Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Helman Corbray

Will someone follow Robb's will?

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, Mithras said:

ASoS was written with the intention of a 5 year gap to follow. That means people were going to sit on Robb's Will for 5 years. I don't think Robb's Will will matter in the future.

Much of the  5 year gap writing had George writing backlog events, and Robb's Will could have come into play. He also said during a reading in 2015 when answering question about Robb's will and Jon's legitmacy that he hopes to resolve it. He also scrapped the 5 year gap because it didn't work for some aspects of the story, and that could implicate Robb's will. So, I don't think you can conclude it won't have an impact in the near future.

Overall I agree that the will won't alter the ultimate outcome that George had in mind for the ending, and thus in that sense the will won't ultimately matter. I also agree that it's mostly meant as a tool to heighten the dramatic stakes between Robb and Catelyn before both are killed.

Edited by sweetsunray

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

Much of the  5 year gap writing had George writing backlog events, and Robb's Will could have come into play. He also said during a reading in 2015 when answering question about Robb's will and Jon's legitmacy that he hopes to resolve it. He also scrapped the 5 year gap because it didn't work for some aspects of the story, and that could implicate Robb's will. So, I don't think you can conclude it won't have an impact in the near future.

When George talked about the 5 year gap he made the comparison between Cersei and Jon. That Cersei had so much going on in that gap while Jon was doing little on the Wall.

Other characters, it didn’t work at all. I'm writing the Cersei chapters in King's Landing, and saying, "Well yeah, in five years, six different guys have served as Hand and there was this conspiracy four years ago, and this thing happened three years ago." And I'm presenting all of this in flashbacks, and that wasn't working. The other alternative was [that] nothing happened in those five years, which seemed anticlimactic.

The Jon Snow stuff was even worse, because at the end of Storm he gets elected Lord Commander. I'm picking up there, and writing "Well five years ago, I was elected Lord Commander. Nothing much has happened since then, but now things are starting to happen again." I finally, after a year, said "I can't make this work."

 

It seems from this quote the will, if it is ever brought up again, has no effect on Jon's storyline.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

When George talked about the 5 year gap he made the comparison between Cersei and Jon. That Cersei had so much going on in that gap while Jon was doing little on the Wall.

Other characters, it didn’t work at all. I'm writing the Cersei chapters in King's Landing, and saying, "Well yeah, in five years, six different guys have served as Hand and there was this conspiracy four years ago, and this thing happened three years ago." And I'm presenting all of this in flashbacks, and that wasn't working. The other alternative was [that] nothing happened in those five years, which seemed anticlimactic.

The Jon Snow stuff was even worse, because at the end of Storm he gets elected Lord Commander. I'm picking up there, and writing "Well five years ago, I was elected Lord Commander. Nothing much has happened since then, but now things are starting to happen again." I finally, after a year, said "I can't make this work."

 

It seems from this quote the will, if it is ever brought up again, has no effect on Jon's storyline.

I don't think you can say that, because as long as Roose Bolton has tight control over the North, and all the other Northern houses have hostages, and Stannis doesn't move either, the will cannot come into play yet.

Share this post


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

I don't think you can say that, because as long as Roose Bolton has tight control over the North, and all the other Northern houses have hostages, and Stannis doesn't move either, the will cannot come into play yet.

I'm sorry, but the series is loosely based on our own medieval history. The idea of a pretender's will being took seriously 5 years after their death just runs contradictory to that.

In the world he has created such a thing happening is far more fantastical than the Dragons and the Others. It's fairytale stuff. The Northern Lords, as we have already began to see in AFFC and ADWD, have made new vows to new Kings. Robb's will is meaningless.

If Jon does become King of the North, and there is a decent chance it may happen, it will not be because of Robb's will but other factors. Robb's 'kingdom' died with him.

Edited by Bernie Mac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to admit that I thought the theory that Robb left Catelyn as his heir for Winterfell was pretty compelling.  I heard it on Preston Jacob’s YouTube, but who knows where he stole it from.  

It might explain why Cat believes that Robb “trapped her” and why Robb felt the need to have her brought to Seaguard where she would be relatively safe.  Cat can’t really object to it, especially if she’s made the heir.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

I have to admit that I thought the theory that Robb left Catelyn as his heir for Winterfell was pretty compelling.  I heard it on Preston Jacob’s YouTube, but who knows where he stole it from.  

It might explain why Cat believes that Robb “trapped her” and why Robb felt the need to have her brought to Seaguard where she would be relatively safe.  Cat can’t really object to it, especially if she’s made the heir.

It's an old idea of his.  He's stated it as far back as...  The Sansa/LF video series?  As if it's his own, I dunno.  *shrug*

Personally, I think Catelyn's "trap" is that Robb wanted her to remarry, specifically Jason Mallister.  Robb was going to send her to Seaguard with him until the end of the war, after the Red Wedding that is.  

The Mormont women and the "strong women dialogue" (which PJ reference) is, if anything, a hint from the author of Sansa inheriting Harrenhal, imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

I'm sorry, but the series is loosely based on our own medieval history. The idea of a pretender's will being took seriously 5 years after their death just runs contradictory to that.

In the world he has created such a thing happening is far more fantastical than the Dragons and the Others. It's fairytale stuff. The Northern Lords, as we have already began to see in AFFC and ADWD, have made new vows to new Kings. Robb's will is meaningless.

If Jon does become King of the North, and there is a decent chance it may happen, it will not be because of Robb's will but other factors. Robb's 'kingdom' died with him.

read the book again. Robb's will was to ensure that the kingdom does not die with him. oh and he was no pretender. Robb's will is not meaningless as it was written for the event of his death. at least those that signed his document it means a great deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Thunder Bunny-3000 said:

read the book again. Robb's will was to ensure that the kingdom does not die with him.

That was his intention. It seems, from what we have seen in the aftermath of his death in ASOS, AFFC and ADWD, to have failed.

The Riverlords have all sworn new oaths to the Crown, many of the Northern lords have sworn oaths to new Kings.

Just now, Thunder Bunny-3000 said:

 

oh and he was no pretender.

Yeah, he was. His own brother acknowledges as much.

"The north rode with Robb, bled with him, died for him. They have supped on grief and death, and now you come to offer them another serving. Do you blame them if they hang back? Forgive me, Your Grace, but some will look at you and see only another doomed pretender."

Jon could have been a legitimate King, could have started a new dynasty with sons, brothers, sisters or even cousins inheriting his crown. Sadly he died a pretender, at a wedding on his way home to try and win the North back.

He's a tragic hero of the series, but he died a pretender to the Northern Throne.

Just now, Thunder Bunny-3000 said:

 

Robb's will is not meaningless as it was written for the event of his death. at least those that signed his document it means a great deal.

Does it? When do we learn that? Can you quote the passages from AFFC or ADWD were it states that the people who signed it still think of it in such  a way?

We have some children still call Robb a King in the later books. The Lords and Ladies of the North have sworn new allegiances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

That was his intention. It seems, from what we have seen in the aftermath of his death in ASOS, AFFC and ADWD, to have failed.

The Riverlords have all sworn new oaths to the Crown, many of the Northern lords have sworn oaths to new Kings.

Yeah, he was. His own brother acknowledges as much.

"The north rode with Robb, bled with him, died for him. They have supped on grief and death, and now you come to offer them another serving. Do you blame them if they hang back? Forgive me, Your Grace, but some will look at you and see only another doomed pretender."

Jon could have been a legitimate King, could have started a new dynasty with sons, brothers, sisters or even cousins inheriting his crown. Sadly he died a pretender, at a wedding on his way home to try and win the North back.

He's a tragic hero of the series, but he died a pretender to the Northern Throne.

Does it? When do we learn that? Can you quote the passages from AFFC or ADWD were it states that the people who signed it still think of it in such  a way?

We have some children still call Robb a King in the later books. The Lords and Ladies of the North have sworn new allegiances.

Yep oaths to the crown at sword point.  nothing is decided yet. Rebellion is still ripe in the North. they wanted the Blackfish and he makes it clear that the war isn't done while he still lives.  he is still at large. Emmon Frey seems to be upset that Edmure is still alive as that is a threat to his legitimacy in Riverrun. Edmure isn't dead. the Stoneheart outlaws are still at large. the war isn't over yet. Why did they bend? hmmm ax yerself that. mostly due to hostages taken. 

Jon could have been King? Ha no, he was not offered anything more than the Lordship of Winterfell by Stannis and Robb's declared heir is not known to the reader. 

it Seems that Robb lost his seat , so did Stannis but that did not make them any less kings.Robb was not a pretender for the Northern throne because he was the king of the North and the Trident. he still has heirs declared and believed dead. Bran is still a Prince and Rickon is a Prince.  Arya is still a Princess, all possible claimants if they so chose.  he does not need legitimacy from the iron throne to be a King. the only real pretenders to any throne are the Lannisters, but then again it is a matter of perspective; Danny thinks anyone not Targaryen is a pretender. 

 

so, yep they swore new allegiances so did renly's host. the Tyrells made a bid for the throne with Renly and continued that stance with the Lannisters  in direct opposition of Stannis. Stannis swelling ranks prior to Blackwater swore vows to him and then Renly's ghost made them bend in direct opposition to Stannis again. why would the Stark loyalist not do the same if and when given the chance. fighting the Boltons and the Ironborn are the common goals that they and Stannis have. they have sworn new allegiance. so what. they can do so again. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Thunder Bunny-3000 said:

Yep oaths to the crown at sword point.

Some, not all. But I'm not sure your point. Oath's at sword point are just as valid. How do you think the Starks won the North? By asking nicely?

10 minutes ago, Thunder Bunny-3000 said:

 

  nothing is decided yet.

Robb died a year ago in Westeros. GRRM's comments on the original 5 year gap suggest that Robb's will comes to nought.

Now I may be wrong, can you tell me of a royal will in the Middle Ages that only came into effect 5 years after the death of a King/Pretender/Lord?

10 minutes ago, Thunder Bunny-3000 said:

 

Rebellion is still ripe in the North.

Sure. But the vast majority of the Lords have sworn new oaths either to Tommen or Stannis. They've moved on.

10 minutes ago, Thunder Bunny-3000 said:

 

they wanted the Blackfish and he makes it clear that the war isn't done while he still lives. 

When does he make that clear?

 

10 minutes ago, Thunder Bunny-3000 said:

 

he is still at large.

He's one man. Not even a Lord. The actual Riverlords have sworn oaths to Tommen. Tytos Blackwood was the last holdout.

10 minutes ago, Thunder Bunny-3000 said:

 

Emmon Frey seems to be upset that Edmure is still alive as that is a threat to his legitimacy in Riverrun.

Yes. This is pretty common. Robert is the same with the Targs, but no one would argue that Viserys had been the King of Westeros for the last 15 years.

Henry VII an VIII were similar state of mind to their relatives who may have had strong claims to their Thrones. Other kings before them and monarchs after them had people they felt the same towards. This does not mean legitimacy.

10 minutes ago, Thunder Bunny-3000 said:

 

Edmure isn't dead. the Stoneheart outlaws are still at large. the war isn't over yet. Why did they bend? hmmm ax yerself that. mostly due to hostages taken. 

lol they are a few hundred people at most. This means very little. Random outlaws don't dictate who the King is.

10 minutes ago, Thunder Bunny-3000 said:

Jon could have been King? Ha no, he was not offered anything more than the Lordship of Winterfell by Stannis and Robb's declared heir is not known to the reader. 

? What does this have to do with what I said?

10 minutes ago, Thunder Bunny-3000 said:

it Seems that Robb lost his seat , so did Stannis but that did not make them any less kings.

Yeah, it does. Neither are true Kings, they are pretenders. Stannis still has a chance of becoming the King, Robb's dead.

10 minutes ago, Thunder Bunny-3000 said:

 

Robb was not a pretender for the Northern throne because he was the king of the North and the Trident.

Except he was not, it was contested.

Joffrey/Tommen, Renly, Stannis and Balon all included the North in their Kingdoms. Joffrey/Tommen. Renly and Stannis all included the Riverlands in their Kingdom.

Robb was a pretender to those thrones. A pretender/rival claimant, but he was unsuccessful.

10 minutes ago, Thunder Bunny-3000 said:

 

he still has heirs declared and believed dead. Bran is still a Prince and Rickon is a Prince. Arya is still a Princess, all possible claimants if they so chose. 

Neither are come ADWD. Neither truly ever were.

Out of interest, how do you think historians separate King from Pretenders? What are the criteria do you think is used to access the difference between the two?

 

10 minutes ago, Thunder Bunny-3000 said:

 

he does not need legitimacy from the iron throne to be a King.

No, but he does not need a certain amount of legitimacy that he never received. For instance no foreign power ever recognized him as a monarch. That is pretty important when seperating Kings from Pretenders/War lords.

10 minutes ago, Thunder Bunny-3000 said:

 

the only real pretenders to any throne are the Lannisters,

Well, no. For a multitude of reasons.

  1. No 'Lannisters' are calling themselves Kings
  2. You may be thinking of Robert's bastards, who are officially Baratheons but really Waters.
  3. They are not Pretenders. They have been recognized by the High Septon, sanctioned by the Small Council and the majority of the Lords of the land, including Riverlords and Northern lords, recognize them as such, even if begrudgingly so
  4. They are also recognized by foreign realms as the rightful realm

 

Robert's acknowledged heirs are currently the legal rulers of the realm. That may well be overwritten should Stannis become King, and they be written off as pretenders, but currently they are it.

10 minutes ago, Thunder Bunny-3000 said:

 

but then again it is a matter of perspective; Danny thinks anyone not Targaryen is a pretender. 

She does. And if she ever becomes a monarch she may enforce that, that the previous couple of decades under Baratheons be considered false.

10 minutes ago, Thunder Bunny-3000 said:

 

so, yep they swore new allegiances so did renly's host.

Yep.

10 minutes ago, Thunder Bunny-3000 said:

 

the Tyrells made a bid for the throne with Renly and continued that stance with the Lannisters  in direct opposition of Stannis. Stannis swelling ranks prior to Blackwater swore vows to him and then Renly's ghost made them bend in direct opposition to Stannis again. why would the Stark loyalist not do the same if and when given the chance.

They may well do. At no point have I claimed they will not break their current oaths. But they will be making new oaths when they do.

You seem really hung up on Robb, his previous vassals have moved on. His 'reign' was less than a year. Many of these Lords are not going to be as devoted to him as the fans of the series are.

10 minutes ago, Thunder Bunny-3000 said:

 

 

fighting the Boltons and the Ironborn are the common goals that they and Stannis have. they have sworn new allegiance. so what. they can do so again. 

And those new oaths will be to a new King. They have chosen to ignore Robb's will, crowning a successor to Robb. His 'kingdom' died with him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

Some, not all. But I'm not sure your point. Oath's at sword point are just as valid. How do you think the Starks won the North? By asking nicely?

nope. and irrelevant. the Northern and Riverlords declared him king. that makes him one. instead of swearing oaths to him as their lord they did so to him by making him a King. SIMPLE

 

9 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

Robb died a year ago in Westeros. GRRM's comments on the original 5 year gap suggest that Robb's will comes to nought.

Now I may be wrong, can you tell me of a royal will in the Middle Ages that only came into effect 5 years after the death of a King/Pretender/Lord?

the 5 year jump is hasn't happened and not likely going to,so again irrelivent. the will is supposed to be in the next book. but we will have to wait and see if it comes to nought.

9 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

*Sure. But the vast majority of the Lords have sworn new oaths either to Tommen or Stannis. They've moved on.

**When does he make that clear?

*as I said, they can always swear again as they do all the time.

**Blackfish makes it clear when talking to Jaimie at the siege of Riverrun

9 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

*He's one man. Not even a Lord. The actual Riverlords have sworn oaths to Tommen. Tytos Blackwood was the last holdout.

**Yes. This is pretty common. Robert is the same with the Targs, but no one would argue that Viserys had been the King of Westeros for the last 15 years.

***Henry VII an VIII were similar state of mind to their relatives who may have had strong claims to their Thrones. Other kings before them and monarchs after them had people they felt the same towards. This does not mean legitimacy.

****lol they are a few hundred people at most. This means very little. Random outlaws don't dictate who the King is.

*Edmure is one man we agree. a hostage promised treatment befitting his rank. he is still a knight.

you are deliberately sidestepping. yes the riverlords have bent to the iron throne after having lost in battle or conceded based on the hostages taken. they swore fealty to the Robb Stark as King, then to the Iron throne when they were forced to. doesn't mean they cant do it for the next stark that pops up. 

**declaring Robb a King, then fighting a war in support of that king and kingdom makes him legitimate. some might see symbols of power as legitimate means to kingship like the iron throne, having dragons, wearing a crown, controlling territory, establishing a new dynasty  or blood quantum etc. avoiding usurpation of the iron throne, they became an independent entity. their support for this makes Robb a legitimate king homage and fealty is what makes a person a Lord. Robb had those from lords who called him King. Viserys was a King, he was crowned one.  Stannis is the only one calling himself King of Westeros. 

***.  Henry VII and HenryVIII destroyed opposition to establish their claim. pretenders would be those who seek the same throne as the establishment. so in a way you are right. THE Baratheon bloodline is the established Dynasty that is struggling for control of the 7 Kingdoms. to the Henrys' any someone claiming the throne would be a pretender. this is after the dynasty is established on the throne of England. but hey back to Westeros, Jeyne Poole is a false pretender as she is no Arya Stark. if no one recognizes any true stark remaining should they appear, they might be considered pretenders especially if they have no way to prove whome they are while claiming their rights. but all the kings are pretenders while the one sitting on the throne is an usurper due to his bastard status. see he has no Baratheon blood so has no legitimacy to the throne of the establ;ished Dynasty, the Baratheons of Kings Landing(which really exists in name only)

****the prisoners are people connected to Lords or are Lords themselves. this is what makes them break. they do dictate who the king is by their status and position in society.Hens those that declared for their respective Kings. forcing them into surrendering and swearing oaths are ways of doing this as well. I argue that a king determines who his subjects are just as the vassals determining who their king is. so it goes both ways. 

9 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

What does this have to do with what I said?

Yeah, it does. Neither are true Kings, they are pretenders. Stannis still has a chance of becoming the King, Robb's dead.

Except he was not, it was contested.

Joffrey/Tommen, Renly, Stannis and Balon all included the North in their Kingdoms. Joffrey/Tommen. Renly and Stannis all included the Riverlands in their Kingdom.

Robb was a pretender to those thrones. A pretender/rival claimant, but he was unsuccessful.

Neither are come ADWD. Neither truly ever were.

YOU:

Jon could have been a legitimate King, could have started a new dynasty with sons, brothers, sisters or even cousins inheriting his crown. Sadly he died a pretender, at a wedding on his way home to try and win the North back. - unless you meant Robb, my response had to do with this.

I guess I have to concede: all the Kings in Westeros are pretenders to someone. Stannis is the King that has the legitimacy by blood and by Law, his problem is that he needs to prove his claims and secure the iron throne as he claims the realm of Westeros. he doesn't control Westeros so, he is only a pretender as an usurper is on his throne. like I said it is a matter of perspective. to those that control the  iron throne because Cercie's children are Baratheons in Name. they are Baratheons not Waters. pretender is a claimant. robb did not claim the iron throne, he is an usurper to Stannis, not a pretender as he isn't contesting his claim to the iron chair.  however, Balon contests his control of the North and then it makes Robb and Balon mutually pretenders ie claimants to the North. 

You are missing the point. Bran and Rickon are Princes. with out Robb's will, Bran is his heir if he were to surface. He is a Prince and would be recognized as such until he surrenders that title, same for Rickon and Arya. - and Yes they really were. they were referred to as such. they may be considered usurpers or pretenders  when they surface despite their legitimacy.

just because it didn't happen in ADWD doesn't mean it wont happen in the next book. 

9 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

No, but he does not need a certain amount of legitimacy that he never received. For instance no foreign power ever recognized him as a monarch. That is pretty important when seperating Kings from Pretenders/War lords.

Well, no. For a multitude of reasons.

  1. No 'Lannisters' are calling themselves Kings
  2. You may be thinking of Robert's bastards, who are officially Baratheons but really Waters.
  3. They are not Pretenders. They have been recognized by the High Septon, sanctioned by the Small Council and the majority of the Lords of the land, including Riverlords and Northern lords, recognize them as such, even if begrudgingly so
  4. They are also recognized by foreign realms as the rightful realm

 

Robert's acknowledged heirs are currently the legal rulers of the realm. That may well be overwritten should Stannis become King, and they be written off as pretenders, but currently they are it.

She does. And if she ever becomes a monarch she may enforce that, that the previous couple of decades under Baratheons be considered false.

They may well do. At no point have I claimed they will not break their current oaths. But they will be making new oaths when they do.

You seem really hung up on Robb, his previous vassals have moved on. His 'reign' was less than a year. Many of these Lords are not going to be as devoted to him as the fans of the series are.

And those new oaths will be to a new King. They have chosen to ignore Robb's will, crowning a successor to Robb. His 'kingdom' died with him.

the North is a separate region than the riverlands. the riverlands declaring for Robb is foreign legitimacy. again the lords and vassals fighting for him and under him are giving him legitimacy. in the case of civil war it is the vassal houses that determine legitimacy. 

1. I could argue Queen Cercie is the Lannister doing so. her regency and legitimacy is based of her  bastards calling themselves kings. 

2. no they are Baratheons- not true Baratheons mind you and definitely not waters. they are not recognized bastards, despite being bastards.

3.&4.  I think that is the problem. the realm was never fully unified. seriously think on it. how can you have 7 kingdoms with one King? Stannis has got it right: King of Westeros, not King of 7. they remain divided in culture  and in how they operated.  Legitimacy comes in many forms. as I stated above somewhere. you seem to think that for one to have legitimacy they must sit the iron throne and only that. as the regional differences separate faiths, Robb's didn't need to be blessed by the high septon, that isn't a prerequisite. Stannis is himself godless but some of his followers support a different religion altogether so no need for the high septon there either.  does every kingdom need a small council like in Kingslanding? nope has no bearing on legitimacy anyway. 

we agree. Cerci's bastards are it. but their rights are contested by those that fight them. 

Danny could.

Not hung  up on Robb in particular. this thread is about whether anyone would support his will. Robbs vassals would be the primary upholders of his will if they choose to follow it. that is my position. so what if his reign was less than a year. Jene Grey was queen for like a week and a half. Love Robb. Love Stannis more. Robb's vassals elected war. they will want it again especially after the red wedding. 

Robb's will hasn't surfaced yet. they did not ignore it. as for his kingdom dying, that depends on the will. 

 

Edited by Thunder Bunny-3000
unfinished thought

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the whole pretender thing, it could be argued that Stannis is indeed a pretender, because he's claiming to be the King of the Seven Kingdoms while most of those haven't actually acknowledged him/answer to someone else. However, Robb only ever claimed to be King of the North and the Trident. And both of those regions/countries had acknowledged him as their leader, meaning he actually did rule the lands he was king of, he wasn't pretending at anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/12/2020 at 7:08 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.

Sansa's disinheritance means nothing because Harry Hardyng is likely named Robb's heir in the will. He is the most senior male in the line of Jocelyn Stark.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, dsjj251 said:

Sansa's disinheritance means nothing because Harry Hardyng is likely named Robb's heir in the will.

You and I have hugely different understanding of the word 'likely'

2 hours ago, dsjj251 said:

 

He is the most senior male in the line of Jocelyn Stark.

Is he really? How do you figure that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

You and I have hugely different understanding of the word 'likely'

Is he really? How do you figure that?

Jocelyn Stark's eldest daughter with Lord Royce marries Lord Waynwood and the house descends through their children.  Since this was less than 100 years ago, we can assume the timeline since Lady Waynwood is described as old herself. The Wiki also has estimated birth years. 

This would make Harry the most senior male of the line outside of Anya's own sons. 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, dsjj251 said:

Jocelyn Stark's eldest daughter with Lord Royce marries Lord Waynwood and the house descends through their children.  Since this was less than 100 years ago, we can assume the timeline since Lady Waynwood is described as old herself. The Wiki also has estimated birth years. 

This would make Harry the most senior male of the line outside of Anya's own sons. 
 

What it doesn’t make though is that Robb would likely name Harry his heir. 

Share this post


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

What it doesn’t make though is that Robb would likely name Harry his heir. 

You have a right to your opinion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, dsjj251 said:

Jocelyn Stark's eldest daughter with Lord Royce marries Lord Waynwood

That is pure speculation, but even if that was true it would make Lady Anya and her children the heirs, not Harry.

Quote

 

and the house descends through their children.  Since this was less than 100 years ago, we can assume the timeline since Lady Waynwood is described as old herself.

It is because of the timeline that this does not make sense. Lady Anya has a grandson who is a knight. She is pretty old. We also know that the next Dunc and Egg book takes place in Winterfell (around the year 213/214) and that the book deals with the recent death of Lord Beron Stark and his underage children. His heir Donnor, and younger brother Willam (Jocelyn's father) were not old enough to rule.

Willam and Walder Frey are pretty close in age, though Walder likely around 5 years younger

  • Walder  / Willam
  • Stevron / Jocelyn
  • Ryman / Jocelyn's daughters who married Waynwood
  • Edwyn / Anya
  • 9 year old Walda / Morton
  • Blank / The adult Roland
  • Blank / Roland is old enough to have his own children

The timeline just does not match up.

Furthermore the idea that the Heir of House Waynwood would marry the daughter of a landed knight of House Royce and his brother would marry the only daughter of Lord Arryn makes little sense

Quote

 

The Wiki also has estimated birth years. 

Sure. Want to provide them?

Quote

This would make Harry the most senior male of the line outside of Anya's own sons. 
 

So even in this unlikely scenario of Robb naing the oldest male of Jocelyn's branch it would still not be Harry. He'd still be behind the sons, daughters and grandchildren (maybe even great-grandchildren) of Lady Anya.

Edited by Bernie Mac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

 

So even in this unlikely scenario of Robb naing the oldest male of Jocelyn's branch it would still not be Harry. He'd still be behind the sons, daughters and grandchildren (maybe even great-grandchildren) of Lady Anya.

This.  

Elys Waynwood married Alys Arryn...  But Elys had an brother, Anya's father.

Edited by Isobel Harper
Wrong last names

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...