[ADWD spoilers]Galbart, Maege, and Robb's letter

[annonymouse]

I don't know about Benjen Stark

[FanTasy]

There's a little something that has been missed here...

...

The assumption then is that if Jon is first legitimised and then released from his vows, he will be the heir.

What that ignores is the fact that Benjen Stark is still out there too and as Eddard's true-born brother has a better claim to Winterfell than either Sansa (female) or Jon (bastard).

Wouldn't Benjen have to unsay his words to have a claim? Joining the Night Watch and saying the words means that you give up your family, including all the rights, and you join a new family. And the words cannot be unsaid, your watch ends with your death. Or is there a catch somewhere?

[PatrickStormborn]

Robb's will is of little importance to the Lannisters. They beat Robb, and now Winterfell and the title of Warden of the North belongs to the Boltons (through "Arya"). Even if some Northern houses still choose to accept the will, it's completely irrelevant, as it was made when Robb believed Bran, Rickon and Arya to be dead, and he only did it to prevent the Lannisters from getting Winterfell and the North.

I personally think the North will be more inclined to rally behind Stannis and Manderly with Rickon and Shaggydog, after they beat the Boltons. The Undying visions would suggest that Stannis is still an important player when Dany finally arrives, so he'll most likely unite the North. And regardless, Jon has just been assassinated by the Night's Watch, so I don't think he's just going to recover straight away and then become King in the North.

[Black Crow]

Wouldn't Benjen have to unsay his words to have a claim? Joining the Night Watch and saying the words means that you give up your family, including all the rights, and you join a new family. And the words cannot be unsaid, your watch ends with your death. Or is there a catch somewhere?

Yes, but exactly the same relates to Jon. For either of them to claim Winterfell, they have to renounce their vows. Jon has already refused Stannis' offer of absoloution so any legitimisation by (dead) Robb is meaningless. As both Bran and Rickon are currently listed as dead, then Benjen, not Jon, is the heir - providing of course he turns up and renounces his vows.

[Tini]

Provided he is allowed to renounce his vows. He'd still need the Night's Watch's permission to do so.

[tjm335]

I like this topic. An important factor which we've overlooked here is Mel's comment to Stannis back on Dragonstone. I dont have a copy of the book handy, but when they realize the kings blood/leech thing kills all three of the remaining "false kings" Mels says that others will rize up to take their place. In the Iron Islands, Euron has replaced Balon. in Kings Landing, Tommen replaced Joffrey. Robb is the only king whose kingdom is without an active replacement. Thusly, I predicted that if Jon isnt yet dead (or is revived in some fashion) he will become that replacement.

[Lord Damian]

Legitimate children inherit before uncles so Benjen is behind all of Ned's kids. He is ahead of Jon only if he is legitimized.

[Black Crow]

Yes but the point is that at the time of writing what we assume to be the will, Sansa was believed to be the only surviving legitimate issue of Ned's body, other than Robb himself.

With Bran, Rickon and Arya thought to be dead. The legitimate heirs were Benjen and Sansa and as Sansa is a girl, Benjen comes before her.

Its all pretty academic insofar as we the readers know that Bran and Rickon are still alive, and thus ahead of Sansa and Arya, so Benjen, if still alive, need not come into it, but Robb didn't know that.

Just to complicate things further of course, we all pretty universally reckon that Jon isn't actually Ned's son at all so any legitimisation isn't worth the parchment its written on - and Howland Reed at least knows that.

[tze]

Yes but the point is that at the time of writing what we assume to be the will, Sansa was believed to be the only surviving legitimate issue of Ned's body, other than Robb himself.

With Bran, Rickon and Arya thought to be dead. The legitimate heirs were Benjen and Sansa and as Sansa is a girl, Benjen comes before her.

Its all pretty academic insofar as we the readers know that Bran and Rickon are still alive, and thus ahead of Sansa and Arya, so Benjen, if still alive, need not come into it, but Robb didn't know that.

Just to complicate things further of course, we all pretty universally reckon that Jon isn't actually Ned's son at all so any legitimisation isn't worth the parchment its written on - and Howland Reed at least knows that.

Sons and daughters come before brothers in the North, so Sansa would always have been before Benjen.

If Jon is Lyanna's son, then legitimization could very well still hold true. Bastards of noble mothers can take their mother's name. If they couldn't, the Stark line would have died out with Brandon the Daughterless, since Brandon's grandson would be ineligible to take the Stark name because his father was Bael, not a Stark.

An important factor which we've overlooked here is Mel's comment to Stannis back on Dragonstone. I dont have a copy of the book handy, but when they realize the kings blood/leech thing kills all three of the remaining "false kings" Mels says that others will rize up to take their place. In the Iron Islands, Euron has replaced Balon. in Kings Landing, Tommen replaced Joffrey. Robb is the only king whose kingdom is without an active replacement. Thusly, I predicted that if Jon isnt yet dead (or is revived in some fashion) he will become that replacement.

This is an excellent point.

Jon does have a habit of switching roles with authority figures. He was taking orders from Janos Slynt (and Alliser Thorne) during ASOS (they sent him as an emissary to Mance's camp), but then he was the one giving them orders in ADWD. Jon was subordinate to Mance north of the Wall, Mance (as Rattleshirt) is subordinate to Jon south of the Wall. Until now, Stannis has been the powerful King, with everybody seeing Jon as less powerful than Stannis. Having Jon become the most powerful man in the North, with Stannis now at his mercy, would be a role reversal that's in keeping with that pattern.

[Hellebore]

A few points, some of which have already been made:

4. Another main intent of this letter was to protect Winterfell from Tyrion using Sansa's claim to become Lord. This could throw a monkey wrench into LF's plan now to marry Sansa off as the lone surviving Stark to Harry the Heir or someone else-- Jon now trumps her claim to Winterfell. This might be the most significant implication of the Will

5. Howland is sheltering the couriers of the Will. Howland might try to suppress it, knowing it's based on a false premise (Jon being the bastard of Ned), and actually be the catalyst for him to reveal Jon's true lineage

The implications are actually many fold, it could make things really interesting once it surfaces.

I think points 4 & 5 are really interesting, monkeywrench in LF's plans sounds good to me!! and I think that the Maege and/or Galbert and the Will is going to be used to bring Howland Reed into the storyline.. what better way to bring him in and show a need for him to speak up..

I'm torn as to what (if any) role Jon will play in the NW .. I think that Yeade makes a great point here..

Man, all these threads about Jon are beginning to confuse me. I'll try not to repeat myself overmuch. ^_^

First, I wouldn't assume Jon's finished with the Night's Watch just yet. That depends on how the fallout of the attempted assassination goes. Bowen Marsh and his co-conspirators--whose numbers and identities beyond the four would-be killers are unknown as of now--may not survive the melee developing in the courtyard of Castle Black, for one. In addition, while most believe Jon lives by warging temporarily into Ghost, then back (with Bran's help?) to his own healed body, how long Jon's down for the count and the manner of his revival can impact events at the Wall. Hell, the wildlings might even be in control when Jon wakes.

In short, I can imagine quite a few scenarios wherein the NW changes enough for Jon to remain Lord Commander.

But I think that Jon will remain at the Wall for a while yet.. and will have a big role to play in defending the realm (because there may or may not be a Wall when the Others attack) from the Others.

So in short I think the Will brings in Howland Reed and is important for Jon to read that Robb would have legitimized him and made him hier, for Jon's own personal reasons.. Whether or not the Will is going to make Jon King in the North is yet to be seen or whether he will surpass needing the title of king as TPTWP or AAR is also unclear.. (that sentence sounds like I think Jon is going to be some crazy superhero .. I don't. I think he will contribute greatly in the fight to come.. and has an important role to play that will fufill a prophesy.. but he's not going "super saiyan" anytime soon .. at least I'm not expecting it.. lol ) ;)

[bemused]

Assuming Jon survives ( and I do ), and assuming he can retain his command ( which I think is not completely unlikely ) , one of the best results of that will be that he won't have to leave Marsh in command , if he goes to take on Ramsey. ;)

As to the will..even if Jon doesn't become KitN, or LoW , any of Ned's other surviving children would need some serious tutoring / guidance before they'd be ready to rule..a job that would be best undertaken by Jon or Benjen .

[The Sleeper]

What that ignores is the fact that Benjen Stark is still out there too and as Eddard's true-born brother has a better claim to Winterfell than either Sansa (female) or Jon (bastard).

The line of succesion is Jon (if legitimized), Brandon, Rickon, Sansa, Arya, Benjen and Jon (if legitimate and known to be Lyanna's son rather than Ned's).

Assuming the document legitimizes Jon and names him heir is not going to make Manderly happy as he plans to rule the North by proxy.

[captainkibble]

I thought it work like so:

As Lord of Winterfell Robb can declare whomever he wishes as a true-born Stark. Doesn't matter if they are a bastard relative or a random person off the street. Hence why Cat considered it dangerous. They then slot into the succession for the Lordship wherever their age sets them. They are not 'legitimized' as such, it simply becomes that they were always a Stark. In the case of Jon would never have been a bastard and that would make him next in line, if he were not in the Night's Watch. But because he is also acting as King of the North he also makes Jon next in line to the throne and gives him the power to excuse Jon his vows to the Night's Watch. Kings act as the highest authority and only they can enforce punishment for deserting the Night's Watch and therefore, logically, they can let someone out of there vows.

So if the will becomes public knowledge then at the least Jon becomes Jon Stark but if Robb's supporters still have enough power to force the King in the North then Jon (if he wishes) also becomes King and released from his vows.

I may well be wrong but that is what I got from it. Though we have to remember we are working with fictional laws here so this whole discussion maybe moot as the author can do as he wills.

[edited because of early submit]

[Buried Treasure]

I thought it work like so:

As Lord of Winterfell Robb can declare whomever he wishes as a true-born Stark. Doesn't matter if they are a bastard relative or a random person off the street. Hence why Cat considered it dangerous. They then slot into the succession for the Lordship wherever their age sets them. They are not 'legitimized' as such, it simply becomes that they were always a Stark. In the case of Jon would never have been a bastard and that would make him next in line, if he were not in the Night's Watch.

A random off the street doesn't work, because it won't be accepted by the other powerful lords, who are all proud of their own heritages. There has to be a link, however tenous, to be able to say 'this person gets to be set above all of you'. So for instance if Robb has named one of his distant Vale cousins, the Great Lords of the North would have bristled, because that heir would be a Southron, and of a smaller house, and poorer than them all - but they would have been able to swallow it down, because at least he has the Stark blood. The same princible goes for Jon (ignoring for the moment he is of the NW), he will always be a bastard in the eyes of the North, but he has the Stark blood.

I think it is important not to underestimate peoples perceptions and prejudices. In theory the taint of bastardy can be wiped away with a pen, in practice it takes generations to wash that stain out.

Going back to Bael the Bard story, I think what is interesting is not that at some point a daughters bastard inherited, but that Jon never heard that story at Winterfell. Because if you are going to boast about 8000 of unbroken succession, you don't teach your kids songs about the time the succession was broken. In a choice between between true-born Rickon and legitimised Jon (whom everybody still thinks of as a bastard) then the strongest choice for House Stark is Rickon, because it would take 2 or 3 generations before it is forgotten that Jon wasn't a real Stark.

[Jane Doe]

I have a question. How come Roose Bolton signed on Robb's will as well? Wasn't he supposed to be marching from Harrenhal to the Twins? If he was in the know, it could be him who sent the letter to Jon, trying to lure him to his death and strengthen the Bolton's claim to the North (now that they lost the fake Arya). But if he didn't know...

Going back to Bael the Bard story, I think what is interesting is not that at some point a daughters bastard inherited, but that Jon never heard that story at Winterfell. Because if you are going to boast about 8000 of unbroken succession, you don't teach your kids songs about the time the succession was broken. In a choice between between true-born Rickon and legitimised Jon (whom everybody still thinks of as a bastard) then the strongest choice for House Stark is Rickon, because it would take 2 or 3 generations before it is forgotten that Jon wasn't a real Stark.

Agreed. That's why I thought even if the Manderlys knew of the Will, they would still set out to find Rickon. The risk is minimal, since it's Davos and a few people out there. If they succeeded, they would have a trueborn son, not a member of the Night Watch.

[Hellebore]

Kings act as the highest authority and only they can enforce punishment for deserting the Night's Watch and therefore, logically, they can let someone out of there vows.

Ned Stark beheaded Gared (the NW deserter) in the first Bran chapter in AGoT in the name of King Robert Baratheon, by the Words of Eddard Stark.. so others can enforce punishment for deserting the Night's Watch, and maybe as King Robb could let him out of his vows but even Rob wasn't certain, since he stated that he thought the NW would trade 1 man (Jon) for 100 men.. (showing he couldn't set aside Jon's vow by decree alone) .. and even if Jon's vow was considered set aside by Robb's decree any lord serving another King (Tommen or Stannis, hell even Euron) could behead Jon in that King's name as a deserter... It's a tricky situation.. I think something other than the Will is going to release Jon from his vow.. like the fact that his brother's tried to kill him, so Marsh wants him out.. if he doesn't decide to stay after waking up and realizing Tormund and the NW killed Marsh and the other conspirators..lol .. without knowing where the storey will pick up from in TWoW it's hard to say what will happen with Jon other than the will brings Howland Reed into action.. and Jon's not dead &/or not staying dead (I vote for not dead).

[Drunkenspeton]

Jon's vows count as long as there is a nw and wall to defend. Who's to say either will exist at some stage?

If Rickon reappears its moot anyway. Trueborn sons come before bastards letter or no letter.

[FanTasy]

<If Rickon reappears its moot anyway. Trueborn sons come before bastards letter or no letter.>

If Jon is made legitimate by the will - and the will holds - then Jon is made trueborn and his claim comes before Rickon's.

[tze]

<If Rickon reappears its moot anyway. Trueborn sons come before bastards letter or no letter.>

If Jon is made legitimate by the will - and the will holds - then Jon is made trueborn and his claim comes before Rickon's.

There's an interesting SSM here that deals a bit with this: http://www.westeros.org/Citadel/SSM/Entry/The_Hornwood_Inheritance_and_the_Whents/

A relevant passage:

What if there are no children, only grandchildren and great grandchildren. Is precedence or proximity the more important principle? Do bastards have any rights? What about bastards who have been legitimized, do they go in at the end after the trueborn kids, or according to birth order? What about widows? And what about the will of the deceased? Can a lord disinherit one son, and name a younger son as heir? Or even a bastard?

There are no clear cut answers, either in Westeros or in real medieval history. Things were often decided on a case by case basis. A case might set a precedent for later cases... but as often as not, the precedents conflicted as much as the claims.

I don't think it's entirely clear-cut who would be ahead in the line of succession, Jon or Rickon.

[Drunkenspeton]

Robbs letter was made on the premise Bran and Rickon are dead and to prevent Tyrion ascending through Sansa.

Rickon alive invalidates that decree. Nor would Jon try to claim winterfell under those circumstances. Stannis offer was the same as Robbs letter, he'd turn it down especially so if Rickon turns up, which he presumably will.