Is Robb's will void upon the reappearance of Rickon/Bran

[SIrDuncan the Tall]

I think legitimizing a bastard is the last resort because once he is legitimized it goes to line of succession like he never was a bastard.. Ya some Northern lords might flock but if Jon wanted to be a dick he could fight his younger siblings.

[Arya kiddin']

I think you're conveniently forgetting that ALL the current Starks - Jon included - are Starks through the Stark woman who had a bastard child with some "man". Mothers are far more important than you are giving them credit for. Also, Jon may be preferred simply because R+L=J isn't known in the north and they will just think he is Ned's son. In that case, it is completely understandable that the northern lords would prefer and enforce a man grown with battle and governing experience to Rickon, Sansa Lannister or Arya Bolton. I am assuming Bran will not be seen again.

Let's remember to keep the perspective of the characters in mind, not what we think should be.

Ser Pounce I agree with you, and pretty much posted this myself (mightbe on another thread, I was arguing the same thing at two places). Yes Jon may get the throne as R+L = J is not known but I was stating the opinion that me as a reader who knows that the other Starks are alive, Jon's claim will always remain shaky for me.

We were arguing on both the fronts, from the perspective of the in-universe characters and from the perspective of the readers who know everything. That is why I said it was an opinion.:)

[Black Wolf Smith]

The thing that I didn't see anyone say, has to do with why Robb was naming Jon legit/heir.

Robb whole point of making legit, and naming him heir, was to keep the Lannister's or anyone else from taking control of the North. He thought that Bran and Rickon were dead, but that wouldn't prevent others from bring out a pretender. Robb likely not only named Jon heir, he likely cut both of them out. So IMO it was worded to do just that.

[KingofSothoryos]

I've argued this point in other threads. Robb's decree won't be much of an issue if Bran or Rickon appear. Robb's decree legitimized Jon, but we do not know if legitimizing a bastard puts him ahead of younger true born sons. The wiki is specific that this custom is unknown. But remember Roose Bolton says Ramsey would kill any true born sons he had in the future, so this leads me to believe that legitimized bastards puts them at end of the line behind true born sons. And that is why Robb legitimizing Jon only puts him ahead of Sansa and Arya in the line of succession. Not Bran and Rickon who Robb thought were dead, thus making a legitimized Jon, heir to Winterfell before Sansa or Arya. This is what Catelyn feared when she said "once he's legit, he can't be unlegit" because he disinherited her daughters.

[Mayura]

I've argued this point in other threads. Robb's decree won't be much of an issue if Bran or Rickon appear. Robb's decree legitimized Jon, but we do not know if legitimizing a bastard puts him ahead of younger true born sons. The wiki is specific that this custom is unknown. But remember Roose Bolton says Ramsey would kill any true born sons he had in the future, so this leads me to believe that legitimized bastards puts them at end of the line behind true born sons. And that is why Robb legitimizing Jon only puts him ahead of Sansa and Arya in the line of succession. Not Bran and Rickon who Robb thought were dead, thus making a legitimized Jon, heir to Winterfell before Sansa or Arya. This is what Catelyn feared when she said "once he's legit, he can't be unlegit" because he disinherited her daughters.

This but, also, there is the fear of Cat when Robb legitimises Jon: Cat mentions that once a bastard has been legitimised by a King, there is no coming back from that. So, whatever happens (Bran/Rickon or no Bran/Rickon), Jon will be legitimised and will be Jon Stark.

However, as many have noted already, it is unclear whether legitimised bastards come in front of trueborn siblings in the succession line. As GRRM said, he was inspired by medieval succession law, and the law on this regard is actually a mess: anything can happen, it will depends on the support the men are willing to give either camp

[Arya Targaryen]

... it will depends on the support the men are willing to give either camp

Exactly.

If the Others break through the Wall, Rickon might be the legit heir, yet everyone in his right mind would turn to Jon to lead them. I know Jon can do things as a regent for Rickon just as easily, so he doesn't need to be King, however, for that to happen Rickon first must get back to Winterfell. If Rickon's being alive is just a rumour everyone knows, but his whereabouts are unknown, in these times I doubt that the North will wait for long for him, if they have another legit heir, the one Robb named in his will.

[SkaggCannibal]

If you take into acount that four of Ned's children are still alive, that Jon isn't actually Neds son and that he is sworn to the Night's Watch for all nights to come... Then of course it will be declared void, why you think they've cut in the show.

[Skeksi]

I'm not so sure it matters whether Robb's will is legally void or not owing to Bran, Rickon and Arya all being alive. What matters is who people are going to throw their support behind. I mean, on the one hand, many of Robb's loyal followers will likely give great weight to his will - which both legitimises Jon, and disinherits Sansa. On the other hand, they would know that the will was made when Robb believed his two legitimate brothers to be dead, and strongly suspected that his younger legitimate sister was dead, too. The reappearance of Bran, Rickon or Arya would, I imagine, be cause for at least some of the North to ignore Robb's will with regards to his heir, because it was made without full information.

My thoughts are thus:

Let's say that the Others come storming through into the North. Now, we know that LF intends Sansa to marry Harry the Heir, and presumably later claim the North. We know that Stannis has offered Winterfell to Jon, who is a full grown adult and has experience of commanding men. Now, if Rickon, half wild and still a kid, shows up at this point, with the support of no-one but the Manderleys, is the North going to rise to support him? Or are they going to go for the illegitimate son who is full grown and with battle experience? Or are they going to support the disinherited daughter (who would technically come behind her brother in the succession even if Robb hadn't disinherited her) who brings with her the armies of the Vale (and potentially the Riverlands)?

Now, say that the Others are stopped at the Wall, or that the issue of Robb's succession doesn't really come up until the Others have been repelled- I would say that in this "more usual" circumstance, the Northerners would be much more likely to support Ned Stark's trueborn son and logical heir, over either a daughter, or a legitimised bastard. Particularly since the aforementioned bastard is sworn to the Night's Watch- even if there is some loophole that allows Jon to get out of his orders, I imagine the Northmen (who seem to be the only kingdom to show some respect for the Night's Watch) would take a very dim view of this.

[Tyrion's Third Wife]

No matter what, Starks will not war on Starks. It will be decided among the family what is best. The North will follow whatever they decide.

[Ser Pounce FTW]

No matter what, Starks will not war on Starks. It will be decided among the family what is best. The North will follow whatever they decide.

I wouldn't be so sure of not having a war between Starks. I agree that it is highly unlikely that a Stark would start any sort of fight for Winterfell however the surviving Starks are children and none of them has any real autonomy, power or authority at the moment. I could see people fighting for North in the "name" of the surviving Starks, especially Stannis/Rickon and Littlefinger/Sansa. Of course it will ultimately be exposed and stopped but it hardly seems far fetched to imagine Martin writing a scenario where they are unknowingly fighting one another.

[Dave17]

I don't think that as we see them no Stark will knowingly first another, but if Jon gets resurrected my Melisandre she may use some magic to make him cling to the crown.

Also Rickon has always been a wild card and with him spending time in Skagos with 'cannibals' and Sansa having LF whispering in her ear things could get heated.

[Pikachu101]

We've seen how useless wills can be, when the majority aren't in favour of it. Robb's will can easily be rebuked by supporters of Rickon insisting it was under the impression he was dead, therefore it doesn't count anymore.

Making Jon king is a stupid move in the long term anyway. Either Rickon will grow up and kick him off the throne or Sansa's sons rebel against him because their claim is stronger.

If Jon tries to stake a claim with a flimsy piece of paper he's going to have to face Sansa, the Tullys and half of the North; all of whom will back Rickon.

[Arya Targaryen]

But Jon won't claim Winterfell, if Rickon is around: he will be the first to step back and support him. However, have anyone considered how to control a wild six-year-old with a feral direwolf? So far I think Jon is the only one who can handle a situation. Rickon probably remembers him, trusts him, and Ghost is probably stronger than Shaggy. If Rickon arrives back, Jon as a regent would be the most obvious choice for anybody around. I don't think even Osha would disagree, if she learns Jon let Tormund's people through the Wall, protecting the WILDLINGS from the Others.

[The Wolves]

We've seen how useless wills can be, when the majority aren't in favour of it. Robb's will can easily be rebuked by supporters of Rickon insisting it was under the impression he was dead, therefore it doesn't count anymore.

Making Jon king is a stupid move in the long term anyway. Either Rickon will grow up and kick him off the throne or Sansa's sons rebel against him because their claim is stronger.

If Jon tries to stake a claim with a flimsy piece of paper he's going to have to face Sansa, the Tullys and half of the North; all of whom will back Rickon.

How do you know who will back Jon or who will back Sansa, or Rickon?

How do you know that Sansa's sons will fight Jon? Or Rickon would?

There is nothing to say that the Northern Lords won't back Jon as KITN, many signed and agreed to Robb's will and they didn't protest so how do you know half the North will protest Jon's rule? Where is the evidence to this?

But seeing as Jon might die and would never claim Winterfell over his siblings than it really doesn't matter.

[Julian Rayne]

The will legitimizes Jon and disinherits Sansa. It either has clauses voiding itself if Bran or Rickon turn up, or, more likely, doesn't mention them at all. Because I really can't see why they would be explicitly disinherited.

If B and or R show up, their claim automatically trumps Jon's.

A person is equally half their mother and half their father.

Actually a person is biologically closer to their mother. Mitochondrial DNA and all that.

[BlackStark]

How do you know who will back Jon or who will back Sansa, or Rickon?

How do you know that Sansa's sons will fight Jon? Or Rickon would?

There is nothing to say that the Northern Lords won't back Jon as KITN, many signed and agreed to Robb's will and they didn't protest so how do you know half the North will protest Jon's rule? Where is the evidence to this?

But seeing as Jon might die and would never claim Winterfell over his siblings than it really doesn't matter.

While the Northern Lords signed and agreed to Robb's will, they were also probably privy to Robb's rationale for legitimizing and naming Jon his heir. i.e. Jon is the last Stark standing, considering Sansa was in the grasp of the Lannisters and now tied to them by marriage (not that Jon would be a better military commander and leader, facts Robb would not be aware of because temporally Jon had not proved his "skill" in either at the point Robb made his will or had been murdered). The re-appearance of Rickon (and Bran) makes this rationale moot and given the choice between a true born heir and a legitimized bastard, why wouldn't they support Rickon if only to avoid the precedence that up-jumping Jon would create.

[Pikachu101]

How do you know who will back Jon or who will back Sansa, or Rickon?

1. Why wouldn't the Tullys back one of their own?

2. Why wouldn't Sansa back her legitimate brother?

3. The Northerners are loyal to the Starks, not Jon himself also there's the deep rooted views towards bastard. Some will see it as wrong to make the trueborn step aside, some will be wary of the long term consequences King Jon will make, some would want to keep the Tullys and Sansa happy etc.

How do you know that Sansa's sons will fight Jon? Or Rickon would?

Because:

1) Rickon has a stronger claim and I'm sure his mother's family would like to remind him of this

2) a wick flick through the history books shows you what happens when there's men who have a claim stronger than the king's

3) in the many eyes Jon would be just like the Blackfyres; it's their duty to give the throne back to the trueborns

4) there's power in kingship; why wouldn't they want what is rightfully there's?

There is nothing to say that the Northern Lords won't back Jon as KITN, many signed and agreed to Robb's will and they didn't protest so how do you know half the North will protest Jon's rule? Where is the evidence to this?

We don't actually know who signed the will, Manderly clearly hasn't shown any sign of knowing about it.

Also that will was written whilst under the impression Robb's trueborn brothers were dead. It makes all the difference if Rickon pops up again because now the will is under contraversy.

Some might be happier with a man as their king but the more intelligent lords will definitely be wary because of the long term repercussions.

[Dornishpenguin]

I think that the Northern lords would prefer to have a child lord that they can control instead of a teenager/young man with leadership experience. Even though the tragedy of the Young Wolf has already gone down in Westerosi legend and Robb is mostly viewed in a sympathetic light, I'm sure that there are plenty of Northerners who believe his major mistakes cost them the war. Jon is a capable leader, but the Northern lords might not view it that way- he let in the Wildlings (who historically have caused problems in the North), and ended up assassinated/almost assassinated by his own men. They might not be so quick to bend the knee to a teenager again if they have a more appealing option.

Having a young trueborn son of Ned Stark in their custody would be the ideal situation for any Northern lord. If Rickon shows up, I doubt any Northern lord will dismiss him because of a simple piece of paper that was written when not all the information was known. Same thing with Sansa- if she was still widely believed to be the last Stark and was able to get her marriage to Tyrion annulled and come North wed to Harry with the army of the Vale, I sincerely doubt that anyone would deny her because of the will (especially those who had been in the room the time it was written).

[Arya Targaryen]

1. Why wouldn't the Tullys back one of their own?

2. Why wouldn't Sansa back her legitimate brother?

3. The Northerners are loyal to the Starks, not Jon himself also there's the deep rooted views towards bastard. Some will see it as wrong to make the trueborn step aside, some will be wary of the long term consequences King Jon will make, some would want to keep the Tullys and Sansa happy etc.

Because:

1) Rickon has a stronger claim and I'm sure his mother's family would like to remind him of this

2) a wick flick through the history books shows you what happens when there's men who have a claim stronger than the king's

3) in the many eyes Jon would be just like the Blackfyres; it's their duty to give the throne back to the trueborns

4) there's power in kingship; why wouldn't they want what is rightfully there's?

We don't actually know who signed the will, Manderly clearly hasn't shown any sign of knowing about it.

Also that will was written whilst under the impression Robb's trueborn brothers were dead. It makes all the difference if Rickon pops up again because now the will is under contraversy.

Some might be happier with a man as their king but the more intelligent lords will definitely be wary because of the long term repercussions.

If Rickon shows up, everybody will support him. Including Jon. I doubt Bran will go anywhere soon, so he doesn't really count (and even if he did, he can't have children).

I'm more interested in a scenario where something happens to Rickon, Bran is still missing, and noone knows where he is, and the North has to choose between Jon, Sansa and Arya. I also think that the truth about Jon's parentage will be revealed, so the choice would be even harder, because the girls' claim would become stronger than legitimised Jon's. Tullys would obviously back the girls, however, I'm not so sure about the North, especially if by that time Jon had proven to be a worthy leader. And if the North wants to maintain its independency, the smart choice would be to leave the Riverlands completely out of their Kingdom, so it would end at the Neck, making it much easier to defend. So it doesn't really matter what the Tullys think.

But in the end, the politically best move would be to marry Jon and Arya (as Sansa is already married), making everybody happy. In that case Cat (or LS) and the Tullys would have no reason to fear Jon's descendants.