Will someone follow Robb's will?

[TheLastWolf]

3 hours ago, Damsel in Distress said:

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). 

Jon is dead. Oath finishes at death. like in the abomination. As for willing to break his oath....I'm sick and tired of reasoning with haters' biases

 

Spoiler

Jon did exceptionally well considering his age, all that he went through with the wildlings and his own sworn brothers and especially Ygritte. I still think that they should have gone into the caves as she suggested because...see the above link. But the storyline would be affected, so we could not have had that.

Jon did deeds that were both honorable and also not. But the former far exceeds the latter. He defended Castle Black with only greenboys, cripples and greybeards, while he himself was injured. His trick with Magnar and his raiders could not have been done by anyone else of the Watch at such a time. His wits and swordsmanship are really good, though not legendary. He withstood Mance's assault till Stannis arrived. 

If helping Stannis was wrong. so be it. But Stannis could've taken everything by force, so what Jon did was somewhat right. Besides Stannis did help the Watch, unlike all the other pretenders and claimants.

If you call his actions of allowing the wildlings through the Wall and saving them as poor, I suggest that you reconsider. Please keep in mind that the true enemy are the Others and each dead wildling beyond the Wall is one more wight to fight. Many of the Night's Watch seem to have forgotten this when they killed/tried to kill him, like you.

Him sending Mance/Rattleshirt/Abel to rescue fake Arya was not against his duties, as Meli had him under her power, so he was sure of his return (though not sure when). What would any of us have done then in his position? (with exceptions if any are like Stannis).

Him going to march against Ramsay was wrong. but not in entirety. Please re-read the letter from Ramsay to Jon. It disrespected all the laws of the kingdoms in what it demanded in its contents.

  Quote

Your false king is dead, bastard. He and all his host were smashed in seven days of battle. I have his magic sword. Tell his red whore.

Your false king's friends are dead. Their heads upon the walls of Winterfell. Come see them, bastard. Your false king lied, and so did you. You told the world you burned the King-Beyond-the-Wall. Instead you sent him to Winterfell to steal my bride from me.

I will have my bride back. If you want Mance Rayder back, come and get him. I have him in a cage for all the north to see, proof of your lies. The cage is cold, but I have made him a warm cloak from the skins of the six whores who came with him to Winterfell.

I want my bride back. I want the false king's queen. I want his daughter and his red witch. I want this wildling princess. I want his little prince, the wildling babe. And I want my Reek. Send them to me, bastard, and I will not trouble you or your black crows. Keep them from me, and I will cut out your bastard's heart and eat it.

Ramsay Bolton,

Trueborn Lord of Winterfell.

If you truly understood how cruel and sadistic Ramsay was (as I'm sure you did), you'd agree with me.

Any other crimes or failures of Jon I might've missed???

 

[Nevets]

If Robb's Will has any effect on the plot, it will likely be that part that disinherits Sansa,, which I believe was part of the reason for writing it in the first place.  Jon will do as he sees fit without reference to the Will.  If he feels that defending the North requires him to take up the mantle of King in the North he will do so.   The Will might be useful for support, but I suspect that the situation would be sufficiently dire that they would get behind him in any event.  No way will the Will induce him to take the mantle by itself.

Sansa's disinheritance would definitely make it more difficult to take Winterfell.  It would mean that she would have to use political persuasion (which she is currently learning under Littlefinger's tutelage) and convince the Northerners that she is not being used as a Lannister puppet, or anyone else's for that matter.  She will probably be able to do it if she feels the need, but will certainly not be able to simply lay claim to Winterfell based on her birth.

[Isobel Harper]

23 hours ago, Seams said:

I wonder whether the "Will" characters provide any clues about the status of Robb's will?

The first Will introduced to readers is the Night's Watch brother and POV who accompanies Ser Waymar and Gared on the fateful ranging that also introduces the Others. Will climbs a tree, climbs down, finds Ser Waymar's shattered sword (and plans to use it as evidence) and is then (presumably) wighted by the undead Ser Waymar.

Most "Will" characters seem to stay off-camera: Willas Tyrell stays home at Highgarden while other Tyrells promote the family's interests in battle and at the court. Wylla the wet nurse is rumored, in some versions of the story, to be Jon Snow's mother.

We do get to see Willow Heddle, who seems to be a smallfolk version of Arya Stark. With her sister, Jeyne, she runs the inn at the crossroads after it becomes an orphanage.

There is a number of minor Wills throughout ASOIAF. Several seem to be sellswords. The sellsword companies seem to be places where GRRM stores the old resentments and future challenges toward the current powers-that-be in Westeros.

We know that Cersei rips up Robert's will, if that's the right name for the document Ned wrote on his behalf while the king was dying. Cersei also disregards any plan that Lord Gyles Rosby might have had for leaving his estate to his ward. These are only two data points, but it seems that wills don't seem to have much power in Westeros, at least while Cersei is around.

Don't know if there are hints here that might help us discern the future of Robb's will.

I fell like Will might represent something regarding "free will."  Maybe other Wills in the story as well.

As for Robb's will, well that's just the meaning behind the word: someone's will is literally their will, ie what they WANT done after they die.  

[Seams]

1 hour ago, Isobel Harper said:

I fell like Will might represent something regarding "free will."  Maybe other Wills in the story as well.

As for Robb's will, well that's just the meaning behind the word: someone's will is literally their will, ie what they WANT done after they die.  

That's sort of what I was trying to get at - whether Will characters embodied a quality that corresponds to the notion of human or individual determination.

But also: if "wall" and "well" are linked by wordplay, is "will" part of the same group? A wall is a barrier and a well seems to be (in Westeros) a sort of magic tunnel. Does a will somehow fit with these kinds of barriers and doorways?

[Isobel Harper]

1 hour ago, Seams said:

That's sort of what I was trying to get at - whether Will characters embodied a quality that corresponds to the notion of human or individual determination.

But also: if "wall" and "well" are linked by wordplay, is "will" part of the same group? A wall is a barrier and a well seems to be (in Westeros) a sort of magic tunnel. Does a will somehow fit with these kinds of barriers and doorways?

If that wordplay is correct, I can see how it's a barrier for some (Sansa, disinherited) and a doorway (Jon, named heir...  Sansa being named Shells Whent's heir if my ideas about the will are correct).

[Helman Corbray]

20 hours ago, nyser1 said:

Issue here being who survived who bore witness to it? 

Greatjon, Edmure, Mormont and Glover, I think

[CamiloRP]

Well, we have to keep in mind that the will was made thinking Bran, Rickon and even Arya were dead, but none of them are and many northeners know it, so it would go against the conception of the will to upjumped Jon ignoring his siblings. Also the will has most likely been destroyed or is being kept by the Freys or Lannisters so the other northers would have to trust Mormont and Glover (and Great Jon, if he's ever released). Also, Jon would be Usurping his siblings, and I don't think he'd like that, he even rejected a similar offer that didn't include screwing his family. Lastly, the Riverlands stood behind Robb because he had Catlyn's blood, would they do the same for Jon knowing Catlyn hated the boy? The blackfish probably wouldnt' after what he said to Jaime in Riverrun.

[Jay21]

I think that Manderly has it.  I believe that the resolution of Robb's argument with Cat wasn't spelled out because Robb actually heeded his mother's warnings against Jon and did not name him heir to the crown of the north but rather honoured Ned's original intent that the North would support Stannis' claim to the throne, possibly with Jon inheriting Winterfell, but the wording there could be open. Manderly is making deals with Stannis by way of Davos that he has no right to make on his own, eloquent as they are to read. He is either winging it and hoping that his heirs can square things up with their king after the fact ( I doubt he plans on surviving his visit to Winterfell - or at least isn't taking his survival for granted) or he is following a guideline such as Robb's will.  

 

[U. B. Cool]

There are enough idiots in the north to take that will seriously.  They will rebel again.  And they will be very sorry when the White Walkers arrive at their gates. 

[U. B. Cool]

On 8/11/2020 at 5:35 PM, The Lord of the Crossing said:

King?  Lord Robb Stark is a better and a more accurate title for the young wolf.  His rebellion was not successful.  The north is still one of the seven kingdoms of Westeros. 

Someone will follow his will.  Those who do will accept him legitimized.  An equal number will not and hate him for what he did at the Wall.  He let Mance Rayder loose on them, tore apart the Night's Watch, deserted his post, and helped arranged the marriage of a Wildling to a noble woman.  It will cause a civil war in the north.  Some of the folks hold the Starks in high regard while others are ready to move on and stay on good terms with the king on the iron throne.  I am afraid it could make Jon Snow a real Stark and turn him into the illegal King of the North.  That would be bad for Westeros.  This is the time for everybody to work together instead of playing family feud.  We already know how bias Jon is towards the Starks.  This can only end badly. 

The breaking of oaths is not going to offend the Stark sympathizers in the north.  Robb broke his oath to Walder and they didn't even lose much sleep over it.  But the violation of guest rights by Mance Rayder while he was on a mission from Jon will turn them off.  Mance murdered people while a guest of Roose Bolton.  He was under Jon's command and acting under Jon's orders to get his sister.  The blame should fall on Jon.  Setting up the wedding of a highborn lady to a wildling will totally piss off every lord and lady in the land.  This wildling is now the lords of her lands.  The north will be in total chaos.  Jon is not a good leader.  He and the people will be better off if he stepped aside to let Stannis take control of the north. 

[zandru]

1 hour ago, U. B. Cool said:

The breaking of oaths is not going to offend the Stark sympathizers in the north.  Robb broke his oath to Walder and they didn't even lose much sleep over it.  But the violation of guest rights by Mance Rayder while he was on a mission from Jon will turn them off.  Mance murdered people while a guest of Roose Bolton.  He was under Jon's command and acting under Jon's orders to get his sister.  The blame should fall on Jon.  Setting up the wedding of a highborn lady to a wildling will totally piss off every lord and lady in the land.  This wildling is now the lords of her lands.  The north will be in total chaos.  Jon is not a good leader.  He and the people will be better off if he stepped aside to let Stannis take control of the north. 

I've got to say, I disagree with everything here, and these are my reasons.

All of this presumes that Jon Snow is, in fact, not dead (or permanently dead, at least.)

Northerners knew Walder Frey, a southron "lord", to be a treacherous worm even before the Red Wedding; if the North had any problem with Robb breaking a marriage pact to preserve a Lady's honor, it was negated by Walder's disproportionate revenge via the Red Wedding. ("Kill one man at dinner", says Tywin -- Walder had some 10,000 or more killed, Robb's entire army.) What Robb did was nothing by comparison, and everybody knows it. Even in the south.

"Violation of guest right by Mance Rayder" -- we actually have no idea of who was secretly killing people inside of Winterfell, and all of Mance's people deny having any hand in it. You need actual proof to hang this on Mance, much less on Jon Snow.

"Wedding a highborn lady to a freeman" -- Most of "the land" doesn't give a rat's fart for what goes on up North, where everybody is a barbarian and wears unfashionable clothing. Will Northern lords be ticked off? Well, the Karstarks sure are, but they were already mad at Robb for exacting justice.

The North is "in chaos" because of the Greyjoy invasion, the War of the Five Kings, the Boltons taking over Winterfell and apparently forcing an unwanted wedding of Bolton's Bastard to a young Stark girl, Stannis's forces moving against everyone else, and oh yes, winter has arrived. One little marriage in a very minor House isn't going to even register.

Jon IS, in fact, an excellent leader, and if he lives, could become a great leader. He's got an open mind, keen observational skills, knows and understands his men, a good grasp of tactics and strategy, and is capable of changing with the needs of the situation. He had been trying to put the Night's Watch back on its traditional path, protecting against the Others, and by recognizing the shared humanity of the Free Folk, trying to protect them, too. Enlisting them against the common enemy was common-sense briliant. But the hidebound old guys and jealous old guys couldn't take it.

[TheLastWolf]

9 hours ago, CamiloRP said:

would they do the same for Jon knowing Catlyn hated the boy? The blackfish probably wouldnt' after what he said to Jaime in Riverrun.

You take everything at face value. The Blackfish(trout) threw a Red herring at the crippled lion who gobbled it up without second thought. In clearer words, the BF wanted to throw Jaime off his scent, wherever he wants go and whatever is agenda should not be known to the Lannisters. Remember that Jaime never thought of the North as a possible place where BF would've escaped to. 

Probably BF is at Greywaterwatch with Howland Reed, Ned's bones and Robb's Will. The BF would honor his king's last wish and would have even been instrumental in making him decide the will, since he was his closest advisor.

Spoiler

I also believe that the BF faked his disdain/hatred towards Jon (but not Theon) because he was close to Robb in his council and would have been instrumental in making him decide Jon as the North’s heir. Cat was b***h and a different matter, moreover, while Ned himself hid Jon’s parentage from her, why wouldn’t Robb do something similar?

As i said already, Robb wasn't that foolish to make his will with Jon as heir without consulting his advisors, foremost among them the BF. And the BF could have either been on Robb's side in that issue or Robb could have convinced him. And "the fruit of Ned's insult to his niece and therefore the Tullys" is not that strong a opposing point. The Reach and Riverlands all have more highborn bastards than I care to mention and the Lords take them in to the household most of the time and don't show any particular hatred to them. And the BF could have faked his disdain to hide his motive. He had already made a plan in case the castle had to fall and it was just a remark to throw his would-be pursuers of his scent. He would surely honor the will of his king, whether he likes it or not. So that's all I've got to say about your opinion

 

 

[Back in Black-Snow]

8 hours ago, zandru said:

I've got to say, I disagree with everything here, and these are my reasons.

All of this presumes that Jon Snow is, in fact, not dead (or permanently dead, at least.)

Northerners knew Walder Frey, a southron "lord", to be a treacherous worm even before the Red Wedding; if the North had any problem with Robb breaking a marriage pact to preserve a Lady's honor, it was negated by Walder's disproportionate revenge via the Red Wedding. ("Kill one man at dinner", says Tywin -- Walder had some 10,000 or more killed, Robb's entire army.) What Robb did was nothing by comparison, and everybody knows it. Even in the south.

"Violation of guest right by Mance Rayder" -- we actually have no idea of who was secretly killing people inside of Winterfell, and all of Mance's people deny having any hand in it. You need actual proof to hang this on Mance, much less on Jon Snow.

"Wedding a highborn lady to a freeman" -- Most of "the land" doesn't give a rat's fart for what goes on up North, where everybody is a barbarian and wears unfashionable clothing. Will Northern lords be ticked off? Well, the Karstarks sure are, but they were already mad at Robb for exacting justice.

The North is "in chaos" because of the Greyjoy invasion, the War of the Five Kings, the Boltons taking over Winterfell and apparently forcing an unwanted wedding of Bolton's Bastard to a young Stark girl, Stannis's forces moving against everyone else, and oh yes, winter has arrived. One little marriage in a very minor House isn't going to even register.

Jon IS, in fact, an excellent leader, and if he lives, could become a great leader. He's got an open mind, keen observational skills, knows and understands his men, a good grasp of tactics and strategy, and is capable of changing with the needs of the situation. He had been trying to put the Night's Watch back on its traditional path, protecting against the Others, and by recognizing the shared humanity of the Free Folk, trying to protect them, too. Enlisting them against the common enemy was common-sense briliant. But the hidebound old guys and jealous old guys couldn't take it.

I agree with this.

[The Commentator]

On 8/12/2020 at 8:08 AM, Nevets said:

If Robb's Will has any effect on the plot, it will likely be that part that disinherits Sansa,, which I believe was part of the reason for writing it in the first place.  Jon will do as he sees fit without reference to the Will.  If he feels that defending the North requires him to take up the mantle of King in the North he will do so.   The Will might be useful for support, but I suspect that the situation would be sufficiently dire that they would get behind him in any event.  No way will the Will induce him to take the mantle by itself.

Sansa's disinheritance would definitely make it more difficult to take Winterfell.  It would mean that she would have to use political persuasion (which she is currently learning under Littlefinger's tutelage) and convince the Northerners that she is not being used as a Lannister puppet, or anyone else's for that matter.  She will probably be able to do it if she feels the need, but will certainly not be able to simply lay claim to Winterfell based on her birth.

A feud between Sansa and Jon could be interesting.  Sansa and her allies battles Jon for control of Winterfell.  

[CamiloRP]

@TheLastWolf 

TBH everything you say sounds cool and I love the idea of Robb being more than a king who only reign for a couple of months, lost his kingdom and the doomed it. But I still see no reason why would The Riverlands follow The North, they followed Robb because he was Cat's son, and the northerners abused The Riverlands almost as much as the westerners. Also Jon still has two living brothers, would he really usurp them? would the northerners really follow him before Ned's true born sons? would the riverlanders follow him before Cat's actual sons with actual riverlander blood?

[kissdbyfire]

2 minutes ago, CamiloRP said:

@TheLastWolf 

TBH everything you say sounds cool and I love the idea of Robb being more than a king who only reign for a couple of months, lost his kingdom and the doomed it. But I still see no reason why would The Riverlands follow The North,

It could be more about going against the Lannisters/the crown than just siding w/ the North. The enemy of my enemy and all that.

2 minutes ago, CamiloRP said:

they followed Robb because he was Cat's son, and the northerners abused The Riverlands almost as much as the westerners.
 

Sorry, that’s absurd.

2 minutes ago, CamiloRP said:

 

Also Jon still has two living brothers, would he really usurp them? would the northerners really follow him before Ned's true born sons? would the riverlanders follow him before Cat's actual sons with actual riverlander blood?

One issue here is the possibility of a decision regarding the will having to be made before anyone learns Bran and Rickon are alive. 

[CamiloRP]

2 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

It could be more about going against the Lannisters/the crown than just siding w/ the North. The enemy of my enemy and all that.

Yeah, mayhaps

2 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Sorry, that’s absurd.

The brave companions where working for the northerners, in pennytree the villagers tell jaime "the wolves attacked us, then the lions", remember then Inn where a bunch of horpses hung with the writing "they lie with lions", over and over in the story we hear riverlanders saying there's no difference between the wolves and the lions.

5 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

One issue here is the possibility of a decision regarding the will having to be made before anyone learns Bran and Rickon are alive. 

may be, but what happens when they learn of it? does Jon abdicate? do the northerners and riverlanders force him to abdicate?

[kissdbyfire]

40 minutes ago, CamiloRP said:

The brave companions where working for the northerners, in pennytree the villagers tell jaime "the wolves attacked us, then the lions", remember then Inn where a bunch of horpses hung with the writing "they lie with lions", over and over in the story we hear riverlanders saying there's no difference between the wolves and the lions.

The Brave Companions were hired by Tywin Lannister to wreak havoc in the Riverlands, same as The Mountain and his crew. After Tywin leaves, they side w/ Roose Bolton who, at that point, was already betraying Robb imo. And of course the small folk suffered at the hands of both Stark and Lannister men among others. War is always special brutal for those w/ no power. But what the Brave Companions were doing goes well beyond war, and the same goes for the Mountain and his men. 

40 minutes ago, CamiloRP said:

may be, but what happens when they learn of it? does Jon abdicate? do the northerners and riverlanders force him to abdicate?

I don’t think it will come to Jon becoming KitN b/c of Robb’s will. But if it did happen, yeah,  I think he would step aside in favour of one of his “siblings”.

[Seams]

1 hour ago, CamiloRP said:

I still see no reason why would The Riverlands follow The North, they followed Robb because he was Cat's son ....

I think a key to the hearts and minds of the Riverlands is embodied in House Manderly.

Remember the history of this House? It takes its name from a river in the Reach. The family had to flee and became loyal to House Stark when they were granted control of the Wolf's Den and White Harbor. To me, the symbolism of the displaced Manderlys is like the symbolism of the river near the inn at the crossroads that changed course and no longer runs close to the side of the inn.

If House Manderly represents or embodies the relationship of rivers and House Stark, we can say that "rivers" have not yet given up on finding a true-born Stark son and restoring him to power in the north. We know that Davos has been recruited for this mission. Of course, support for Stannis was part of the deal with securing the services of Davos. So "rivers" want a Stark lord but might be willing to accept a Baratheon king (unless Manderly somehow had his fingers crossed for that part of the deal with Davos).

Interesting that the sigil of House Manderly carries a trident. That might be a symbol of controlling the Trident River?

Other "rivers" clues might come from Brynden Rivers and his connection with Bran Stark. There may be lots of bastard-born people named Rivers in the riverlands, but none is a greater kingmaker than Bloodraven.

A third player to watch would be Brienne. I think GRRM wants us to see Catelyn as something of an heir to the riverlands, at least while Edmure is a hostage; maybe even in her own right and without regard to Edmure. Because Brienne swore her oath to Catelyn and made a new promise to Lady Stoneheart, Brienne's actions may represent the direction of the riverlands as she carries out the will of Catelyn / Lady Stoneheart.

So the Manderlys are searching for Rickon, Bloodraven has Bran in his cave and Brienne is searching for Sansa and, she learns from the Elder Brother, for Arya. All of the rivers are running toward Catelyn's children, not toward Jon Snow.

P.S. Jon Snow does have his own river: the Milkwater.

[CamiloRP]

@Seams

well that's really interesting, I never consider it. The thing I hate the most about this books is that every time I consider a new aspect of them I get more hyped, and the wait is killing me.
 

11 minutes ago, Seams said:

I think GRRM wants us to see Catelyn as something of an heir to the riverlands

TBH the first time I read ASOS I consider her to be more of Hoster's heir than Edmure. Though you are now making me think of a crackpot theory I read ages ago about Robb leaving The North to Cat.