Will someone follow Robb's will?

[kissdbyfire]

2 minutes ago, Buried Treasure said:

Roose had said that he would keep Harry close, and indeed did keep much of the Karstark foot with his own forces. So Robb might not have known the detail that Karstark was captured, and assumed he still with the intact Bolton army (as an aside & independent of my theory - why was Harrison at Duskendale with Glover rather than with Bolton and his own foot soldiers?)

 

Harrion was an imperfect choice, but even if Robb had named someone riding by his side to the Neck, that individual could die in the same battle that killed Robb. Harrion at least has the advantage of heirs - a sister, paternal uncle at least - which means the succession is resolved beyond him.

I don't reckon he was any less secure a choice than Jon, who could have been lost like Benjen since Robb was last in contact, or might not be released from the NW by the Lord Commander, and who has no heirs of his own which would put the northern succession back at square one in the event of his death.

True, maybe Robb didn’t know. Still, the point of the will is to avoid a succession crisis If he dies w/o heir. And it seems to me that naming Harrion under these circumstances would be a pretty risky gamble. And yes, of course, anyone he names could die or go missing. But, again, in order to avoid succession problems, I think he would go w/ a less risky/unknown option. 
 

[R2D]

7 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

Like when Aegon IV legitimised all his bastards? 

Bad example. 

Aegon IV did it because it was a jerk and it caused the Blackfyre rebellions. No one would like a repeat of that like Catelyn said.

So yeah unless you're going by jerk standards bastards are only legitimized when theres a succession crisis.

[kissdbyfire]

20 minutes ago, R2D said:

Bad example. 

Aegon IV did it because it was a jerk and it caused the Blackfyre rebellions. No one would like a repeat of that like Catelyn said.

So yeah unless you're going by jerk standards bastards are only legitimized when theres a succession crisis.

It’s not a bad example. Much the contrary, in fact. It’s in the text to show that there are no set and fixed rules for it, and ultimately a king can legitimise any bastard he wants, even w/o a succession crisis or anything like that. 

[R2D]

On 9/9/2020 at 3:40 AM, Buried Treasure said:

 

As for Robb naming a Vale cousin his backup heir to garner support from the Vale, his maternal aunt was already ruling the region, as regent for his first cousin. That wasn't sufficient for the North to get aid, so the prospects that a more distant relative who had not yet inherited anything would give better aid were not good. I'll also mention that Cat only half remembered which lordlings were related to the Starks - Robb may have known even less and was on the march with his army so with limited opportunity to research the identities of distant cousins.

 

Yeah Lysa probably wouldn't allow the Vale cousin to inherit:

The knights of the Vale could make all the difference in this war,” said Robb, “but if she will not fight, so be it. I’ve asked only that she open the Bloody Gate for us, and provide ships at Gulltown to take us north.

“It will not happen, sire,” said the Blackfish. “Cat is right. Lady Lysa is too fearful to admit an army to the Vale. Any army. The Bloody Gate will remain closed.” (ASOS)

[R2D]

1 minute ago, kissdbyfire said:

It’s not a bad example. Much the contrary, in fact. It’s in the text to show that there are no set and fixed rules for it, and ultimately a king can legitimise any bastard he wants, even w/o a succession crisis or anything like that. 

Sure they can but only if they want to create problems.

[U. B. Cool]

Somebody in the north honoring that will can only lead to more conflict.  It's best to forget about it and Robb's failure.  Accept Roose and move on.  Roose is a more capable person to lead over Jon.  

[ShimShim]

Except for the fact that he betrayed a lot of the northmen causing the death of many of their kin, and the only fact they follow him is because he has important hostages, otherwise they would all rise against him, whether they have a Stark to back or not.

[Helman Corbray]

On 8/11/2020 at 11:43 PM, Damsel in Distress said:

Robb's will will have an effect on the plot.  It's just a question of whether it will result in something good or bad.  The Boltons will lose their hold on the north and that means somebody like Wayman Manderly will support a Stark restoration.  Jon will be up for consideration if something were to happen to Rickon.  Jon is sworn to the NW but he is known for willing to break his oath.  Most people will have a big problem with that (as well as the stuff listed by Lord of the Crossing).  Peace isn't happening in the north because of this will.  It might better for everybody if that thing were to get lost.  And Jon is not interested in peace.  

I like this. We have tons of bastards laying arround with some sort of claim to their father's titles. Using them to impact the story and regain the lands would always be interesting. 

Like Rolland Storm (assuming that his unamed half-brother is alive) and the boy from Hornwood.