Robb's Will Doesn't Really Matter

[Jory]

As for the wildlings, consider that by bringing them to the south side of the Wall, Jon has in effect made them his subjects. He provides Tormund's people with food and shelter. In return, they agree to fight for him and obey his commands. Is this not the relationship between a lord and his vassals? Furthermore, as a king, you can hardly expect to please all your subjects, all the time.

Oh, Jon did that, did he? :rolleyes:

[Yeade]

Jory, to be frank, I've pretty much burned out when it comes to discussion of the whole Bowen Marsh assassination fiasco. So, instead, I'll link you to one of my better summaries of my opinions on the topic, and you can do with it what you will.←

In regard to the wildlings, the free folk don't have the same conceptions of fealty as the Westerosi do, true, but note that the wildling chiefs lay tributes at Jon's feet, one by one swearing themselves to Jon, when they cross the Wall. Jon respects them, trusts them to honor their word, and grants them castles as seats. Later, when Jon makes his speech in the Shieldhall, though the wildlings know little of Ramsay Bolton or the political implications of his letter, they're willing and eager to follow Jon south, possibly to their deaths.

Basically, Jon Snow's king of the wildlings in Mance Rayder's absence. In fact, Halleck, brother of Harma Dogshead, even compares Jon to Mance earlier when Jon's appealing to the wildlings in Mole's Town for volunteers to defend the Wall. Albeit in how he doesn't like either man, lol, though the implication's that he'd allow himself to be led by both.

On an unrelated note, it's nice to write a short reply for once. -_-

[Buried Treasure]

The North's essentially Russia, yes?

In invasion terms, yes

So, I propose that the North make like Stalin during WWII and claim a stretch of land that can serve as breathing space should the southern kingdoms go hostile. I think Robb's mistake, besides his obvious political missteps with Theon and the Freys, is that he attempts to sweep the riverlands clean of Lannisters without support from the Vale or a freshwater navy....

It's unfair to say he made a mistake by not using resources he did not have. And he did try to get those resources by sending letters to mad Lysa and commanding Manderly to build ships. I tend to think what went wrong in the Riverlands is that Roose Bolton was operating on what would benefit him rather than thinking 'these lands belong to men sworn to my liege lord, I should protect them'.

... If the former's corrected by folding the Vale into the greater northern dominion...

The Vale might have something to say about this, they are a kingdom as old and proud as the North. The current lords of the Vale were itching to fight for / with Robb, but that does not mean the region will easily slot into a new political arrangement just because it suits the North.

....and the latter by granting the ironborn the lands stripped from the Freys with a mandate to patrol the waterways of the region, reaving as necessary, the riverlands can be made a deathtrap on par with the Neck, IMO. Any enemy army advancing across the riverlands can potentially be bogged down as long as men and arms continue to funnel into the defenses from the Vale and Iron Islands. Even if the riverlands are occupied, no attacker can leave the Vale unconquered, and the formidable obstacles of the Neck remain to be faced. Warring with the North suddenly becomes an exorbitantly costly prospect....

Horrific idea - aren't the Iron Islanders the enemy too? I know that may change if Asha / Theon end up ruling but the two cultures are not natural allies. For starters, during the long years when no-one is making war on the Northern kingdom the Ironborn reivers are still going to reive, and they might easily turn upon the holdfasts of the stony shore as easy pickings.

...While it's true Winterfell, Riverrun, and the Eyrie are widely separated, I believe it's possible for the three regions to grow economically dependent on one another. The North will never be fertile enough to venture beyond subsistence farming but may prosper by developing its other natural resources (lumber, mining, etc.) and shipping fleet. Supposing the North shifts away from agriculture, the Vale and riverlands could find it more lucrative to sell surplus crops to the neighboring northerners instead of carting produce south, where the populations of less arable lands like Casterly Rock or Storm's End can live on the bounty of Highgarden...

I agree that the regions can grow economically closer (but they should not be dependent as that carries risk). The North can't move away from the subsistence agriculture it does though - this is a low cash economy and shipping basic foods around the continenent is less simple than growing your own.

Of all the characters, I'd say Jon's most likely to come up such a scheme. He views geography with the eye of a competent military strategist, but his musings on the NW's sorry supply situation--most notably a strikingly modern plan for black brothers to take vocational training from Myrish glassblowers--suggest to me a mind capable of creative large scale economic planning. In my dream ending to ASOIAF, lol, Jon and Sansa, ruling from the Iron Throne and the Vale, respectively, collaborate on improving the North's infrastructure and expanding trade with bordering regions as well as across the Narrow Sea.

I sort of agree, except limited to planning for the next decade or so of famine. One line that really caught my eye during dance was Jon's thought about whether Lady Lysa would sell to the NW. I thought no, but Sansa would. I think a major plot point for the Vale in TWOW is that it is going to be the breadbasket of Westeros. There will be a big question of which regions they will choose to send surplus food to and I think Sansa influence will lead to the North getting aid rather than the richer regions in the South.

Okay, I believe I see the point on which the two of us disagree. My definition of the King in the North is basically the man who makes the final decisions in any matters pertaining to the North or the people there and whose judgments, whatever these may be, are honored by the northern lords because they've taken oaths of fealty to the man. I don't understand how being focused on the war against the Others disqualifies Jon from being de facto King in the North as I imagine Robb would've done exactly the same had he been aware of the impending ice zombie apocalypse. A legendary supernatural threat that can potentially end the world is just one of those issues you drop everything else to address, lol.

In normal circumstances (strong Stark in Winterfell) the KitN would have been the supreme military commander, with the LC of the NW working closely with him. Robb would have been, and historic examples in the book indicate the same.

I'm drawing a distinction between the kingdom of the North as a political entity (the Northmen), and the geographical region of the North - which currently contains other groups; Stannis' Southerners, NW, Free Folk. Each of those groups have their own leader; just as the Northmen will be lead either by a regent or Lord acting as General of the Northern armies. I don't foresee a neat hierarchial pyramid with Jon at the top, more likely he will be acting as mediator between groups (perhaps continuing as LC - where do you stand on that?) and as the guy with the strategic vision.

As for the wildlings, consider that by bringing them to the south side of the Wall, Jon has in effect made them his subjects. He provides Tormund's people with food and shelter. In return, they agree to fight for him and obey his commands. Is this not the relationship between a lord and his vassals? Furthermore, as a king, you can hardly expect to please all your subjects, all the time....

A few individual wildling swore to Jon before crossing the Wall. The deal he made with Tormund was a treaty and will expire when winter is over. That's not fealty as I know it.

...A regular part of the King in the North's duties must necessarily involve settling disputes between his bannermen. If Jon chooses to side with the wildlings over the northmen, that's his prerogative. It's not smart, of course. Nor is this what Jon does when he convinces Flint and Norrey to accept the presence of the wildlings for now. What's more, not only is Jon likely to order the combined military forces of the North in battle, but he's probably the one who'll treat with foreign dignitaries like Dany, vested with the power to negotiate and agree to binding treaties on behalf of the North.

Really, the only elements missing are the northmen's oaths of fealty. My theory's that those are sworn to Rickon, who also holds the titles and whose children will inherit the kingdom....

This is back to 'I agree with the job description you are describing, but think de facto King in the North is a misleading term to use.

.... Yet Jon's acting King in the North if he performs the duties Rickon will be seeing to when he's older, IMO. Jon's simply not officially acknowledged as such. That is, no one's calling him "sire" or "your grace" despite following his lead as if they were.

Rickon's regent (or perhaps a council of Northern Lords) will be performing those duties. There are decision to be made that have no bearing on the War against the Other's; 'Do we accept our borders are the Neck or try to keep the Riverlands', 'Which cousin inherits for the Cerwyns', 'who gets the Hornwood land.' Jon will probably be able to offer clever suggestions - he's good at that. But he will not have the final authority to make these decisions.

[Yeade]

It's unfair to say [Robb] made a mistake by not using resources he did not have.

You misunderstand me. As soon as he realizes Lysa will remain neutral in his war with the Lannisters, Robb ought to have reassessed his strategy, IMO, either gone on the offensive or fallen back to a more defensible position instead of continuing to engage enemy forces across the riverlands. I don't believe that sort of holding action is sustainable given the open geography of the region without support from the Vale or control of the waterways. Withdrawing would've put Robb in an awkward political fix with the riverlords, so a campaign to threaten Casterly Rock? I haven't given the matter that much thought, lol.

The current lords of the Vale were itching to fight for / with Robb, but that does not mean the region will easily slot into a new political arrangement just because it suits the North.

Keep in mind that this is my dream conclusion to ASOIAF, lol. In that hypothetical Westeros, Littlefinger's schemes meet with enough success to marry Sansa to Harry the Heir, who thereafter suffers an unfortunate accident by FrankenGregor, the Others, or whatever. Sansa rules the Vale, Lady of the Eyrie as is her aunt before her, and the Vale enjoys a semi-autonomous status within the greater northern dominion similar to the princedom of Dorne's relation to the Iron Throne. Strong blood ties to the Starks of Winterfell bond the Vale securely to the North but, with easy sea access to King's Landing, the Vale maintains a diplomatic presence in southron courts. I want to see Sansa happy in her family life and have an arena to ply her hard-earned political skills in, okay?

Likewise, I'm assuming Euron and Victarion do each other in across the Narrow Sea while Theon dies or takes the black, leaving the Seastone Chair to Asha, who is successful in her efforts to reform the culture of the ironborn. The Greyjoys may have to amend their house words, lol, and settle for commerce raiding in the south or Essos. Alternately, the ironborn effectively become the western arm of the North's naval forces with the Manderlys in the east. Supposing the North develops its shipping trade, there might be a need for escorts and, well, customs officials. Try to picture the ironborn as a pirate version of the Coast Guard! :laugh:

The North can't move away from the subsistence agriculture it does though - this is a low cash economy and shipping basic foods around the continent is less simple than growing your own.

No reason why the North's current economy can't change given better infrastructure and increased trade with Essos. Supplying lumber to places like Braavos can perhaps begin the process by infusing the economy with liquid cash assets that can in turn be used to purchase foodstuffs from the Vale and riverlands, freeing up manpower and other resources in the North that would've gone into subsistence farming for commercial shipping, fishing, mining, fur trapping, etc. Think the British New England colonies in America.

I think a major plot point for the Vale in TWOW is that it is going to be the breadbasket of Westeros.

While I agree the Vale's harvest will be important as the story concludes, I rather think the population of the North will come to the Vale instead of the Vale's surplus crops heading north. I figure Jon and whatever forces he commands fight a rearguard action against the Others, complete with scorched earth tactics, while civilian refugees flee south. Besides a potential secondary line of defense at Winterfell, which may have magical wards like the Wall as both are the work of Brandon the Builder, the Neck is the next natural location to make a stand. Depending on how the Vale subplots develop, Jon can pick up another army there and have food at hand to feed his starving masses.

I don't foresee a neat hierarchical pyramid with Jon at the top; more likely he will be acting as mediator between groups (perhaps continuing as LC - where do you stand on that?) and as the guy with the strategic vision.

I favor Jon staying Lord Commander of the Night's Watch for meta reasons. Assuming R+L=J, when Jon meets Dany, about the only consideration I feel can stop him from summarily accepting any offer to marry her, thus gaining access to her dragons and armies, is his damnable sense of honor.

While I agree that, were Robb alive, Jon and he would simply work closely with one another in coordinating actions against the Others, Robb's dead and, of his trueborn siblings, there's not a one with any military experience whatsoever and only Sansa has a talent for politics. The northmen do not have a clear leader at this point, IMO. Stannis is a convenient tool to rid themselves of the Boltons and be discarded when he's served his purpose so, preferably, a Stark can be raised to power. Who else besides Jon is both of Stark blood and qualified to lead the northmen in the coming winter without the danger of interhouse squabbles arising?

The free folk are in a similar fix, IMO. Mance Rayder's believed to be dead, and they've been forced by the threat of extinction to bow to kneelers like Stannis and Jon for safe passage across the Wall. The wildlings certainly aren't loyal to Stannis, but they willingly follow Jon, who treats them with the cautious respect due to them as men. It's not just any individual wildlings who swear to Jon but clan chiefs, i.e. the King Beyond the Wall's former bannermen. No wildling would ever take a traditional oath of fealty to Jon and his descendants in perpetuity; that's not the way of the free folk. Their king is the man they obey for as long as he deserves their obedience by being bold in war and peace. At this moment, that man is Jon.

So, of the factions currently occupying the North, it seems to me Jon's likely to end up in charge of three (NW, northmen, wildlings) out of four. Continuing my speculations, Jon acts as mediator between these three groups not because he has an anomalous advisory role separate from the hierarchical structures of all but because he's in fact the man at the top of each of these chains of command. This setup is temporary and, in the case of the northmen, unofficial but no less powerful or effective in Jon getting done what he wants done.

There are decisions to be made that have no bearing on the war against the Others...

And so long as the Others are skulking about, raising the dead to kill people, none of those decisions about who inherits what or the kingdom's exact borders or prisoner exchanges are pressing enough to warrant the attention of the King in the North, IMO. Rather, I expect Jon to tell everybody to shelve that stuff for later (if there is a later), broker any deals that must be made to straighten out the North's military affairs, appoint generals to various commands, and draw up a selection of war plans.

Your conception of the King in the North's duties strike me as retrospective in that they're based on what said king would be occupied with had the North not been at imminent risk of an invasion by ICE ZOMBIES. Though, to be sure, I see Jon and Dany redrawing the political map of Westeros between them when they finally meet. Anything more detailed than settling the disputed seats and lands of major houses can be left to Rickon with Sansa as his adviser once the North's habitable again.

ETA:

It should be noted that I don't think Jon's styling himself king of the wildlings on purpose, though I suspect he'll be much more aware of his political influence by the time the northern succession is determined. Jon's a pragmatist above all. However, by pursuing the practical course of integrating the wildlings into the Wall's defenses, he binds and will probably continue to bind the free folk to him. Suppose he marches south with an army of wildlings and bloods them in combat against Ramsay. Or brings the Weeper to heel or attempts to rescue the wildlings stranded at Hardhome, perhaps even doing so. These are the actions of a king in the eyes of the wildlings, and I believe they'd treat him as such. In which case, Mance Rayder and he are due for another fight, lol.

Ultimately, the question with Jon is what makes a man a king? Jon won't have a crown, a queen, a court, or even a title aside from the one ("Lord Snow") he's carried since the end of ASOS. What he does or will have, in spades, is power. Quite possibly absolute authority over the men and women he commands, IMO. Is this not the essence of kingship?

[Euphail]

I think a lot of people are missing the potential the Will can play, and being sucked too much into what Robb intended to do with the Will vs what the Will might actually result in.

In my opinion, Robb intended to make Jon a legitimate son of his father. In Robb's eyes, this would have made him next in line to become Lord of Winterfell and King of the North. He does this because he believes Bran and Rickon are both death, and Sansa is married to a Lannister.

The importance though is on the wording of how he proclaims Jon to be legitimate and who Jon's parents really are. If the R+L = J theory is true, which I think there is ample evidence to support, and the wording of the Will was somewhat ambiguous – ie something like "I Robb, KOTN, here do proclaim Jon Snow to be natural born and true son of his father, and to inherit all rights and responsibilities incumbent to that status of birth," yata yata, etc etc. In Robb's mind the intent is clear, Jon's succession as a Stark is clear, and there will be a Stark in Winterfell.

However, the true implication of more ambiguous language is that, once Howland Reed reads Robb's Will, the North will support a Targarian for the Iron Throne.

[Lord Damian]

The will can ligitimize Jon, if it does and that cannot be undone. The crown of the North and Riverlands/Winter passes to Robb's natural born heir, if there is one (Queen Jeyne/Jeyne Westerling anyone..) then to Bran, Rickon and then it is tricky, Jon being a legitimzed bastard may have claim over natural born daughters Sansa and Arya. Which we suspect is the reason for the will, in order to prevent Sansa and Tyrion Lannister and more importantly, Tywin from obtaining legitimate claim to Winterfell. Jon has no claim to the Riverlands, but Sansa and Arya do.

[Buried Treasure]

The importance though is on the wording of how he proclaims Jon to be legitimate and who Jon's parents really are. If the R+L = J theory is true, which I think there is ample evidence to support, and the wording of the Will was somewhat ambiguous – ie something like "I Robb, KOTN, here do proclaim Jon Snow to be natural born and true son of his father, and to inherit all rights and responsibilities incumbent to that status of birth," yata yata, etc etc. In Robb's mind the intent is clear, Jon's succession as a Stark is clear, and there will be a Stark in Winterfell.

However, the true implication of more ambiguous language is that, once Howland Reed reads Robb's Will, the North will support a Targarian for the Iron Throne.

1) I imagine the exact wording is irrelevant as the original document is very likely mouldering in a corner of the Twins along with the rest of Robb's posession. There is perhaps a possiblility that Mallister took a copy back to Seagard but I believe he surrended to a Frey army and he probably would have burnt any documents first. Mormont and Glover are unlikey to have been carrying any version of the will as Robb had already told them all papers they would be carrying would be fakes. They would have read the document before signing but how closely? Enough to recall the major points (name of the heir, Sansa disinherited as married to a Lannister) but surely not closely enough to remember every clause and wording of every line.

2) Robb has no authority to legitimise Jon as a Targaryen. He has authority to legitimise bastards because he is a king but that only holds true in his kingdom. He cannot legitimise somebody into a House that is not part of his kingdom. If Robb did legitimise Jon and R+L=J* then Jon is not legitimate anyway, just as Joffrey & siblings are not legimate because they were not fathered by the man married to their mother.

(* For the record it's not R+L=J I'm doubting, it's Jon being named as heir).

[Yeade]

Euphail, personally, I concur with the theory that the presence of the Kingsguard at the Tower of Joy suggests Jon's legitimate via a marriage between Rhaegar and Lyanna, so the question of whether Robb's will can place Jon in the Targaryen succession through ambiguous wording is sort of moot as he's already rightful heir to the Iron Throne even before Dany.

Furthermore, the exact contents of Robb's will are sure to be revealed before R+L=J, IMO, so Jon's presumed Targaryen heritage has no bearing on how the northmen and riverlords react to him being named King in the North (and of the Trident). Assuming Maege Mormont and Galbart Glover reach Greywater Watch as ordered, Howland Reed knows pretty much everything there is to know about the crowns Jon can claim, lol. I don't believe, however, that Reed would reveal R+L=J to anyone except Jon himself, who can then choose to accept or reject the idea and, if the former, how to proceed.

Most importantly, perhaps, I doubt Jon would take Robb's legitimization of him as King in the North because, by that point, Bran, Rickon, and/or Sansa may have resurfaced and Jon's sure to support his trueborn siblings no matter how touched he is by Robb's validation of him as a son of Eddard Stark worthy of Winterfell. Seems to me R+L=J is in much the same situation as, until he meets Dany, Jon's likely to find a secret that's decades old and puts him in contention for a throne half a continent away utterly useless in dealing with his present difficulties, namely the Others. It's nice to finally know the reasons behind Ned's silence about the circumstances of his birth, of course, but that's about the only positive of R+L=J for Jon. I imagine Jon might feel angry at Ned for lying, making him a bastard and not being his father, letting him swear to the Night's Watch with no real conception of who he is, at Rhaegar and Lyanna for setting into motion the events that have led to this end, one wherein he'll never have the means to know either of his parents, both long dead along with every other player in Robert's Rebellion who could've told him of them, at fate for presenting him with such a ridiculous truth, etc.

But I digress! Jon doesn't have to be legitimized as a Stark for Robb's will to be the political lever by which Jon ends up acting King in the North, IMO. In the absence of another candidate with the requisite skills to lead the North through the ice zombie apocalypse, if Robb's (ex-)bannermen abide by Jon's commands as they do Robb's, Jon's effectively king in my view.

Lord Damian, as I understand it, where legitimized bastards fall in a succession is a finicky matter that really depends on how people perceive the former bastard's qualifications for kingship versus the rest of the contenders. Isn't that the lesson of the Blackfyre rebellions? All legalistic wrangling aside, Daemon wins support by being seen as a worthier heir to the Iron Throne than Daeron.

So far as Jon's case goes, he's clearly better suited to rule the North in the coming winter than Bran, Rickon, or Sansa. Robb's will would simply be an excuse for the northern lords to bypass the other Starks and do what's practical. Only problem's that I don't think Jon's going to let them take this course, leaving everybody in the strange position of following a king who isn't acknowledged as such except in the absolute power he wields, the deference and obedience he receives. King in all but name, indeed.

[Falrinn]

You know, I don't think it's safe to assume Jon Snow is actually named in the will.

Robb certainly wanted to name Jon in the will at first, but GRRM was careful to never explicitly reveal it's contents. When things like that happen, it makes me wonder if the obvious conclusion is really the correct one.

It's not impossible Robb opted to name someone else as an heir instead. If that was the case it would have to be a trusted and loyal bannerman, someone who's honor was beyond reproach and would willingly step aside should he have a child with Jayne Westerling.

My personal crackpot theory on the subject is Howland Reed was named in the will due to his prior friendship with Ned. The reason Howland Reed largely sat out the events of A Feast for Crows/Dance with Dragons is because he's gearing up to assert his own claim to being King in the North.

[Arya Targaryen]

It's not 100% proof, but Catelyn feels defeated when Robb hands over his will to the bannermen to sign it. But of course Cat didn't see the exact will - or did she? I don't think she would have felt defeated if Robb had named anyone but Jon.

[Buried Treasure]

I don't think she would have ever seen the will, she would not have been required to fix her seal to it as the others were as she is not a lord in her own right. And when she feels defeated there is not time for her to have read the document, it is immediately after Robb finishes speaking.

[Yeade]

Falrinn, though it's true us readers aren't privy to the name of Robb's heir, I find Robb willing his kingdom to Jon the most narratively satisfying option. It not only sets up the scenario of there being three Stark claimants to Winterfell who are all viable, each with support and drawbacks, leading to an in-universe discussion of the very issues of legitimacy, situational power, and necessity that this thread addresses, but also serves as character development for Jon and an affirmation of the Stark children's continued loyalty to one another despite everything (still a pack of wolves) while being a meaningful echo of Stannis's earlier offer of Winterfell to Jon. Other theories about Robb's will just don't provide as complex a story for GRRM to tell, IMO.

As for textual proof that Robb names Jon his heir, I actually think the Blackfish's behavior when he treats with Jaime in AFFC plus the subsequent decision of Riverrun's master-at-arms and captain of guards to take the black when the rest of the garrison disperses are a pretty convincing argument. The Blackfish accuses Tywin Lannister of arranging for Jon to be elected Lord Commander, which strikes me as a bit silly given that even Catelyn doesn't impugn Jon's love for his siblings in her opposition to Robb legitimizing him but rather Jon and his possible descendants disenfranchising Robb's sons. She does draw a parallel between Robb's misplaced trust in Theon and his faith in Jon, but it's not like Theon betrays the Starks by allying with the Lannisters.

Seriously, how is it plausible that Jon would turn on his blood family for a Lannister scheme to place him in command of the NW? Furthermore, why would Tywin put any Stark, bastard or no, in a position of power in the North? That is, when he can be bothered to take note of the Wall's affairs with the NW in its current decrepit state. Hence the speculation that the Blackfish's actual motive in dismissing Jon as a Lannister lackey to Jaime is to deflect attention away from Jon. Why? Supposedly because Jon's now the Blackfish's king unbeknownst to Jon himself, a fact Edmure could've informed his uncle of if Brynden doesn't already know as one of Robb's closest advisers.

ETA: I understand you don't feel Robb legitimizes Jon as his heir, Buried Treasure. Can I ask who you suspect Chekhov's will names instead?

[Lord Damian]

Allys Karstark, perhaps?

[Know Face Man]

I'm not sure if Jon would come before Bran or Rickon?? Where in the books does it say Jon comes after them. I think once made a Stark he is next in line no matter what.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

I'm not sure if Jon would come before Bran or Rickon?? Where in the books does it say Jon comes after them. I think once made a Stark he is next in line no matter what.

It kind of depends. Supposedly legitimized bastards come after all possible heirs, including girls. But this can be played sort of fast and loose depending on the will of the lords and the circumstances. If Bran or Rickon were older and/or not invalid, they might have an easier time getting the support over Jon. But Jon's an adult now with leadership and combat experience who could reasonably expect to produce an heir. That's a pretty attractive combo to a lot of people, I'd wager.

[Buried Treasure]

]

As for textual proof that Robb names Jon his heir, I actually think the Blackfish's behavior when he treats with Jaime in AFFC plus the subsequent decision of Riverrun's master-at-arms and captain of guards to take the black when the rest of the garrison disperses are a pretty convincing argument. The Blackfish accuses Tywin Lannister of arranging for Jon to be elected Lord Commander, which strikes me as a bit silly given that even Catelyn doesn't impugn Jon's love for his siblings in her opposition to Robb legitimizing him but rather Jon and his possible descendants disenfranchising Robb's sons. She does draw a parallel between Robb's misplaced trust in Theon and his faith in Jon, but it's not like Theon betrays the Starks by allying with the Lannisters.

Seriously, how is it plausible that Jon would turn on his blood family for a Lannister scheme to place him in command of the NW? Furthermore, why would Tywin put any Stark, bastard or no, in a position of power in the North? That is, when he can be bothered to take note of the Wall's affairs with the NW in its current decrepit state. Hence the speculation that the Blackfish's actual motive in dismissing Jon as a Lannister lackey to Jaime is to deflect attention away from Jon. Why? Supposedly because Jon's now the Blackfish's king unbeknownst to Jon himself, a fact Edmure could've informed his uncle of if Brynden doesn't already know as one of Robb's closest advisers.

The Blackfish talked with Jaime before Edmure was released into the castle, it's not impossible he learnt of Robb's will from some other source (perhaps a raven from Mallister?) but I don't think he knew of it.

His knowledge of Jon probably began and ended with Catelyn's distrust. Accusing Jon of being in cahoots with the Lannister was (IMO) less about Jon's motives than about not giving Jaime an inch; Jaime says this offer is good for you, Bryden says I don't trust you, therefore this offer is bad.

]

ETA: I understand you don't feel Robb legitimizes Jon as his heir, Buried Treasure. Can I ask who you suspect Chekhov's will names instead?

Allys Karstark, perhaps?

Sort of, her brother Harrion is still (probably) alive.

I approach the question on three levels 1) Is it definate that Jon was named? 2) Would Robb decide to not to name Jon? 3) Who else might be named?

-Please bear in mind my reasoning is based on what Robb could have known, rather than the situation at the end of Dance.-

We discussed 1) above. There is a definate sugestion Jon was named, but that comes mostly from the scene by Oldstones which took place several days before the tent scene. Robb is emotional and angry in the first scene, cold and commanding in the second - so it is not impossible his final decision is different from what he shouted at Catelyn.

2) As a candidate for being named heir, Jon has a few Black Marks against him.

- Sworn to the NW. The logistics of Robb getting Jon out are not often fully explored. Robb had half an idea about sending 100 men but are they volunteers, prisoners? Was Robb intending to open negotiations with Mormont and get Jon out pre-emptively (even if Jeyne eventually has children and Jon never inherits) or allow negotions to take place after he gets killed in battle? What if Mormont stands on principle and refuses? If Jon does get out, will his honour not appear stained by forsaking the brotherhood nobody ever leaves - centuries of history and legend and the only precedent Robb can give for a sworn brothers oath being voided is his enemy Joff sacking a knight from an entirely different order.

- Jon has no heirs or family of his own. If Robb dies in battle, Jon gets fetched from the Wall and dies in the next battle they are back in square one. Jon could eventually marry but Robb is already married and has no heirs yet, and if Jon gets named there would be no siblings or cousins to fall back on.

- Age and experience are against Jon (as far as Robb knows). They were against Robb too, but he had the march South for the Lords to get to know him, and when they had to trust him in his first battles the situation was not as bleak as it had become by mid ASOS. All the lord bannerman (who will need to know, trust and believe in Jon) recall of him was a sullen boy at Winterfell.

Robb loved Jon and wanted to name him, but I wonder if he thought all these problems added up to him being untenable. I think he was wrestling with this dilemma when he tried to use Cat as a sounding board. She makes the worst possible arguement against Jon and how she distrusts him, the bastardy is a black mark too, but that alone would not be such an issue.

3) Who else?

Not the vale lordling I think, it has to be a Northman...

- There are (somehow) no family links to any other major house for generations. Karstark has the strongest historic / symbolic link to the Starks, they were founded as a cadet branch and still emphasize kinship to the Starks. That might help the other great houses accept one of their peers being placed above them. More importantly, I suspect Robb wanted his successor to rule from Winterfell and take the name Stark. The Karstarks could accept those terms as that is where their House came from. None of the other great houses could give up their name and seat - they have different and distinct founding myths.

- The Karstarks are rebelling against Robb, had he lived he would have had to deal with it but he never wanted to be enemies with them. Had he died battling the Ironmen the Karstarks would have no longer had cause to rebel - and they would have wanted back into the kingdom as whilst they are isolated they are weak. Naming them sucessors does not only invite them back into the kingdom, it binds them in - much more firmly than if Jon were named, as the allegiance of the Karstarks would have remained in some doubt.

- There's a whole family of Karstarksa admittedly not as many before the war. I am slightly uncertain on what Robb knew when here; Harrion is now a prisoner near Maidenpool but was with Glover's army before that. So I think Robb only learnt Harrion had been made a prisoner when Bolten arrived at the Twins, after the will was written.

So overall, I agree that Jon is the most obvious candidate but Robb was always very good at thinking up the non-obvious solution. As a bonus theory if I am right about Harrion being named it may just explain what Maege, Glover and the Blackfish are up to. Instead of chilling out in the swamp they could be lurking near Maidenpool, ready to organise an escape when the prisoners are moved back to KL.

[The Mother of The Others]

Xalabar Xho.

The heir no one expects.

[Yeade]

The Blackfish talked with Jaime before Edmure was released into [Riverrun]; it's not impossible he learnt of Robb's will from some other source (perhaps a raven from Mallister?) but I don't think he knew of it. His knowledge of Jon probably began and ended with Catelyn's distrust.

I think the Blackfish has one other source of information on Jon that you overlook--Robb himself. Brynden Tully's obviously deeply involved in planning strategy for the war against the Lannisters, so I don't find it unlikely that Robb discusses the matter of his heir with the Blackfish before the two part ways. Flying the direwolf banner over Riverrun is thus not empty defiance on the Blackfish's part; he knows his late king's kingdom still lives so long as Robb's duly appointed successor stays beyond the reach of the Lannisters and just needs to confirm the contents of Robb's will with Edmure.

There is a definite suggestion Jon was named, but that comes mostly from the scene by Oldstones which took place several days before [Robb has his lords stand witness to his will]. Robb is emotional and angry in the first scene, cold and commanding in the second - so it is not impossible his final decision is different from what he shouted at Catelyn.

You and I may have to agree to disagree here. My impression of the scene in question's that Robb has already made up his mind about naming Jon his heir and, while he seeks Catelyn's approval, her objections won't divert him from his chosen course. Robb sounds very firm in his resolve to pass his crown to the only brother remaining him should Jeyne not give him a son despite not having worked out all the details, IMO. Particularly in the following exchange at the end of Robb and Catelyn's argument:

"Should I die without issue, I want [Jon] to succeed me as King in the North. I had hoped you would support my choice."

"I cannot," [Catelyn] said. "In all else, Robb. In everything. But not in this... this folly. Do not ask it."

"I don't have to. I'm the king." Robb turned and walked off, Grey Wind bounding down from the tomb and loping after him.

[T]he only precedent Robb can give for a sworn brother's oath being voided is his enemy Joff sacking a knight from an entirely different order.

There's at least one other precedent for releasing a sworn brother from his vows:

Jon was not entirely innocent of the history of the realm; his own maester had seen to that. "That was the year of the Great Council," he said. "The lords passed over Prince Aerion's infant son and Prince Daeron's daughter and gave the crown to Aegon."

"Yes and no. First they offered it, quietly, to Aemon. And quietly he refused. The gods meant for him to serve, not to rule, he told them. He had sworn a vow and would not break it, though the High Septon himself offered to absolve him."

While it's pretty much impossible to judge how widespread the knowledge is that Aemon, not only a man of the Night's Watch but a maester as well, is offered the Iron Throne given that Lord Commander Mormont's clearly dishing out exposition for GRRM in this passage from ACOK, lol, a convocation of lords can apparently bestow a crown on a sworn brother provided a recognized religious official absolves him of oathbreaking. No reason why the northern lords can't do likewise, and it's possible that since Jon swears his vows to the old gods, any oathbreaking can be confessed to the nearest weirwood. Though, to be sure, I bet Bloodraven wouldn't mind sending Jon a sign if one's needed seeing as he's got a certain interest in making Jon a king. :laugh:

At any rate, I feel one of the themes of ASOIAF is that laws and customs are malleable in the face of desire and necessity. Should Robb and his bannermen truly press the issue of Jon being granted permission to take leave of the Wall for a stint as King in the North, there's not much Mormont can do to protest such an action with the NW as weak as it is unless Jon himself resists. Similarly, whether Jon's honor is stained by accepting Robb's decree is all in the eyes of the beholders. What the northmen are willing to forgive Jon depends, IMO, on how much they hate the prospect of a child Tyrion Lannister begets on a captive Sansa or a lordling from the Vale who isn't a Stark by any measure ruling the North. (Hint: Probably a great deal on both counts.) I can't imagine the Red Wedding has softened their opinions in this regard.

Age and experience are against Jon (as far as Robb knows). They were against Robb, too, but he had the march south for the lords to get to know him...

Remember that Robb and Jon receive together the same military education thanks to Ned. This shared background and Robb having proven to the northmen on countless occasions that his father's methods can produce a winning general are, I believe, sufficient for Jon to be given the benefit of the doubt. Now, Jon can of course fail to meet these expectations. However, I hope you agree with me that this is rather unlikely judging by Jon's track record when an arguably more challenging situation is dumped in his lap during his defense of the Wall in ASOS and after his election to Lord Commander. The northmen, Boltons and Karstarks aside, are at least a professional army with resources to spare that can be expected to follow orders and isn't comprised of Jon's onetime foes, lol.

In regard to your suggestion of Harrion Karstark as Robb's heir, I can't help but feel the rest of the northern lords won't accept him. House Karstark formally withdraws its support of Robb, IIRC, and it'd be really hard to explain why the North should go to a Karstark when there are so many others who have remained loyal, IMO. Mending the alliance with the Karstarks is one thing, setting them above everybody else as the new Lords of Winterfell quite another.

I do agree Maege Mormont and Galbart Glover are looking to rescue prisoners, notably those taken at the Red Wedding, from Lannister custody. The Blackfish's presence isn't required, though, because Mormont and Glover can coordinate with the Brotherhood Without Banners, who are also preparing to retake Riverrun. Personally, I put the Blackfish in the Vale, secretly conferring with the Lords Declarant to oust Littlefinger. Besides, if GRRM's keen on bringing the Karstarks back into the northern fold, Alys and the debt she owes Jon will do just as well after Stannis roasts Arnolf for his treachery.

[Buried Treasure]

I think the Blackfish has one other source of information on Jon that you overlook--Robb himself. Brynden Tully's obviously deeply involved in planning strategy for the war against the Lannisters, so I don't find it unlikely that Robb discusses the matter of his heir with the Blackfish before the two part ways. Flying the direwolf banner over Riverrun is thus not empty defiance on the Blackfish's part; he knows his late king's kingdom still lives so long as Robb's duly appointed successor stays beyond the reach of the Lannisters and just needs to confirm the contents of Robb's will with Edmure.

You and I may have to agree to disagree here. My impression of the scene in question's that Robb has already made up his mind about naming Jon his heir and, while he seeks Catelyn's approval, her objections won't divert him from his chosen course. Robb sounds very firm in his resolve to pass his crown to the only brother remaining him should Jeyne not give him a son despite not having worked out all the details, IMO. Particularly in the following exchange at the end of Robb and Catelyn's argument:

"Should I die without issue, I want [Jon] to succeed me as King in the North. I had hoped you would support my choice."

"I cannot," [Catelyn] said. "In all else, Robb. In everything. But not in this... this folly. Do not ask it."

"I don't have to. I'm the king." Robb turned and walked off, Grey Wind bounding down from the tomb and loping after him.

I think you are right that we will have to go on disagreeing. It's possible the Blackfish could know Robb's plans directly from him, but I am not certain Robb had made a final decision then. My read on the discussion between Robb and Catelyn is that they both got quite angry and said things they had not intended to - and when Robb calms down he goes back to been undecided what to do.

There's at least one other precedent for releasing a sworn brother from his vows:

Jon was not entirely innocent of the history of the realm; his own maester had seen to that. "That was the year of the Great Council," he said. "The lords passed over Prince Aerion's infant son and Prince Daeron's daughter and gave the crown to Aegon."

"Yes and no. First they offered it, quietly, to Aemon. And quietly he refused. The gods meant for him to serve, not to rule, he told them. He had sworn a vow and would not break it, though the High Septon himself offered to absolve him."

While it's pretty much impossible to judge how widespread the knowledge is that Aemon, not only a man of the Night's Watch but a maester as well, is offered the Iron Throne given that Lord Commander Mormont's clearly dishing out exposition for GRRM in this passage from ACOK, lol, a convocation of lords can apparently bestow a crown on a sworn brother provided a recognized religious official absolves him of oathbreaking. No reason why the northern lords can't do likewise, and it's possible that since Jon swears his vows to the old gods, any oathbreaking can be confessed to the nearest weirwood. Though, to be sure, I bet Bloodraven wouldn't mind sending Jon a sign if one's needed seeing as he's got a certain interest in making Jon a king. :laugh:

At any rate, I feel one of the themes of ASOIAF is that laws and customs are malleable in the face of desire and necessity. Should Robb and his bannermen truly press the issue of Jon being granted permission to take leave of the Wall for a stint as King in the North, there's not much Mormont can do to protest such an action with the NW as weak as it is unless Jon himself resists. Similarly, whether Jon's honor is stained by accepting Robb's decree is all in the eyes of the beholders. What the northmen are willing to forgive Jon depends, IMO, on how much they hate the prospect of a child Tyrion Lannister begets on a captive Sansa or a lordling from the Vale who isn't a Stark by any measure ruling the North. (Hint: Probably a great deal on both counts.) I can't imagine the Red Wedding has softened their opinions in this regard.

Aemon joined the NW after Egg became king, in part so that he would be forgotten and would not be a focus for rebellions. I agree about the malleabilityof custom, I think that is how it is going to play out in TWOW with Robb's will in play and the legitimate Stark heirs turning up. And the world had turned pretty much upside down with the RW and the return of the Others that ideas like men leaving the NW no longer seem so awful. But that was not the context in which Robb was making his decision.

The talk of sending 100 men seems like it was no more than an idea, rather than a concrete plan. If Robb wanted to force Mormont to accept this he would have to consider the cost to his own honour - as it is very close abetting a desertion. And if Jon got prised out of the Watch he, and by extension the kingdom, would have a moral cloud hanging over him for his whole reign - again, Robb cannot have foreseen events that would make forsaking oaths look like a minor detail

Remember that Robb and Jon receive together the same military education thanks to Ned. This shared background and Robb having proven to the northmen on countless occasions that his father's methods can produce a winning general are, I believe, sufficient for Jon to be given the benefit of the doubt. Now, Jon can of course fail to meet these expectations. However, I hope you agree with me that this is rather unlikely judging by Jon's track record when an arguably more challenging situation is dumped in his lap during his defense of the Wall in ASOS and after his election to Lord Commander. The northmen, Boltons and Karstarks aside, are at least a professional army with resources to spare that can be expected to follow orders and isn't comprised of Jon's onetime foes, lol.

But no-one in Robbs army at that time knew that Jon had been doing anything more than standing uneventful watches for the previous year. So Robb (who I agree would have believed Jon was capable) would have expected Jon to be labelled a 'green boy' by the other Northmen. In a situation where the Northmen are fighting the Ironborn and their young king has died in battle (ie what Robb was planning against) the North would need a new talisman to inspire them - and they would have no trust in Jon from the start.

In regard to your suggestion of Harrion Karstark as Robb's heir, I can't help but feel the rest of the northern lords won't accept him. House Karstark formally withdraws its support of Robb, IIRC, and it'd be really hard to explain why the North should go to a Karstark when there are so many others who have remained loyal, IMO. Mending the alliance with the Karstarks is one thing, setting them above everybody else as the new Lords of Winterfell quite another.

Harrion has not been in a position to rebel, he was with Glover's army. As a general point I think that the other Northern lords would have accepted the rebellion was mostly due to Lord Rickard's stubborness. The Karstarks have been seperate for a long time but they started as a cadet house, and one of the purposes of cadet branches was to take over if the main line faltered.

I do agree Maege Mormont and Galbart Glover are looking to rescue prisoners, notably those taken at the Red Wedding, from Lannister custody. The Blackfish's presence isn't required, though, because Mormont and Glover can coordinate with the Brotherhood Without Banners, who are also preparing to retake Riverrun. Personally, I put the Blackfish in the Vale, secretly conferring with the Lords Declarant to oust Littlefinger. Besides, if GRRM's keen on bringing the Karstarks back into the northern fold, Alys and the debt she owes Jon will do just as well after Stannis roasts Arnolf for his treachery.

The Blackfish in the Vale makes a lot of sense, he is known and respected there.

[zalim]

People keep holding on to hope that Jon will become King in the North for some reason. A few things...

1. The will was made under the assumption that Bran and Rickon were dead. If Rickon is revealed to be alive, he will be first before any bastards in the inheritance and the will is voided

2. Jon has repeatedly turned down Winterfell. Why would he change his mind now?

3. Bastards can be legitimized, yes. But only by Kings. Is Jon going to legitimize himself somehow?

I think Jon's destiny is going to be much more unconventional. King Beyond the Wall, maybe, where birth doesn't matter. Or even King of the Others, or something completely unforeseeable.

Rob Legit. Jon so for the houses who were and are loyal to Starks, his will counts. Offcourse Rickon and Brann come first but that doesnt mean that the

will is voided, Jon will still be a legit. but only if the truth about his will comes out after the starks take back the north otherwise all of it has no meaning.