Robb's Will Doesn't Really Matter

[Ramsay Gimp]

And Kevan is dead ... how long did he last? I didn't believe that meek Cersei act in the last chapter for a minute ... won't be surprised if there is a Cersei I chapter in TWOW where she and Varys discuss how well their plan in killing Kevan went

Nah. Why would Varys work with Cersei? She would just muck everything up. Better to let her do her own damage and quietly push her from behind the scenes

[The Sleeper]

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!).

If a Targaryen king tried to disposess a great lord after the dragons had died he would have gotten a resounding "fuck you" from the lord in question before he went and called his banners. The rest of the great lords would rebel as well in fear that the precedent would threaten them as well, even if they hated the disposessed bastard's guts. Next scene, the great lords are holding a great council in sacked King's Landing deciding who the next king will be, while sipping on Targaryen stew.

The whole society is built on oaths of fealty. What the king says is law to those that are sworn to him. If the North decided to renounce their oaths to the Iron Throne, there is varery littel the Iron Throne can actually do about it at the moment. If they resume their fealty to the King in the North and Robb has named Jon as his heir then to them Jon is king. However, as the difffering opinions in this thread indicate, things did not work out quite as smooth in the real world and would not in the North of Westeros. Probably the hardcore "Starkists" (Mormont, Reed, the mountain clans) would honor Robb's will, while Manderly would push his own claim if he got his hands on Rickon and to make things even more interesting Robb could have left a provision for Arya just in case she were ever found alive. The rest would take sides according to their beliefs and interests.

At asome point Mormont's raven said king Jon Snow. You don't get more clear foreshadowing IMO. I'm not sure wht he will be king of though.

[The Sleeper]

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!).

If a Targaryen king tried to disposess a great lord after the dragons had died he would have gotten a resounding "fuck you" from the lord in question before he went and called his banners. The rest of the great lords would rebel as well in fear that the precedent would threaten them as well, even if they hated the disposessed bastard's guts. Next scene, the great lords are holding a great council in sacked King's Landing deciding who the next king will be, while sipping on Targaryen stew.

The whole society is built on oaths of fealty. What the king says is law to those that are sworn to him. If the North decided to renounce their oaths to the Iron Throne, there is varery littel the Iron Throne can actually do about it at the moment. If they resume their fealty to the King in the North and Robb has named Jon as his heir then to them Jon is king. However, as the difffering opinions in this thread indicate, things did not work out quite as smooth in the real world and would not in the North of Westeros. Probably the hardcore "Starkists" (Mormont, Reed, the mountain clans) would honor Robb's will, while Manderly would push his own claim if he got his hands on Rickon and to make things even more interesting Robb could have left a provision for Arya just in case she were ever found alive. The rest would take sides according to their beliefs and interests.

At asome point Mormont's raven said king Jon Snow. You don't get more clear foreshadowing IMO. I'm not sure wht he will be king of though.

[The Sleeper]

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!).

If a Targaryen king tried to disposess a great lord after the dragons had died he would have gotten a resounding "fuck you" from the lord in question before he went and called his banners. The rest of the great lords would rebel as well in fear that the precedent would threaten them as well, even if they hated the disposessed bastard's guts. Next scene, the great lords are holding a great council in sacked King's Landing deciding who the next king will be, while sipping on Targaryen stew.

The whole society is built on oaths of fealty. What the king says is law to those that are sworn to him. If the North decided to renounce their oaths to the Iron Throne, there is varery littel the Iron Throne can actually do about it at the moment. If they resume their fealty to the King in the North and Robb has named Jon as his heir then to them Jon is king. However, as the difffering opinions in this thread indicate, things did not work out quite as smooth in the real world and would not in the North of Westeros. Probably the hardcore "Starkists" (Mormont, Reed, the mountain clans) would honor Robb's will, while Manderly would push his own claim if he got his hands on Rickon and to make things even more interesting Robb could have left a provision for Arya just in case she were ever found alive. The rest would take sides according to their beliefs and interests.

At asome point Mormont's raven said king Jon Snow. You don't get more clear foreshadowing IMO. I'm not sure wht he will be king of though.

[Yeade]

I think there's another way to approach this topic. At least one plot development's certain to happen in TWOW, IMO: The Others will circumvent the Wall by whatever means and invade the North accompanied by the worst winter in living memory, (un)death and destruction following. With the series past the halfway point, the ice zombie apocalypse that's been looming since the prologue of AGOT, five books and over fifteen years ago, had better start putting on a grand show of being a real threat or it'd be quite difficult to argue that GRRM hasn't let his tale get away from him to terrible anticlimax.

Now, can everyone agree that a North united behind a clear and strong political as well as military leader is likely to fare better against the Others than a North riven by petty succession squabbles? I, for one, believe this is self-evident. Furthermore, a significant fraction of the North's population and armed forces must survive the onslaught of winter or the remainder of ASOIAF is necessarily dominated by what are ultimately to be Dany's eastern and southern contingents.

Given the above deductions, I feel there simply isn't time within the narrative for Stannis to meet with defeat in his war on the Boltons, the issue of appointing a regent for Bran or Rickon from amongst the northern lords to fester, or Littlefinger's plans to claim Winterfell through Sansa to come to fruition. Jon, as a proven lord and commander who's a Stark in all but name and has already won the loyalty of the North's free agents, the wildlings and Karstarks, is a sword that can cut the Gordian knot of the ongoing northern storylines with the plot device of Robb's will and thus preserve the North as an element in the series conclusion.

My understanding's that many find the prospect of Jon as de facto King in the North distasteful. However, such subjective appraisals are no reason to dismiss clean and efficient storytelling, IMO. JKR, for instance, may dislike Snape personally and be incapable of accepting why readers consider the man attractive, but she'd never have revealed in the last HP novel that Snape's been a loyal Death Eater all along and Dumbledore's a fool to have trusted him because that'd undermine the existing narrative in a truly awful fashion, rendering large parts of the series pointless or shallow in meaning. Speculations like Jon being dead in truth, R+L=J turning out to be a red whale, Jon and Dany's painful lessons in how to rule amounting to nothing, etc. strike me as similarly gutting cuts to ASOIAF as a whole. Likewise, theories about shortly upcoming events have to be judged in light of the author's future intentions.

[Ramsay Gimp]

I think there's another way to approach this topic. At least one plot development's certain to happen in TWOW, IMO: The Others will circumvent the Wall by whatever means and invade the North accompanied by the worst winter in living memory, (un)death and destruction following. With the series past the halfway point, the ice zombie apocalypse that's been looming since the prologue of AGOT, five books and over fifteen years ago, had better start putting on a grand show of being a real threat or it'd be quite difficult to argue that GRRM hasn't let his tale get away from him to terrible anticlimax.

Now, can everyone agree that a North united behind a clear and strong political as well as military leader is likely to fare better against the Others than a North riven by petty succession squabbles? I, for one, believe this is self-evident. Furthermore, a significant fraction of the North's population and armed forces must survive the onslaught of winter or the remainder of ASOIAF is necessarily dominated by what are ultimately to be Dany's eastern and southern contingents.

Given the above deductions, I feel there simply isn't time within the narrative for Stannis to meet with defeat in his war on the Boltons, the issue of appointing a regent for Bran or Rickon from amongst the northern lords to fester, or Littlefinger's plans to claim Winterfell through Sansa to come to fruition. Jon, as a proven lord and commander who's a Stark in all but name and has already won the loyalty of the North's free agents, the wildlings and Karstarks, is a sword that can cut the Gordian knot of the ongoing northern storylines with the plot device of Robb's will and thus preserve the North as an element in the series conclusion.

My understanding's that many find the prospect of Jon as de facto King in the North distasteful. However, such subjective appraisals are no reason to dismiss clean and efficient storytelling, IMO. JKR, for instance, may dislike Snape personally and be incapable of accepting why readers consider the man attractive, but she'd never have revealed in the last HP novel that Snape's been a loyal Death Eater all along and Dumbledore's a fool to have trusted him because that'd undermine the existing narrative in a truly awful fashion, rendering large parts of the series pointless or shallow in meaning. Speculations like Jon being dead in truth, R+L=J turning out to be a red whale, Jon and Dany's painful lessons in how to rule amounting to nothing, etc. strike me as similarly gutting cuts to ASOIAF as a whole. Likewise, theories about shortly upcoming events have to be judged in light of the author's future intentions.

If that were the case, where is GRRM going with the Davos-Rickon storyline?

I agree that Jon may become the North's de facto leader during his brother's minority. But I find it very unlikely that he will inherit Winterfell and become a true lord, is all I am saying

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

If that were the case, where is GRRM going with the Davos-Rickon storyline?

I agree that Jon may become the North's de facto leader during his brother's minority. But I find it very unlikely that he will inherit Winterfell and become a true lord, is all I am saying

If Jon was named the actual heir in Robb's will, Rickon could still be the lord of Winterfell, in the same way that Robert became king and passed Storm's End to Renly instead of holding the kingdom and Storm's End.

[Val the Wildling Princess]

Can the King in the North and the Lord of Winterfell be two different people (Starks)? I'm asking cause I have no idea how such things have worked in the North for the past 8000 years :ph34r: I mean, could Rickon be Lord of Winterfell and Jon King in the North? (not by name but by his own merits fighting the Others and so on)

[Yeade]

I agree that Jon may become the North's de facto leader during his brother's minority. But I find it very unlikely that he will inherit Winterfell...

Well, I've long been of the opinion that Jon's to be King of Winter in all but name. The titles and inheritances are Rickon's, but Jon exercises the power, in effect ruling as his brother's regent, unofficially recognized by pretty much everyone in the North except Stannis, who's too busy grinding his teeth at the unfairness of it all, lol. This serves what I perceive to be a narrative need to unite the North fast and allows Jon to skirt oathbreaking without truly setting aside his vows similar to him offering Stannis strategic advice in ADWD.

The subplots of Davos's search for Rickon, Littlefinger's schemes for Sansa, and Robb's will naming Jon his heir can all funnel into a northern succession crisis about midway through TWOW, IMO. However, as the three potential claimants have no desire to usurp each other's places, I figure the dispositions of the third parties involved are key. Stannis may be bound for victory over the Boltons, but he hasn't won the loyalty of the northmen, who'd choose to follow a Stark over him every time. With his southron knights ill-prepared for a northern winter, Stannis is in danger of being neutralized as a political and military force, I think, though he remains nominally in charge. Littlefinger's due for a reckoning, too. The Blackfish is widely speculated to be in the Vale, stirring up dissent amongst the Lords Declarant, and FrankenGregor, the Hound, Jaime, and/or Brienne might end up there chasing rumors about Alayne Stone. I can't see Littlefinger weaseling out of such a fracas unscathed or even alive.

So, in the end, Rickon and Sansa's supporters could collapse for reasons unrelated to the legality of their claims. Which leaves open the possibility of Robb's (ex-)bannermen doing what's practical instead and granting executive control of the North's armies to the one contender of Stark blood who's qualified to command them. Better yet, he can also order the wildlings, who collectively have the most experience combating ice zombies. At that point, Jon's basically King in the North, no? ^_^

ETA:

Ultimately, it seems to me Jon can't be tied to Winterfell because he still has to face R+L=J and his probable status as rightful heir to the Iron Throne assuming Dany and Aegriff between them restore the Targaryens to power. This is likely, IMO, as the Lannisters are about done for and the Tyrells are opportunistic schemers in the vein of the Lannisters during Robert's Rebellion.

As far as I'm concerned, chances are in favor of Jon being unwillingly chained to the Iron Throne when the series closes rather than living happily in Winterfell with his family and friends, surrounded by all that he knows and loves. The Iron Throne and other noble seats have been viewed as the ends towards which players of the game strive for. For Jon, however, positions of authority are almost invariably the means to the end of serving the realm and a necessary but unpleasant duty.

[RevengeOfTheStarks]

I completely agree with EVERYTHING that tze and AppleMartini have been saying.

The Starks have a very different internal dynamic from all of the other, self-destructing families that we've seen. All of the external forces in the story who want to have a say in the inheritance debate are acting entirely, and solely for their own interests, including Manderly, regardless of what one may think about his baddassedness. As far as cohesion between the siblings, Ned got exactly what he prayed for. The only Stark child who saw Jon as anything other than a full, and loved member of the family was Sansa, and she's experienced things that have changed her outlook on both bastards, and power.

Every single Stark has experienced things that have shown them that there's a bigger picture, a HUGE picture, beyond inheritance squabbles. I think they'd be perfectly capable of understanding that Jon's leadership,experience, and um, adulthood, are exactly what the North needs to unify against its various enemies, both political and supernatural. On top of that, you have Robb's will, which provides a perfect legal excuse to do what is pretty much the only reasonable thing to do. I can't for a minute, see any of the Stark siblings feeling like their rights have been usurped by Jon if this plays out. I have a hard time picturing that kind of pettiness and lack of foresight (so the kids are going to think they should be in charge instead of grown up former LC of the NW Jon? Ha) from any of them, no matter what their potential handlers tell them. Leave that crap for the Lannisters and Boltons. For the Starks, family actually means something.

If the handlers, like Manderly, try to force their will, I think it's a lot more likely that the kids would combine their voices to oppose him, rather than actually go along with his plan. Rickon may be young, but this is the same kid who was spent most of his screen time crying for his mother. When he was running wild at Winterfell, the only one who could calm him down and get him to keep Shaggy from mauling people, was Bran, his brother. Clearly he longs for the comfort of family, and he's certainly old enough to know who that family is. Rickon, when he's found, isn't going to listen to Manderly, a man he's never seen in his life, over Bran, Arya, Sansa, or Jon.

The traits that make the Starks one of the few functional families in this series are the same ones that led to their initial ass-kicking. Some posters seem to be suggesting that in order to make a come-back, the Starks have to adopt the backstabby pettiness of the other players. I think backstabbing and pettiness accurately describe the situation of siblings squabbling over inheritance, when it's clear that one among them has the direct experience necessary to take the helm and do that job, and this person was also named by their oldest sibling and previous Lord. Ned taught his kids a good lesson, and one I think every single one of them internalized. When winter comes, the lone wolf dies, but the pack survives. The Starks are going to make a comeback by maintaining and using the traits that led to their initial downfall, not by becoming more like their enemies. Winter's coming, bitches***

****By bitches, I mean Stark enemies, not any posters on this forum.

[Buried Treasure]

Well, I've long been of the opinion that Jon's to be King of Winter in all but name. The titles and inheritances are Rickon's, but Jon exercises the power, in effect ruling as his brother's regent, unofficially recognized by pretty much everyone in the North except Stannis, who's too busy grinding his teeth at the unfairness of it all, lol. This serves what I perceive to be a narrative need to unite the North fast and allows Jon to skirt oathbreaking without truly setting aside his vows similar to him offering Stannis strategic advice in ADWD.

The subplots of Davos's search for Rickon, Littlefinger's schemes for Sansa, and Robb's will naming Jon his heir can all funnel into a northern succession crisis about midway through TWOW, IMO. However, as the three potential claimants have no desire to usurp each other's places, I figure the dispositions of the third parties involved are key. Stannis may be bound for victory over the Boltons, but he hasn't won the loyalty of the northmen, who'd choose to follow a Stark over him every time. With his southron knights ill-prepared for a northern winter, Stannis is in danger of being neutralized as a political and military force, I think, though he remains nominally in charge. Littlefinger's due for a reckoning, too. The Blackfish is widely speculated to be in the Vale, stirring up dissent amongst the Lords Declarant, and FrankenGregor, the Hound, Jaime, and/or Brienne might end up there chasing rumors about Alayne Stone. I can't see Littlefinger weaseling out of such a fracas unscathed or even alive.

So, in the end, Rickon and Sansa's supporters could collapse for reasons unrelated to the legality of their claims. Which leaves open the possibility of Robb's (ex-)bannermen doing what's practical instead and granting executive control of the North's armies to the one contender of Stark blood who's qualified to command them. Better yet, he can also order the wildlings, who collectively have the most experience combating ice zombies. At that point, Jon's basically King in the North, no? ^_^

ETA:

Ultimately, it seems to me Jon can't be tied to Winterfell because he still has to face R+L=J and his probable status as rightful heir to the Iron Throne assuming Dany and Aegriff between them restore the Targaryens to power. This is likely, IMO, as the Lannisters are about done for and the Tyrells are opportunistic schemers in the vein of the Lannisters during Robert's Rebellion.

As far as I'm concerned, chances are in favor of Jon being unwillingly chained to the Iron Throne when the series closes rather than living happily in Winterfell with his family and friends, surrounded by all that he knows and loves. The Iron Throne and other noble seats have been viewed as the ends towards which players of the game strive for. For Jon, however, positions of authority are almost invariably the means to the end of serving the realm and a necessary but unpleasant duty.

There are a lot of good thoughts in this post, I'd disagree with a few of the details, but totally agree with the general sentiment. I am not so certain about Jon ending up on the Iron throne as said in the edit but do think he will have control of the North in a practical manner, although without official post.

You mentioned Robb's bannermen doing what is practical, and that is an idea that appeals to me. I always felt they would remain loyal to the spirit of Robb's succession, rather than adhering to the letter of a decree Robb made when he was not fully aware of the facts of the situation.

Can the King in the North and the Lord of Winterfell be two different people (Starks)? I'm asking cause I have no idea how such things have worked in the North for the past 8000 years :ph34r: I mean, could Rickon be Lord of Winterfell and Jon King in the North? (not by name but by his own merits fighting the Others and so on)

I think the only historic rulers of the entire North were the lords of Winterfell, although there were probably plenty of rival kings with different seats further back in history. That does not mean the King of the North has to be Lord of Winterfell, if another powerful house wound up with the crown they would probably prefer to stay were they were.

As a practical matter I don't think the Stark cause would have the resources to essentially establish two new houses - which is what this suggestion would entail. Winterfell is a semi-ruin and needs rebuilding and repopulating, which is easy if they have the generosity of loyal northmen but not if that wealth is going towards establishing a new stronghold for king Jon. And where would the royal seat be? Even if the NW were disbanded the castles on the Wall are too remote, setting up at the Dreadfort would send the wrong signals.

In fact, I can't warm to this idea even in theory. Surely the whole point of remaining loyal to the Starks is that the Starks of Winterfell remain the pre-eminent lords in the North - thats were the continuity lies. A second branch of House Stark being established elsewhere would in essence be a cadet branch, so it would not make sense that the ruler of this new house becomes king.

[jarl the climber]

When Robb made his will, he did not know if Jeyne was pregnant, he must have made provisions regarding this at least, nor can we rule out that he might have heard about the survival of Bran and Rickon, he mentions his Father recognizing the value of Howland Reed, why would Robb know his value? Is this a sly reference to Reeds children being with Bran and Rickon. I know Robb makes a point of saying that Bran and Rickon are dead, but he might not have wanted to get Cats hopes up, wanted to keep it quiet. Jeynes child could be a problem depending on who has custody of it. It would be a great irony if it is Robbs child who ends up being the bane of her grandchildren. In the event of a trueborn heir, I'm pretty sure that Robb named Jon as regent, Jon will accept this in fact but not name.

[Know Face Man]

Untill we know the wording of Robbs Will we cannot know who is his heir. If he makes Jon a Stark then he is next inline as King of the North and Lord of Winterfell. Jon would not go behide Bran or Rickon in the line of heirs. He would be next.

The only way for Jon not to come next would be if he isn't Neds son.

If he is Rhaegars son then he would be heir to Dragonstone and the Iron Throne which would leave Winterfell open for Rickon, since i don't believe Bran will ever come back.

[childofsummer]

Regarding how Jon might inherit, given his NW vows, isn't it possible that, after the inevitable showdown where obsidian-and-fire-wielding warriors eradicate the Others (taking many casualties in numerous graphic battle scenes), the NW will be abolished as no longer necessary?

If that were to happen, Jon, legitimized and named as heir, would be in a good position to assimilate the wildlings into Northern society (or maybe to acclimate Northerers to the idea of wildlings living among them), possibly in those abandoned settlements between the Wall and Winterfell.

[Yeade]

Buried Treasure, I've a lot of (wishful!) ideas about the North in TWOW and how the political map of Westeros will be redrawn. My hope's that GRRM finishes off the Boltons and events in King's Landing (Cersei and Margaery's trials, Aegriff's invasion) during the first third of TWOW while Dany treats with the Dothraki, then puts the North on the back burner with the Vale providing a bit of action (Littlefinger's comeuppance) over the Stark succession just as everything in Essos comes to a head in the cataclysmic final battle for Meereen. Afterwards, the situation in (ex-)Slaver's Bay, Pentos, etc. can at last be settled and Dany wrangled to Westeros, where the Wall has fallen in the obligatory big cliffhanger of the novel. That'd be a strong narrative line on which other subplots like Sam at the Citadel and Arya's Faceless Men training can be hung.

Luckily, I'm quite accustomed to being fannish about weekly TV series wherein canon's rewritten every episode, so I won't be overly disappointed when my expectations are inevitably upset. :laugh:

But I digress! I think the basic argument for Jon as de facto King in the North is that, supposing Robb's will names Jon his heir as many believe, the practical choice is both legally sound and acceptable to most of the parties involved. Stannis won't be pleased and Littlefinger's plans for Sansa are spoiled, but neither man may be in a position to object. Though Manderly's likely looking to rule as Rickon's regent himself, the opposition of the other northern lords might convince him it's less trouble to instead be granted boons by Jon for his role in ousting the Boltons and retrieving Rickon. Actually, Jon could end up the most uncomfortable with the whole idea, lol, on account of his oath and the fact that he probably still has to deal with an ill-tempered Stannis who sees Jon as yet another usurper of his rightful inheritance.

Naturally, there are folks who see such a nice and clean setup as proof that said plot development will never happen. Despite what strikes me as the obvious problem of GRRM being unable to ever complete the series if he doesn't start bundling storylines into more manageable arrangements so some kind of denouement is plausible. -_-

childofsummer, remember that Osha, a wildling sworn to the Starks, has been Rickon's guardian since ACOK. And the free folk will be changed in not only associating with but willingly taking orders from kneelers during the war against the Others. Rickon's a suitable king for a North shaped by Jon's policies of integration, IMO. Especially if Sansa stays in Winterfell for a period acting as her brother's regent and tutor in the art of politics after Jon meets whatever fate he's bound to.

As for the NW being abolished, purpose served, I doubt it. I really can't imagine ASOIAF concluding with the threat of the Others unambiguously neutralized forever. Even if us readers are meant to understand that the Others shall never return, it seems only prudent for the characters, who can hardly know they live in an epic fantasy series that's over, to continue setting a watch for potential ice zombie apocalypses. What's more, I figure Jon's doomed to be an oathbreaker by any interpretation over R+L=J, rendering the question of his NW vows moot. No need to spare him that decision.

[Ramsay Gimp]

Two things:

-I think Jon may be de facto leader of the North, like many other people. But not de facto King. He is wise enough to see that that little experiment brought grief to everybody under Robb, and he isn't ambitious enough to proclaim himself or Rickon King anyway. Lordship would be just fine. The North doesn't need another actual King

-If he is revealed to be Rhaegar's son, I don't see him inheriting shit. He wouldn't even be a Stark bastard, but either a trueborn or bastard Targ at this point. People don't inherit through the female line except in the most extreme cases, which won't be the case if Rickon, a true Stark and son of Eddard's, shows up

[Buried Treasure]

I see Jon as already starting to move into the role of supreme military commander of forces allied against the Others. My speculation is that part of his 'unspoken plan' towards the end of Dance was to scoop up the remnants of the armies that had supposedly the 7 day battle and use them all in the defense of the Wall / realms of men. That role obviously involves logistics and diplomacy but I not sure that it would fit neatly with the duties and aims of the King of the North and so I'm not going to say Jon will be de facto King in the North.

But I digress! I think the basic argument for Jon as de facto King in the North is that, supposing Robb's will names Jon his heir as many believe, the practical choice is both legally sound and acceptable to most of the parties involved. Stannis won't be pleased and Littlefinger's plans for Sansa are spoiled, but neither man may be in a position to object. Though Manderly's likely looking to rule as Rickon's regent himself, the opposition of the other northern lords might convince him it's less trouble to instead be granted boons by Jon for his role in ousting the Boltons and retrieving Rickon. Actually, Jon could end up the most uncomfortable with the whole idea, lol, on account of his oath and the fact that he probably still has to deal with an ill-tempered Stannis who sees Jon as yet another usurper of his rightful inheritance.[

Yeade, my principal problem with what you're saying is right there in the first line, many believe that Robb named Jon heir - I am in the minority that doesn't. It was never stated outright in the text, and I think Robb's earlier arguement with Catelyn indicates that Robb wanted to name Jon, not that he went ahead with this as the best course of action.

But ... I never win any friends with that arguement, so I'll assume for the moment Jon was named. The will seemed relevant at the end SoS because nobody in the North knew there were still trueborn Starks around. By the end of Dance there has been opportunity for word that the boys may be alive to spread so why would be Jon be the more acceptable candidate?

The lords of the North are not going to forget their prejudices against the baseborn just because Robb signed a piece of paper. A legitimised bastard is better than no heir at all, but not as good as a trueborn heir. The lords all have their own successions to consider and backing anyone but the eldest trueborn heir sets a powerful precedent and should not be done without good cause (such as Sansa being married to a Lannister). They are loyal to the memory of Robb, but that does not mean they will blindly follow out the letter of his decree without using any common sense. Robb would have wanted Bran (then Rickon) to inherit from him and only made a will naming a second-choice candidate because he was mis-informed of their deaths.

[Yeade]

Personally, I favor northern independence. After three generations of Starks come to grief in southron courts, I can see the northmen deciding to keep the rest of the realm at arm's length, never more than friendly enemies. Incorporate the Vale and riverlands into the (hypothetical) northern dominion as a buffer against the other kingdoms that also benefits the economy through agriculture. Extend trade across the Narrow Sea to Braavos, where lumber from the wolfswood can be a lucrative export. Build a canal across the Neck at Moat Cailin and collect tolls from merchant shipping en route to Lannisport and Oldtown. Such initiatives can perhaps make the North more or less self-sufficient, if not wealthier than ever before, IMO.

Now, if R+L=J and Jon can be proven the legitimate heir of Rhaegar, I believe he might just have enough leverage on Dany to force her to issue a formal declaration recognizing the secession of the North, Vale, and riverlands. The southerners--who seem to barely recall that the North exists unless there's a war on, anyways--may be wary of Dany and her barbarian ways should she and Aegriff reenact the Dance of the Dragons. Which, incidentally, could end with the loss of one of her dragons, even aside from the possibility that the beasts can be skinchanged. Dany's would-be subjects may welcome a little insurance against the hereditary Targaryen madness in the person of an eligible bachelor with a lot less Targaryen blood (from Rhaegar, not Aerys) who they can marry their daughters to if push comes to shove.

Why, yes, I am totally suggesting that Jon barter himself away in a political marriage to Dany. :laugh:

...and let's return to your regularly scheduled thread! I've been steadily working my way off-topic as is my wont. Sorry about that, folks!

ETA:

Ugh. I'm too slow. :blush:

In reply to your latest post, Buried Treasure, I happen to agree that Jon's in training to assume the position of supreme allied commander in the war against the Others. Though I don't believe his intent at the end of ADWD is only to gather up the splintered remnants of Stannis's army for the defense of the Wall given that Ramsay in the Pink Letter basically threatens to attack the NW if his demands are not met and Jon, who cannot be certain this is bluff, must thus eliminate Ramsay in one fashion or another.

At any rate, I figure Jon acting as de facto King in the North dovetails with his mandate as Lord Commander of the Night's Watch to guard the realms of men in that wielding the absolute power of the former makes it immeasurably easier for Jon to rally the North to his cause. Robb may have named Jon his heir while under the misconception that Bran and Rickon are dead, but he didn't know about the ice zombie apocalypse about to descend on his kingdom either, lol. Even without the Others, I can't quite see Robb thinking it's a good idea to turn the prosecution of the war on the Lannisters and their allies over to a boy who's barely ten or younger. Robb can't seriously expect his younger brothers to handle the kind of challenges to his authority that he does when he first calls the banners, can he? Or to serve justice the Stark way? He would've made provisions for Bran or Rickon to have a regent in military affairs, IMO, and Jon's not a bad choice as he'd be palatable to everyone. Pretty much the only other candidate I can name is the Blackfish, who might be too Tully for the northmen.

Finally, I'm not so sure the northerners are as prejudiced against bastards as the southerners, excepting Dorne. Everyone hates Ramsay, true. Not because of his bastardy, though, but because he's an evil prick. There's that bit in ACOK(?) about the Glovers fostering Larence(?) Snow and preferring that he be legitimized, then granted the Hornwood lands, too. Besides, this is not just any random bastard, but Jon Snow, raised in Winterfell with the same education as his trueborn brothers and known throughout the North as a son of Eddard Stark who's done well for himself on the Wall. Desperate highborn ladies seem to have no issues running to Jon with marital disputes regardless of the NW's supposed neutrality, and Jon receiving a blood price from Tormund explicitly reminds Flint and Norrey of the Stark kings.

Apologies for the constant edits! I'm done now! I promise!

[Buried Treasure]

Personally, I favor northern independence. After three generations of Starks come to grief in southron courts, I can see the northmen deciding to keep the rest of the realm at arm's length, never more than friendly enemies. Incorporate the Vale and riverlands into the (hypothetical) northern dominion as a buffer against the other kingdoms that also benefits the economy through agriculture. Extend trade across the Narrow Sea to Braavos, where lumber from the wolfswood can be a lucrative export. Build a canal across the Neck at Moat Cailin and collect tolls from merchant shipping en route to Lannisport and Oldtown. Such initiatives can perhaps make the North more or less self-sufficient, if not wealthier than ever before, IMO.

Ambitious! I'm just hoping they can survive Winter. I'm not sure how the Vale and Riverland would act as a buffer by being part of the Northern kingdom - the Neck is the natural breakpoint. And although the 3 regions are allied now their centres of power are remote enough from each other that that may not last.

Now, if R+L=J and Jon can be proven the legitimate heir of Rhaegar, I believe he might just have enough leverage on Dany to force her to issue a formal declaration recognizing the secession of the North, Vale, and riverlands. The southerners--who seem to barely recall that the North exists unless there's a war on, anyways--may be wary of Dany and her barbarian ways should she and Aegriff reenact the Dance of the Dragons. Which, incidentally, could end with the loss of one of her dragons, even aside from the possibility that the beasts can be skinchanged. Dany's would-be subjects may welcome a little insurance against the hereditary Targaryen madness in the person of an eligible bachelor with a lot less Targaryen blood (from Rhaegar, not Aerys) who they can marry their daughters to if push comes to shove.

Why, yes, I am totally suggesting that Jon barter himself away in a political marriage to Dany. :laugh:

I'm not remotely willing to suggest where in Westeros Dany will land and what she will end up doing at this point. Any theory seems as likely (or ya' know crackpot) as the next to me at the moment.

Ugh. I'm too slow. :blush:

Ha :cool4: . I guess I'm on a roll. This is probably going to be my last post before I call it a night.

In reply to your latest post, Buried Treasure, I happen to agree that Jon's in training to assume the position of supreme allied commander in the war against the Others. Though I don't believe his intent at the end of ADWD is only to gather up the splintered remnants of Stannis's army for the defense of the Wall given that Ramsay in the Pink Letter basically threatens to attack the NW if his demands are not met and Jon, who cannot be certain this is bluff, must thus eliminate Ramsay in one fashion or another.

Agreed, Jon has a habit of playing his cards close to his chest so that even when we are in his POV we don't know all his plans. I'm certain that at the end of that chapter Jon has several objectives in mind for going South, I just don't know what they all are.

At any rate, I figure Jon acting as de facto King in the North dovetails with his mandate as Lord Commander of the Night's Watch to guard the realms of men in that wielding the absolute power of the former makes it immeasurably easier for Jon to rally the North to his cause....

I did agree with this, but this thread has prompted me to examine the thought more closely and I have changed my mind. I do believe that for a short time Jon will be the most powerful leader in the North, I don't think it would be useful at that time to describe him as de facto King in the North.

Being ruler of the kingdom of the North comes with certain considerations and responsibilites; guarding borders against other (human) kingdoms, vengeance (or peace) for the Lannisters / Freys, ransom of prisoners in the South etc. Jon's focus would have to be only on the war with the Others, and some of his decisions will favour other parties (for instance the Free Folk) to the detriment of the subjects of the Northern kingdom.

....Robb may have named Jon his heir while under the misconception that Bran and Rickon are dead, but he didn't know about the ice zombie apocalypse about to descend on his kingdom either, lol. Even without the Others, I can't quite see Robb thinking it's a good idea to turn the prosecution of the war on the Lannisters and their allies over to a boy who's barely ten or younger. Robb can't seriously expect his younger brothers to handle the kind of challenges to his authority that he does when he first calls the banners, can he? Or to serve justice the Stark way? He would've made provisions for Bran or Rickon to have a regent in military affairs, IMO, and Jon's not a bad choice as he'd be palatable to everyone. Pretty much the only other candidate I can name is the Blackfish, who might be too Tully for the northmen.

I'm not suggesting Rickon take over the masterminding of the war!!!! (though we all know he'd be amazing).

He would definately need a regent, but I do not think Jon should be in this post as it would a conflict with his other role. It's not important that Rickon (or whichever of the Starks kids it ends up being) comes to power at this time, it's about the Starks being able to continue the line and that the North is ruled by Starks for generations to come.

Finally, I'm not so sure the northerners are as prejudiced against bastards as the southerners, excepting Dorne. Everyone hates Ramsay, true. Not because of his bastardy, though, but because he's an evil prick. There's that bit in ACOK(?) about the Glovers fostering Larence(?) Snow and preferring that he be legitimized, then granted the Hornwood lands, too. Besides, this is not just any random bastard, but Jon Snow, raised in Winterfell with the same education as his trueborn brothers and known throughout the North as a son of Eddard Stark who's done well for himself in the NW.

That was one of the examples I was thinking of. When Lord Glover's trueborn son was killed in battle Laurance was considered as heir because he was a better option than no heir at all.

If all of the trueborn Starks are dead then Jon Snow might be considered as a better option than no heir at all. If you have Rickon Stark (with Direwolf to prove his identitiy) then bastard-born Jon doesn't look such a good prospect for continuing the sucession of a line that goes back 8000 years.

(and don't mention the Bael the Bard story as an example of previous bastards inheriting - of course the line has been broken many times in history. But Jon never heard that song at Winterfell because if your 20x grandfather was a bastard you don't sing a song about it in your own hall. It's a dirty little secret; you try and prevent the line being broken but if it does happen you try to get everyone to forget it as soon as possible).

[Yeade]

My hopes for the North's future are very high indeed. Though the credit for these ideas rightly belongs to the posters in an old thread about the northern economy lost in the deeps of the board I can't be bothered to plumb at the moment, lol. Is there any chance such developments might make it into the series? Perhaps a slight one. A dreaming Bran in the weirwood matrix as the last epilogue POV can push the timeline forwards hundreds of years.

Regarding the strategic importance of the Vale and riverlands to the North:

The North's essentially Russia, yes? Any mundane invading force must confront the problems of the North's sheer land mass and a climate that sees snow during the summer. Moat Cailin can be fortified to near impregnability but, should an attacker bypass the defenses there, it's still a long, hard slog through the northern wilderness plagued by bad logistics, never mind enemy combatants. However, this expansiveness also presents a major difficulty to the northmen, as Robb discovers when he calls the banners to head south after Ned's arrest for treason. Unless a standing army is maintained, it's difficult to concentrate your available military strength.

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

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.

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.

Finally, it must be said that I'm really no expert in these matters. I've no idea if the above system is viable! Certainly won't stop me from speculating wildly about it! :laugh:

Jon has a habit of playing his cards close to his chest, so that even when we are in his POV we don't know all his plans. I'm certain that at the end of [his last ADWD] chapter Jon has several objectives in mind for going south. I just don't know what they are.

I often feel like I do know what Jon's objectives are in taking a wildling army south to confront Ramsay Bolton because I've been arguing about what these might be with other obsessive people since July and, surely, every possibility has been exhausted by now...! ^_^

At any rate, heroic characters are by nature opaque, IMO. They're masters of compartmentalization, denial and repression. They at times genuinely don't know themselves why they do what they do because whatever it is that drives them to, say, jump on live grenades when every human instinct is screaming in fear of death is not the result of rational calculation.

Being ruler of the kingdom of the North comes with certain considerations and responsibilities... Jon's focus would have to be only on the war with the Others, and some of his decisions will favour other parties (for instance, the free folk) to the detriment of [his] subjects...

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.

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 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. 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.