, they would opt to honor the literal words of the will and name Jon their leader.   

But like I said, whoever holds the power (Manderly and co. is who it's looking like) will ultimately make the decision themselves. 

[Tai Pan]

Robb Stark's Will

This document was drafted under many false assumptions.  Like somebody already pointed out, Rickon and Bran are still living.  Can a document that is factually wrong withstand legal scrutiny. 

Releasing Jon from his vows to the Nightwatch is difficult (the reason why Aemon Targaryen used his vows to seek refuge from those who would use him in politics). 

You all know this is a discussion on legality like so many of the topics we talk about here.  Whether Robb acted lawfully or not will not matterl unless the north has independence.  If the Stark supporters fail to oust the Boltons and defeat the person on the Iron Throne that will will have no effect.  There is also the matter of Jon's vows to the watch.  Jon may not respect his vows but I cannot imagine the lords in the north will accept a legitimized bastard lawyering his way out of those oaths.  Yeah, the ones who witnessed Robb's document may be on board with this but they don't represent the majority in the north. 

I'm not saying it can't happen.  This is fiction after all and none of us really know the outcome.  It's an interesting discussion for the sake of discussion but what we think will happen is not going to have any effect on where GM takes this plot line. 

[Varysblackfyre321]

11 minutes ago, Foot_Of_The_King said:

My guess is that if Rickon came back into the picture he would be made KITN or Lord of Winterfell. Probably because he is young so the great lords could rule through him. It would be easy for them to rationalize since when Rob wrote his will, he did so under the assumption that his true born brothers were dead. On the other hand, if the lords think they need a Stark in charge right now, they would opt to honor the literal words of the will and name Jon their leader.   

But like I said, whoever holds the power (Manderly and co. is who it's looking like) will ultimately make the decision themselves. 

I think being a bastard, wildling lover really would work against Jon. Even if they don't like the Karstark tales of him selling a daughter to one to one of those "savages" would scare the shit out of a lot  lords. Yes he didn't sell anyone and the thenns are as lordly as any of the people of the 7 kingdoms but honestly how apt are people really going to recognize that?

[Lost Melnibonean]

Are any of the Northmen, that actually proclaimed Robb to be King in the North when they were in Riverrun, in the North now, either in Stannis's camp or Winterfell? 

[Sophist]

We know that Wyman's son is "home". I don't know if he traveled with Wyman.

I'm sure others trickled home too, but we aren't told that as far as I can remember.

 

[kissdbyfire]

3 minutes ago, Sophist said:

We know that Wyman's son is "home". I don't know if he traveled with Wyman.

I'm sure others trickled home too, but we aren't told that as far as I can remember.

 

We don't know Maege and Glover's whereabouts. The Greatjon is a prisoner of the Freys since the RW. Jaime ordered Edwyn Frey to tell Walder that the crown wanted all the RW prisoners; they may have left the Twins already (by now) or not. Jason Mallister is a prisoner of the Freys too, but at Seagard. Edmure was sent to Casterly Rock by Jaime. 

[The Sunland Lord]

10 hours ago, Wolf's Bane said:

They had no right to choose a king.  There hasn't been a king in the north since Torrhen Stark bowed to Aegon Targaryen. 

Joffrey was a bastard born of incest. 

Does this mean he didn't sit in the throne and wasn't giving commands? The "right" to do something is flexible thing, as we see.

[Moiraine Sedai]

23 hours ago, The Sunland Lord said:

Yes, he is legally a Baratheon, but known to us readers and to many noblemen in Westeros that he was in fact born of incest and a bastard child-product of Cersei and Jaime Lannister. Still, I agree that this doesn't stop him from carrying out orders and there are people who will enforce them.

The North is part of the 7 Kingdoms now, yes. But, if the warden of the North loses his already shaky position at one point, the North may declare independence again and the vassals may want to honor Robb's will. I think that, even if they do this, they would eventually bend the knee to a king who they think is worthy of following or simply must do it if Daenerys becomes Queen because well, dragons. 

Your denial about Robb not being a king is a delusion. He clearly was a king. Balon, Renly, Joffrey, were also kings. Stannis and Euron are kings, whether someone who sits on the IT likes it or not.

If the Iron Throne doesn't receive taxes from the regions which are in rebellion and the Houses there don't respect IT's power- you can say that the Throne practically doesn't rule this region.

Not receiving taxes from a region is not proof of independence.  They were in rebellion until recently so those taxes are in arrears.  They will pay it back.  It's self-delusional and wishful thinking on your part to even believe the north had at any time achieved independence.  Their rebellion failed.  Robb Stark is a failure at being a Lord.  He was not a king.  Understood? 

 

[The Sunland Lord]

4 minutes ago, Moiraine Sedai said:

Not receiving taxes from a region is not proof of independence.  They were in rebellion until recently so those taxes are in arrears.  They will pay it back.  It's self-delusional and wishful thinking on your part to even believe the north had at any time achieved independence.  Their rebellion failed.  Robb Stark is a failure at being a Lord.  He was not a king.  Understood? 

 

Each to their own. 

[Stormking902]

For those who think Robb wasn't a king you are completely WRONG, Robb was made king by his bannerman or at least all the important ones and the lords that weren't there to declare Robb king agreed to it after the fact or they would of withdrawn there troops, Manderly and the Reeds weren't present but both called Robb KITN afterwards. Also the Great Lord of the Riverlands Edmure and his bannerman declared Robb KITN and Trident so Robb was a king period end of discussion. Robert rebellion was a rebellion because when it started Robert was a lord he wasn't declared a king untill very very late in the war. Its called the WO5K so its cannon that Robb, Renly, Balon, Stannis, Joffrey are ALL kings period. 

 

[Moiraine Sedai]

3 minutes ago, The Sunland Lord said:

Each to their own. 

As it should be. 

 

 

 

 

[LiveFirstDieLater]

27 minutes ago, Moiraine Sedai said:

Not receiving taxes from a region is not proof of independence.  They were in rebellion until recently so those taxes are in arrears.  They will pay it back.  It's self-delusional and wishful thinking on your part to even believe the north had at any time achieved independence.  Their rebellion failed.  Robb Stark is a failure at being a Lord.  He was not a king.  Understood? 

 

No I don’t understand... what makes a king in your oh so humble opinion?

[Alexis-something-Rose]

2 hours ago, Sophist said:

We know that Wyman's son is "home". I don't know if he traveled with Wyman.

I'm sure others trickled home too, but we aren't told that as far as I can remember.

I think he stayed home. It's the impression I'm getting from Wyman, but I don't think he's not expecting to make it back home. I think he'd want to make sure his son is in place to oversee the affairs at White Harbor.

[Clegane'sPup]

25 minutes ago, Stormking902 said:

For those who think Robb wasn't a king you are completely WRONG, Robb was made king by his bannerman or at least all the important ones and the lords that weren't there to declare Robb king agreed to it after the fact or they would of withdrawn there troops, Manderly and the Reeds weren't present but both called Robb KITN afterwards. Also the Great Lord of the Riverlands Edmure and his bannerman declared Robb KITN and Trident so Robb was a king period end of discussion. Robert rebellion was a rebellion because when it started Robert was a lord he wasn't declared a king untill very very late in the war. Its called the WO5K so its cannon that Robb, Renly, Balon, Stannis, Joffrey are ALL kings period. 

 

Robb is proclaimed King of the North by his bannermen. An empty title. If Robb wants to be King of the Seven Kingdoms he must defeat the ruling monarch (Joffrey) and take Kings Landing. Renly & Stannis were after the Iron Throne. Balon's King of whatever was an empty title. If the ruler of the Seven Kingdoms wants to bring peace to the land they must quell the rebellion.

Let's not forget that this saga starts with a lie that Jon Arryn was killed by Lannaster. Then one thing leads to another and the story rolls forward.

[Stormking902]

8 minutes ago, Clegane'sPup said:

Robb is proclaimed King of the North by his bannermen. An empty title. If Robb wants to be King of the Seven Kingdoms he must defeat the ruling monarch (Joffrey) and take Kings Landing. Renly & Stannis were after the Iron Throne. Balon's King of whatever was an empty title. If the ruler of the Seven Kingdoms wants to bring peace to the land they must quell the rebellion.

Let's not forget that this saga starts with a lie that Jon Arryn was killed by Lannaster. Then one thing leads to another and the story rolls forward.

But Robb doesn't want to be king of the 7k just the North and Riverlands which he WAS.......

[Varysblackfyre321]

11 minutes ago, Stormking902 said:

But Robb doesn't want to be king of the 7k just the North and Riverlands which he WAS.......

Still got to beat the throne who claim dominion over it.