Robb's Will Doesn't Really Matter

[tze]

Five year olds grow up though. They become men and women. I am nothing like the girl I was when I was five. Rickon will always be younger than Jon but he will also be younger than Bran. He will be a man one day, though. A man who is the "rightful" lord of Winterfell and who will be well aware of it. A man who will marry, and have children, and whose sons will be well aware that they should be the lord of Winterfell. A man who might have a daughter, a daughter who will marry, and whose husband will wonder why she isn't the Lady of Winterfell, or a daughter who might question that herself.

And as a practical matter, this won't be an issue during the timeline of this story. For all we know, Jon will die when spring comes, or he won't be able to have kids if he gets resurrected via magic. And even if he can have kids, I can see him refusing to marry and simply naming his siblings his heirs to head off this issue. The North is in crisis mode right now, and a child as the Stark in Winterfell could cripple it. I can absolutely see Jon being crowned King so that he can deal with the multiple crises, and then training up his siblings as his heirs to head off any future issues.

For Jon to take Winterfell (which is a plausible theory) would be to usurp it from his siblings, will or no will. They might not like seeing their rights be usurped. Sansa in particular, who has been a victim of so many people who wanted to steal her claim, might feel particularly betrayed. They all love him but this doesn't mean they are willing to give him Winterfell. IMHO, it just means that the betrayal of the usurpation of Winterfell would be that much more painful to them.

I keep seeing the idea that Jon taking over the North is inherently a usurpation, and I heartily disagree with it. Why do Bran et al have a greater "right" to Winterfell than Jon? What do they have that he doesn't have via Robb's will? They don't have any more Stark blood than him. He was raised at Winterfell right alongside them. They don't have some special Old Gods-blessed legitimacy that Jon lacks, because Ned and Catelyn married in a sept, not a godswood. None of the Starks is older than Jon. Jon has a direwolf (in one of the Stark colors, which not even Rickon has). None of the Starks can claim Jon wasn't raised with Stark values at the Stark stronghold by the Stark patriarch. The only thing the Stark kids have that Jon does not have is the rather nebulous idea of "legitimacy", which the will (probably) dispenses with.

Sansa's problem is people trying to use her as a puppet and scapegoat in order to benefit themselves, which Jon obviously wouldn't be doing.

Personally, I feel that the idea that the Stark kids will just give Jon Winterfell and all will be unicorns and roses because they love each other is outlandishly optimistic. Winterfell is far more significant than a toy that children share among themselves. Moreover, it just doesn't fit into the tone of the series that this would take place. I could see Sansa sitting in shock when she hears the news, asking how he could do such a thing to her, and the Blackfish telling her that he is a bastard and deceit is in their nature. I could see the same thing for Rickon, with Manderly playing the BF to him. Their mother has been afraid Jon would do something like this for years. I can't see that fact escaping the Stark children if he actually did do that.

Given the way the Stark dynamic differs drastically from the internal dynamic of practically every other family, I don't think it's unrealistically optimistic at all. If anything, I think the idea that Jon takes over the North, trying to protect and defend his younger siblings, and those siblings become just appalled at his presumption rather than ecstatic that their big brother is back in charge---I find that idea to be completely at odds with the way the Stark clan operates. Catelyn viewed Jon as an outsider, but Bran, Arya, and Rickon (not to mention Robb) didn't want Jon to be an outsider. Robb appeared to view Jon's separation from him as part of the problem. There's no evidence that the Stark kids actually approved of Catelyn's way of thinking, and the only one who might have, Sansa, now just wants to go home and be safe from the Lannisters, she doesn't dream of being a Queen, not anymore. There is, however, plenty of evidence that the Stark kids wished there was some way Jon wouldn't have to be a bastard anymore, and voila, Robb probably made that wish a reality.

If someone like Manderly or the Blackfish tells Bran/Arya/etc. that Jon is trying to usurp them, I don't think they'll go "you're right, Jon has never really been a Stark, how dare he, I have a better right to Winterfell than him!" I think, based on what we've seen from all of the Stark kids thus far, that they'll tell Manderly and the rest to shove it, that Jon's their brother and Robb made him a legitimate Stark, so he's a legitimate Stark, and if Robb hadn't made Jon legitimate, then they themselves would have. Far too much has been made of the extraordinarily strong bond between Jon and his siblings, especially given the presence of a very literal wolf pack, for the Stark kids to view Jon, who might as well have "big brother Stark" tattooed across his forehead, taking authority as an unnatural turn of events.

For that matter, it's not like Jon would ever kick his siblings out of Winterfell, so they wouldn't be losing a home or an identity here. If Jon is King, then he's their authority figure; but Jon is the oldest brother, and they were accustomed to obeying him anyway. If anything, I think they'd find the idea of Jon taking orders from them to be the unnatural outcome, not vice versa.

[Solaris]

Tommen is a pretender also. There for at the moment..the realm has no legitimate king, so that really makes no difference. It would depend how it ends. By the end of the series, the North may still want/be it's own place and have its own King of the North. The Starks will take this mantel. They were the kings before the Targs in the north, and they fully supported Robb Stark as king. If this happens a Stark will be king, and they will honor King Robb's will. But Jon being legitimized doesn't mean he will be king..even if he wanted too. Which he really doesn't. If Robb's intent was to legitimize Jon so he could be heir, then even if he doesn't end up heir, he will still be a Stark..and that will mean a lot to Jon. Enough to influence his major decisions.

Yes Tommen is a pretender to the Baratheon line of succession (we know that so do a few others) but Tommen is a King regardless of the fact that he succeeded Robert Baratheon by the shifty nature of his mother and her family. It does make a difference, that is like saying that Robert Baratheon wasn't a legitimate King because he deposed the Targs and Visery's and Dany were still around and later Aegon.

Tommen holds the seat of power for the Iron throne (that legitimises him) and he is using all of it's power so he is a King regardless of birthright.

I agree with everything else you have said and have said it myself that the North has a good chance of establishing their own Kingdom again. In regard to Jon we haven't seen the whole document. We don't know what Robb intended, it was Robb's right and within his power at the time to name whoever he wanted as heir and as an undefeated Northern King to legitimise Jon at the time but he was killed before he firmly established that Kingdom.

The seat of the Northern Crown had been captured first by a stupid Greyjoy and now by a Bolton who is a Lannister/Lannister minion and cemented by marriage to the only known Stark heir to add insult to injury albeit a fake one. Tommen has stamped out the northern kingdom fitfully. So unless they do raise a Kingdom in the North to take back Winterfell and ratifiy this will, Robb's wishes that Jon become a recognised Stark means nothing legally until that time, only the succeding King can force that through and honor it.

I agree that the very fact Robb wished to legitimise Jon will move him deeply and will influence his decisions greatly. I think that whether it is legal or not would matter little to Jon emotionally, he loved his brother and will love him all the more now that his brother saw him fit to be a Stark, enough to take up that mantle of King of the North or Lord of Winterfell (whichever he chose). To be a fly on the wall when that will is delivered to him, maybe he will faint like a maiden?

[Monk Meth-]

you don't habe to win a war to become king of your people. Robb never crowned himself he was crowned by his own banner men.. How can anyone say hes not a king when his own people crowned him?

[the wolf warg]

I'm still expecting Jon to go all FUS RO DAH on the realm, warg a dragon and turn into the King Of Ice and Fire

CTFU....the dragon born returns

[kephv]

This is why I hate this Robb's will bullshit. The North needs to be united ._.

Well, if Jon accepts, then he's in a very real position to do just that. I really don't think he'll take the crown because, ultimately, that would create problems with Stannis. Jon knows more than anyone that the north and the realm need to be united to face the threat of the Others, so what's most likely, I think, is that he's named Robb's heir, but as Lord of Winterfell and he recognizes Stannis as king.

Would the North even rise for a deserter, though? I'm not sure...

I actually don't think there will be another KOTN. Nothing but grief came from that business. But Rickon will be Lord of Winterfell

Robb's will frees Jon from his vows.

They might not like seeing their rights be usurped. Sansa in particular, who has been a victim of so many people who wanted to steal her claim, might feel particularly betrayed.

I don't know if she would. In fact, her claim seems to have been nothing but a source of misery for her, and I could see her being well satisfied now that she's no longer heir.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

I don't know if she would. In fact, her claim seems to have been nothing but a source of misery for her, and I could see her being well satisfied now that she's no longer heir.

I think she would understand and support the reasoning behind the decision to disinherit her, which was to prevent the Lannisters from having an "in" at Winterfell. I also think that this sets up Sansa to make a successful claim to Riverrun through her mother. If Edmure and his child with Roslin die or are unable to claim, the castle could fall to Sansa. I expect that Robb's will specifically disinherits her from Winterfell and/or making a claim to being Queen in the North. She could still get Riverrun and that's what I expect to happen.

[Know Face Man]

The simple facts are if Jon finds out about the Will and it makes him a Stark, he has the choice to be King or not.

He would then have to call all the Stark bannerman to see who would fight for him. Just as Stannis is trying to do.

Also Robb was King of the Riverlands as well so Jon would have to call Riverruns bannerman.

If he could mass an army together then he can hold his claim. I feel since it was Robb kinda last wish Jon would do so.

And if Jon is a Targaryen then his claim to the Iron Throne is the 2nd best behide Aegon if he is real

[Arya Targaryen]

And as a practical matter, this won't be an issue during the timeline of this story. For all we know, Jon will die when spring comes, or he won't be able to have kids if he gets resurrected via magic. And even if he can have kids, I can see him refusing to marry and simply naming his siblings his heirs to head off this issue. The North is in crisis mode right now, and a child as the Stark in Winterfell could cripple it. I can absolutely see Jon being crowned King so that he can deal with the multiple crises, and then training up his siblings as his heirs to head off any future issues.

I keep seeing the idea that Jon taking over the North is inherently a usurpation, and I heartily disagree with it. Why do Bran et al have a greater "right" to Winterfell than Jon? What do they have that he doesn't have via Robb's will? They don't have any more Stark blood than him. He was raised at Winterfell right alongside them. They don't have some special Old Gods-blessed legitimacy that Jon lacks, because Ned and Catelyn married in a sept, not a godswood. None of the Starks is older than Jon. Jon has a direwolf (in one of the Stark colors, which not even Rickon has). None of the Starks can claim Jon wasn't raised with Stark values at the Stark stronghold by the Stark patriarch. The only thing the Stark kids have that Jon does not have is the rather nebulous idea of "legitimacy", which the will (probably) dispenses with.

Sansa's problem is people trying to use her as a puppet and scapegoat in order to benefit themselves, which Jon obviously wouldn't be doing.

Given the way the Stark dynamic differs drastically from the internal dynamic of practically every other family, I don't think it's unrealistically optimistic at all. If anything, I think the idea that Jon takes over the North, trying to protect and defend his younger siblings, and those siblings become just appalled at his presumption rather than ecstatic that their big brother is back in charge---I find that idea to be completely at odds with the way the Stark clan operates. Catelyn viewed Jon as an outsider, but Bran, Arya, and Rickon (not to mention Robb) didn't want Jon to be an outsider. Robb appeared to view Jon's separation from him as part of the problem. There's no evidence that the Stark kids actually approved of Catelyn's way of thinking, and the only one who might have, Sansa, now just wants to go home and be safe from the Lannisters, she doesn't dream of being a Queen, not anymore. There is, however, plenty of evidence that the Stark kids wished there was some way Jon wouldn't have to be a bastard anymore, and voila, Robb probably made that wish a reality.

If someone like Manderly or the Blackfish tells Bran/Arya/etc. that Jon is trying to usurp them, I don't think they'll go "you're right, Jon has never really been a Stark, how dare he, I have a better right to Winterfell than him!" I think, based on what we've seen from all of the Stark kids thus far, that they'll tell Manderly and the rest to shove it, that Jon's their brother and Robb made him a legitimate Stark, so he's a legitimate Stark, and if Robb hadn't made Jon legitimate, then they themselves would have. Far too much has been made of the extraordinarily strong bond between Jon and his siblings, especially given the presence of a very literal wolf pack, for the Stark kids to view Jon, who might as well have "big brother Stark" tattooed across his forehead, taking authority as an unnatural turn of events.

For that matter, it's not like Jon would ever kick his siblings out of Winterfell, so they wouldn't be losing a home or an identity here. If Jon is King, then he's their authority figure; but Jon is the oldest brother, and they were accustomed to obeying him anyway. If anything, I think they'd find the idea of Jon taking orders from them to be the unnatural outcome, not vice versa.

:agree:

I just want to add, that even if this is a very unpopular theory, I expect Jon and Arya marry - in that case the Tullies won't be pissed, and their children could legally inherit Winterfell, either way we look at it.

Bran probably won't ever return, and even if he does, he probably won't have any children. Rickon may be a problem - he may die or take the black (with his black direwolf :cool4: ) and reorganise the NW

And Sansa will be happy to be at home, and won't want to marry anybody. That would make Arya the rightful heir.

[Arland]

I don't think Stark children with have any problems with John taking Winterfell. I mean, after he will give Sansa the Vale Westerlands and Riverrun, Arya Braavos , Rickon Highgarden and make Bran a paramount Lord of North and Lands of Always Winter... I think they will be ok with him holding to Winterfell as his skying resort when he will go for vacations from his United Essos and Westeros kingdom sit in Dragonstone.

[David Selig]

That's the thing, though---with Bran and Rickon these problems are insurmountable, but the problems Jon faces are solvable. Bran will always be crippled, and Rickon will always be younger than Bran. Jon is not crippled (as far as we know) and as he's unambiguously the oldest Stark, not even just the oldest male, so the idea that the younger siblings bow down to the older siblings will always work in his favor. Robb's will (probably) deals with the issue of legitimacy, and if Jon gets resurrected (as has been heavily foreshadowed), then he's free of his vows.

Why do people keep repeating this? If Jon gets resurrected, he either gets accepted as the old Jon Snow by people and thus keeps his old vows, or he's considered a new "zombie" person who has severed all ties to his old life thus his claim is invalidated. Resurrection is not "get out of jail free" for the oath.

Why do Bran et al have a greater "right" to Winterfell than Jon? What do they have that he doesn't have via Robb's will?

I don't know, let's see... wait, I got it. They have a lack of a holy binding oath barring them from inheriting lands and crowns.

Not to mention, given the way his siblings feel about him, I feel like the first royal act of King Bran, King Rickon, Queen Arya, or even Queen Sansa would involve legitimizing Jon, then abdicating in favor of him. Jon is adored by all of his younger siblings (even Sansa is missing him and seems rather disillusioned with being a Queen), and they're all pretty accustomed to him fulfilling a role of authority as Big Brother Jon.

Just because they like Jon doesn't mean they'd want to give up their throne to him. More importantly, whoever has helped put them on the throne, won't stand for it.

Robb's will frees Jon from his vows.

No, it doesn't. Robb had no authority to do that.

If someone like Manderly or the Blackfish tells Bran/Arya/etc. that Jon is trying to usurp them, I don't think they'll go "you're right, Jon has never really been a Stark, how dare he, I have a better right to Winterfell than him!" I think, based on what we've seen from all of the Stark kids thus far, that they'll tell Manderly and the rest to shove it, that Jon's their brother and Robb made him a legitimate Stark, so he's a legitimate Stark, and if Robb hadn't made Jon legitimate, then they themselves would have.

Even so, you know what the reply would be? "You are still a naive kid, I won't let you be robbed be your bastard brother, I'll act for your own good and put you in charge by taking this bastard out of the picture."

[Ramsay Gimp]

:agree:

Thank you. People are acting like his oaths don't matter at all. Kings can't just grab people from the NW and say "you're my heir now", at least not legally. Robb and his lords were doing that out of desperation - there were supposedly no more male Starks. If Davos finds Rickon, that all changes, and the North will have their lord. But it won't be a Snow

All Jon's ascendancy to lordship/kingship would accomplish would be to guarantee more civil war. Rickon will undoubtedly have people whispering in his ear that the bastard is stealing his rights, and he is young/impressionable enough to maybe go along with it. It would also cause issues with Manderly and Stannis

[Golden&Crimson]

Robb`s will is void of any real power.

Robb is a rebel and traitor to the Iron Throne, seat of the his suseran (Targaryen, Baratheon or the current royal family).

The great lords (Lannister, Tyrell, Arryn, etc.) are all vassals of the Iron Throne, and their titles and lands could be taken by the king and given to another house by the same king, if they broke their allegiance to the Iron Throne.

Robb breaked the allegiance of the Starks to the Iron Throne, so he is another rebel lord that must be punished and his lands and titles rewarded to some other vassal, loyal to the Iron Throne and to the ultimate suseran (the king), in this case Roose Bolton.

So Jon is still a bastard with no rights to Winterfell or to the Stark name.

But all this really didn´t matter: Jon is dead (i really don´t want any Unjon; Uncat and Unberic are enough!).

[Eejit]

Robb's will has as much power as people give it. Same deal as with Varys' riddle about the sellsword.

So Jon is still a bastard with no rights to Winterfell or to the Stark name.

But all this really didn´t matter: Jon is dead (i really don´t want any Unjon; Uncat and Unberic are enough!).

He's no bastard, he's a trueborn Targ, and he isn't necessarily dead - just badly injured. POVs tend to finish with the character receiving serious injury more often than death.

[LuisDantas]

People are acting like his oaths don't matter at all. Kings can't just grab people from the NW and say "you're my heir now", at least not legally.

How so? It has been made abundantly clear that in Westeros the law derives from their Kings.

Robb and his lords were doing that out of desperation - there were supposedly no more male Starks. If Davos finds Rickon, that all changes, and the North will have their lord. But it won't be a Snow

All Jon's ascendancy to lordship/kingship would accomplish would be to guarantee more civil war. Rickon will undoubtedly have people whispering in his ear that the bastard is stealing his rights, and he is young/impressionable enough to maybe go along with it. It would also cause issues with Manderly and Stannis

Stannis, yes. Manderly, however, would probably fully embrace Jon. As really would anyone else, most of all Rickon and Bran.

[Ramsay Gimp]

Manderly, however, would probably fully embrace Jon. As really would anyone else, most of all Rickon and Bran.

There is a difference between analyzing a fantasy series and living in fantasy land. Rickon is very, very young. If not Manderly, who is already in his camp, then some other ambitious lord will scoop him up and use him as a puppet against Jon. It makes sense for Rickon to inherit as a trueborn son of Eddard Stark - it doesn't make sense for a Night's Watch bastard to inherit anything

[Ramsay Gimp]

He's no bastard, he's a trueborn Targ, and he isn't necessarily dead - just badly injured. POVs tend to finish with the character receiving serious injury more often than death.

"Trueborn" how? Their isn't much evidence for the polygamous theory so far. Not discounting it, but I do think it would tie things together too nicely

[David Selig]

How so? It has been made abundantly clear that in Westeros the law derives from their Kings.

Robb didn't say "I am the King, I can release Jon from his oath". He intended to make a deal with the NW - 100 men for releasing Jon from hi s oath, but never got around to it.

[Eejit]

"Trueborn" how? Their isn't much evidence for the polygamous theory so far. Not discounting it, but I do think it would tie things together too nicely

Personally I don't believe the Kingsguard would be protecting Rhaegar's bastard over Viserys and fetusDany.

[Val the Wildling Princess]

Personally I don't believe the Kingsguard would be protecting Rhaegar's bastard over Viserys and fetusDany.

I died :lol: and I agree.

[FanTasy]

I think she would understand and support the reasoning behind the decision to disinherit her, which was to prevent the Lannisters from having an "in" at Winterfell. I also think that this sets up Sansa to make a successful claim to Riverrun through her mother. If Edmure and his child with Roslin die or are unable to claim, the castle could fall to Sansa. I expect that Robb's will specifically disinherits her from Winterfell and/or making a claim to being Queen in the North. She could still get Riverrun and that's what I expect to happen.

Possible. But she will not be able to rule Riverrun in her own right, she will be expected to marry.

ETA And if her marriage to Tyrion is not annulled, someone will be made Lord Protector, I guess.

Lord Petyr Baelish is Lord of Harrenhal and the Lord Paramount of the Riverlands, he would call the shots.