assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar Posted October 9, 2013 Share Posted October 9, 2013 No, because even by legitimizing Jon, it is under the assumption that Rickon, Arya and Bran are dead. If he didn't disown Sansa, her and her brood ( he'd believe, lannisters ) could and would challenge Jon's claim, because he was / is a bastard. As soon as Bran / Rickon / Arya show up, the will is void anyhow, or at the very least, Jon is pushed to the bottom. I'm sure Robb disowned Sansa to make sure 100% no Lannister would ever, ever, sit in Winterfell.Somehow I doubt it's going to be quite so simple as "Robb made Jon his heir but lol jk not really." The Chekov's gun nature of it alone makes me think more will come from it than that. Plus that would make writing and including the will at all completely pointless. And the GNC in its various iterations makes the case that the northerners know full well that Bran and Rickon are alive but are still behaving as if Jon is the heir and not them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Brianus Stark Posted October 9, 2013 Share Posted October 9, 2013 Robb named Jon as his heir believing that Arya, Bran and Rickon were dead, much to Catelyn's dismay. He didn't actually disown Sansa, he merely overlooked up as she was a hostage in the war and forced to marry one of the enemies. He didn't necessarily disown her, he just passed succession over her so his enemies couldn't have his Kingdom, which makes a lot of sense. Also, the only people to call Sansa a Lannister is Stannis Baratheon, everyone else, even at King's Landing still refer to her as Sansa Stark or the Stark girl. She won't be Lady Lannister long anyway, that marriage will be annulled, otherwise GRRM would have had Tyrion had his way with her, even to strengthen Sansa as a character - he has other plans for her I bet if he's keeping her a maiden. Also I believe since Bran is away beyond the wall, he can't be brought into accession. I don't think GRRM would leave one of the Starks without a story, so I think that Rickon might have a part to play, and the North could seat him back in Winterfell. Just a theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tywin Manderly Posted October 9, 2013 Share Posted October 9, 2013 No, because even by legitimizing Jon, it is under the assumption that Rickon, Arya and Bran are dead. If he didn't disown Sansa, her and her brood ( he'd believe, lannisters ) could and would challenge Jon's claim, because he was / is a bastard. As soon as Bran / Rickon / Arya show up, the will is void anyhow, or at the very least, Jon is pushed to the bottom. I'm sure Robb disowned Sansa to make sure 100% no Lannister would ever, ever, sit in Winterfell. This! :agree: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mladen Posted October 9, 2013 Share Posted October 9, 2013 No, because even by legitimizing Jon, it is under the assumption that Rickon, Arya and Bran are dead. If he didn't disown Sansa, her and her brood ( he'd believe, lannisters ) could and would challenge Jon's claim, because he was / is a bastard. As soon as Bran / Rickon / Arya show up, the will is void anyhow, or at the very least, Jon is pushed to the bottom. I'm sure Robb disowned Sansa to make sure 100% no Lannister would ever, ever, sit in Winterfell. Actually, Robb was the King in the North, and it was within his right to legitimize whomever he wants. By legitimizing Jon, he neutralized danger that Sansa's marriage would become to them. There were no discussion about disowning Sansa, Robb never mentioned it, they spoke about naming an heir to push her, which he did. It would be ridiculous to disown her, when he already made it impossible for her to inherit Winterfell. You can be sure in whatever you choose to believe, the books contradicts your certainty. He made sure no Lannister would ever sit in Winterfell by legitimizing Jon and naming him an heir. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darryk Posted October 9, 2013 Share Posted October 9, 2013 Why is information like this not included in the books directly? We know it is considered in the book but we never find out for definite (yet.) I dont understand why it should be released in another source before confirmed in the series :( It couldn't have been more strongly implied. The app simply confirmed what those who paid close attention to the Robb-Catlin conversation in Storm of Swords already believed with 99% certainty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TyrionsFlagon Posted October 9, 2013 Share Posted October 9, 2013 Robb- "Mother." There was a sharpness in Robb's tone. "You forget. My father had four sons." ... Catelyn to Robb- "A bastard cannot inherit." (speaking of Jon) "Not unless he's legitimized by a royal decree," said Robb. http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/A_Storm_of_Swords-Chapter_45 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tywin Manderly Posted October 9, 2013 Share Posted October 9, 2013 Actually, Robb was the King in the North, and it was within his right to legitimize whomever he wants. By legitimizing Jon, he neutralized danger that Sansa's marriage would become to them. There were no discussion about disowning Sansa, Robb never mentioned it, they spoke about naming an heir to push her, which he did. It would be ridiculous to disown her, when he already made it impossible for her to inherit Winterfell. You can be sure in whatever you choose to believe, the books contradicts your certainty. He made sure no Lannister would ever sit in Winterfell by legitimizing Jon and naming him an heir. It would actually be very prudent to disinherit Sansa for something unfortunate could happen to Jon or he could also refuse the crown and then Sansa is Robb's heir again. So disinheriting Sansa is the only way to ensure that the Lannisters will not get their hands on Winterfell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mladen Posted October 9, 2013 Share Posted October 9, 2013 It would actually be very prudent to disinherit Sansa for something unfortunate could happen to Jon or he could also refuse the crown and then Sansa is Robb's heir again. So disinheriting Sansa is the only way to ensure that the Lannisters will not get their hands on Winterfell. That would be thinking too much ahead. Robb wasn't preparing for loss, he even got plans how to strengthen his position. He ensured that Sansa wouldn't inherit by making Jon an heir, plus he believed he could have son. All in all, he made certain Sansa is far away from succession line. Also, I am not sure whether disinheritance exists as the concept in Westeros. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodsteel bitterraven Posted October 9, 2013 Share Posted October 9, 2013 Disinheritance certainly exists. See Jon Connington, Edmure Tully and many others whose lands were taken from them. Viserys and Daenerys were also disinherited when Aerys was deposed. Same with Stannis after his defeat at Blackwater. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonin Posted October 9, 2013 Share Posted October 9, 2013 Does the app say that Robb both legitimizes Jon and name's him heir?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mladen Posted October 9, 2013 Share Posted October 9, 2013 Disinheritance certainly exists. See Jon Connington, Edmure Tully and many others whose lands were taken from them. Viserys and Daenerys were also disinherited when Aerys was deposed. Same with Stannis after his defeat at Blackwater. They were all disowned by the Crown, not by the member of the family. I think you are mixing deposing and disinheriting someone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodsteel bitterraven Posted October 9, 2013 Share Posted October 9, 2013 They were all disowned by the Crown, not by the member of the family. I think you are mixing deposing and disinheriting someone. No I'm not. I think you are. You cannot depose someone such as Viserys who is not a King yet. What you do by removing him from the line is succession is disinheriting him. Same with Stannis who is supposed to be third in line after Tommen and Myrcella but has been removed from the line of succession. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mladen Posted October 9, 2013 Share Posted October 9, 2013 No I'm not. I think you are. You cannot depose someone such as Viserys who is not a King yet. What you do by removing him from the line is succession is disinheriting him. Same with Stannis who is supposed to be third in line after Tommen and Myrcella but has been removed from the line of succession. Entire House Targaryen has been deposed of their rights by the act of rebellion. Stannis was named traitor and therefore removed from line of succession. Robb couldn't have removed Sansa from line of succession if she had done nothing. Simply, I doubt he did it, because he believed that naming Jon as an heir would solve all of that conundrum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar Posted October 9, 2013 Share Posted October 9, 2013 Does the app say that Robb both legitimizes Jon and name's him heir?? Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordToo-Fat-to-Sit-a-Horse Posted October 9, 2013 Share Posted October 9, 2013 There is controversy over the place of legitimized bastards in the line of succession. They could be placed in order by age, or behind all trueborn sons, or even behind daughters. If Robb was smart enough, he would make his royal decree very clear. A two part "law"a) Legitimize Jon as a Starkb) Name Jon stark as his heir. If he did this, then he would still be heir even if Rickon or Bran reapered.Of course, wills are only enforceable by the good faith of his vassal lords. There is reason to believe the Lords of the north would support jon´s claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gort Posted October 9, 2013 Share Posted October 9, 2013 If it's not said or heavily implied in the books that Sansa has been disinherited, then I don't think such a claim can really be made. Maybe it should have happened, maybe it was prudent to do so, but there was no conversation saying so. For various reasons, Robb could have overlooked such an action as being too drastic or unnecessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar Posted October 9, 2013 Share Posted October 9, 2013 If it's not said or heavily implied in the books that Sansa has been disinherited, then I don't think such a claim can really be made. Maybe it should have happened, maybe it was prudent to do so, but there was no conversation saying so. For various reasons, Robb could have overlooked such an action as being too drastic or unnecessary. I'm pretty sure it is heavily implied. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mladen Posted October 9, 2013 Share Posted October 9, 2013 I'm pretty sure it is heavily implied. That Sansa is disinherited? That Robb made outcast of her, that as someone said she can't call herself a Stark anymore? I am sure he wanted her out of the line, so he inserted Jon. That would suffice, wouldn't it? It would be completely unnecessary (just as it is to put Bran and Rickon's death in the will) to disinherit her if he had another heir, an heir that was chosen with agreement of the Northern Lords. Basically, he did what it takes to make impossible for her to ever claim Winterfell. Disinheritance would be a bit too much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tywin Manderly Posted October 9, 2013 Share Posted October 9, 2013 That would be thinking too much ahead. Robb wasn't preparing for loss, he even got plans how to strengthen his position. He ensured that Sansa wouldn't inherit by making Jon an heir, plus he believed he could have son. All in all, he made certain Sansa is far away from succession line. Also, I am not sure whether disinheritance exists as the concept in Westeros. Nope. That is prudently dealing with a problem that has arisen due to Sansa's marriage. And as long as Robb doesn't disinherit Sansa she is, even with Jon as Robb's heir, only two heartbeats away from inheriting Winterfell. They were all disowned by the Crown, not by the member of the family. I think you are mixing deposing and disinheriting someone. Robb is the Crown of the North......... Entire House Targaryen has been deposed of their rights by the act of rebellion. Stannis was named traitor and therefore removed from line of succession. Robb couldn't have removed Sansa from line of succession if she had done nothing. Simply, I doubt he did it, because he believed that naming Jon as an heir would solve all of that conundrum. Appointing Jon as his successor doesn't solve the problem of Lannister claims on Winterfell through Sansa and her brood. Furthermore, Robb is the king; he therefore can kick anyone out of the line of succession at will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar Posted October 9, 2013 Share Posted October 9, 2013 That Sansa is disinherited? Yes. The argument was made that unless it was heavily implied, we can't assume that Robb disinherited Sansa. The point is that it is heavily implied. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.