[Book Spoilers] Will Robb name the Heir to Winterfell?

[Nanaki]

I agree too. But Robb's regard for Jon is important to me. I liked the discussion about it between Robb & Catelyn in book.

[The Scabbard Of the Morning]

Like I said, you can't go wrong betting on ShowRobb being BizzaroRobb. He does everything opposite of what BookRobb does. Robb goes back to retake Winterfell? BizzaroRobb will go for Casterly Rock. Robb wife is not pregnant but lives? BizzaroRobb's wife is pregnant but dead. Robb names Jon his heir? BizzaroRobb of course doesn't.

[TheGreenBell]

I dont get why they left this out? this has to be revealed in some way soon. this is too important (at least for me).

[Sykez]

Isn't this potentially important since Maege and her group could introduce us to Greywater Watch and Howland Reed

[nothatso]

so no will.

so much for those people obsessed with Jon Stark. King in the North.

Just like Edmure and The Blackfish won't be in the show because they weren't introduced at the same time as they were in the book. Did a Jon Snow fan sleep with your sister or something?

[Valyrian Steel Link]

Ultimately though, the will is only important if Bran and Rickon were actually dead. I think the show can gloss over the will/infanticide since the audience knows that the two are still alive. So one or the other can always come back if someone else decides to take Winterfell and declare themselves the true and rightful heir.

[Claymore]

I dont get why they left this out? this has to be revealed in some way soon. this is too important (at least for me).

I assume the writers figured the unsullied would catch on to his impending demise if they included the will.

[Aquaman]

I think this means that the door is firmly closed on Jon being named King in the North. Also, Maege Mormont and Lord Mallister probably won't be the ones that introduce us to Howland Reed. That or there's another factor.

[nothatso]

I think this means that the door is firmly closed on Jon being named King in the North. Also, Maege Mormont and Lord Mallister probably won't be the ones that introduce us to Howland Reed. That or there's another factor.

I think the only thing the door is firmly closed on is the theory that Jeyne is pregnant. The signing of the will is something that could have happened off screen and be referenced in the future by somebody like The Blackfish.

[chimere]

They didn't BUT they were pretty heavy handed on Rickon being heir if anything happens to Bran, which they weren't in the books. I'm not sure if we're supposed to read into that though, it could be a red herring.

[The Scabbard Of the Morning]

Yeah, it definitely put the end to the Jeyne is pregnant or the fake Jeyne speculations, which btw I never bought. But I think the will can still be retconned in.

[Kahl Trollo]

If the will was something terribly important it would have been shown. Having it 'off screen' and reintroduced later would be incredibly bad storytelling - much like those crap detective stories where on the last page/final scene you get to see the detective find that clue via flashback and voice over that ties everything together - making it utterly impossible for the reader/viewer to do so.

Martin himself worked in T.V. - I don't think he'd agree to something as trite as that.

Personally, I think the whole 'King in the North' and Robbs jurisdiction over anything depended upon having a successful rebellion, and seeing how that never happened (it was literally put to death at the Red Wedding) then anything he wanted, thought, ordered was pretty much moot in the grand scheme of things anyways. If at a later date in the books the document comes forth and I'm treated to several POV chapters watching laywers, lords, and maesters discussing it's legitimacy, I can at least think to myself 'well thank fuck I won't have to watch this as well'

[Lord of Beyond the Wall]

There was not need for a willl because of Talissa pregnancy.

[Newstar]

Someone said in the episode thread that D&D said they were aware of the will and would be addressing it at some point. I read a post-episode interview at EW.com with the showrunners and they didn't mention it. So I don't know what to think.

[Ser Wun Wun]

I was disappointed they didn't include the will, but I suppose I can kind of understand why they wouldn't. I mean, it would be at least two full seasons before it even becomes relevant to the story. I'm sure many non-book readers would be very confused as to why Jon wasn't King in the North/even aware of the will after all that time...maybe that's why they decided to cut it (best theory I've got that counters the possibility that D&D simply know GRRM never intends on making Jon King in the North and therefore decided not to bother with his will at all)?

Besides, they can let the Great Northern Conspiracy proceed without the will. Assuming Rickon is still missing, Jon would be the last living son of The Ned that the Northern lords could turn to, so it would still kind of make sense.

Or hell, they could dumb things down simplify things even more by cutting the GNC too and still make Jon wind up as king. Just simply have him defeat the Boltons (thus proving his worth to the North) and then take the crown. It's a more aggressive action than Jon would normally take, but since this would happen after his resurrection the show can just chalk it up to the after effects of his living as a wolf before being brought back.

[Lord Joker Of FunLand]

Someone said in the episode thread that D&D said they were aware of the will and would be addressing it at some point. I read a post-episode interview at EW.com with the showrunners and they didn't mention it. So I don't know what to think.

I'm not the only one that found it weird that in the same episode, Bran tells Rickon he'd be the heir of winterfell if anything happened to to himself or Robb.

[nothatso]

If the will was something terribly important it would have been shown. Having it 'off screen' and reintroduced later would be incredibly bad storytelling - much like those crap detective stories where on the last page/final scene you get to see the detective find that clue via flashback and voice over that ties everything together - making it utterly impossible for the reader/viewer to do so.

Martin himself worked in T.V. - I don't think he'd agree to something as trite as that.

Well I thought them replacing much of the Jon and Qhorin saga with Jon and Ygritte bumbling around in the middle of nowhere for multiple episodes was bad storytelling and detrimental to Jon's character development, but that didn't stop them from doing it. Delaying the introduction of Edmure and Brynden Tully two seasons despite Robb having completely passed by Riverrun came off as a bit awkward, but they still did it. The quality of the storytelling depends on when and how it be presented just as much as whether or not it is at all.

[shk12344]

Someone said in the episode thread that D&D said they were aware of the will and would be addressing it at some point. I read a post-episode interview at EW.com with the showrunners and they didn't mention it. So I don't know what to think.

I think it has more to do with D&D doesn't want to reveal anything about Jon's past or future. They have barely mentioned R+J and ToJ in the show. Having a Will making Jon heir to the Winterfell makes it too obvious what will happen in the future. They want the viewers to remain in the dark and more importantly, want the viewers to think Jon is just another character in the show.

[Mikeygigs]

So, they did that whole 3-5 minute scene in the second/third episode with Catelyn talking about how she wronged Jon Snow, and specifically mentioned legitimizing him...and they didn't even do anything with it? :\

Ah well, one episode left, but I doubt it'll pay-off. What a wasted opportunity.

EDIT:

On a side-note, does anyone think Taleesa's letter has anything to do with Jon? Its a stretch, but Catelyn was telling Taleesa that story about Jon, and since Taleesa was queen, do you think she could have written something along the lines of a will? Just kinda popped out at me.

Why did Catelyn tell that story to Taleesa? Why now, in Season 3? Is this a slick way to try and trip the viewers up by allowing it to be retconned in the future?

A long shot, but its possible, right? It would at least give Catelyn's Jon Snow story some relevance.

[nirolo]

So, they did that whole 3-5 minute scene in the second/third episode with Catelyn talking about how she wronged Jon Snow, and specifically mentioned legitimizing him...and they didn't even do anything with it? :\

Ah well, one episode left, but I doubt it'll pay-off. What a wasted opportunity.

EDIT:

On a side-note, does anyone think Taleesa's letter has anything to do with Jon? Its a stretch, but Catelyn was telling Taleesa that story about Jon, and since Taleesa was queen, do you think she could have written something along the lines of a will? Just kinda popped out at me.

Why did Catelyn tell that story to Taleesa? Why now, in Season 3? Is this a slick way to try and trip the viewers up by allowing it to be retconned in the future?

A long shot, but its possible, right? It would at least give Catelyn's Jon Snow story some relevance.

So Talisa thinks of another man right after she just had sex with her own husband?

People really hate her, huh?