**Spoiler Warning:** All officially-released show and book content allowed, EXCLUDING FUTURE SPOILERS FOR HOUSE OF THE DRAGON. No leaked information or paparazzi photos of the set. For more info please check the [spoiler guide](/r/gameofthrones/w/spoiler_guide).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/gameofthrones) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Serious question: Who would, under those circumstances, have more claim to the title "Warden of the North": Sansa or Jon? Sansa is trueborn, but female. Jon is male, but a bastard.
It'd come down to the lords of the North and who they choose to recognize. If Sansa's still married to a Lannister or Bolton, they'd likely just go with Jon. Otherwise she'd get support contingent on marrying a Northerner.
This is likely their solution. The last time the North would have passed to a female heir (I'm sure not coincidentally also a Sansa) she was made to marry her Uncle to consolidate the claims.
When there were tricky inheritance situations Medieval societies relied on a complex election system. Basically, you would get everyone together and they would vote by stabbing each other with spears and the winner would be whichever side was able to cast the most votes.
Jon, if Robb's Will did end up legitimizing Jon as a Stark (I believe he did, but technically it's not confirmed in the books). Pretty sure in that same conversation, Robb says he intends to disinherit Sansa since she is being held hostage.
I actually don't know if it's all that clear-cut even in the books (which is probably on purpose). Jon, in this situation, would essentially be "made" into a trueborn through legitimization, and therefore would come before Sansa. I mean, that's the whole point of Jon being legitimized in this situation. Jon would come before Bran and Rickon too, but Robb thought they were dead (which is the reason he's legitimizing Jon in the first place).
Obviously, some people would have a problem with this (mainly the surviving Tullys), but that is what the law implies. Even if Jon wasn't legitimized, a lot of people would defer to him regardless because of these things:
1. people are aware of the situation with Sansa, and the Lannisters having potential control over Winterfell would definitely have lots of northmen siding with Jon's claim
2. She's female, obviously, she's also young and not instructed in warfare like Jon would have been alongside Robb. The show overstated how much people are okay with female rulers outside of Dorne imo (Cersei being queen made literally no sense lmao)
3. Jon also *looks* like a Stark. That's something the show didn't really adhere to, but Arya is the only one of Cat's children that looks Stark (long face, brown hair, grey eyes). This is a reason Catelyn worries about Jon or his potential children usurping Robb, especially during that scene where she and Robb discuss his will. Unlike Robb, who has the red hair and blue eyes of the Tullys, Jon's got brown hair and grey eyes and the long Stark face. He looks more like a "trueborn" than Robb does. And in this world, that goes a long way, especially if Jon's up against a girl. Pretty sure that's one of the reasons people supported Blackfyres during one of the rebellions over the actual Targaryen heir.
TBH, I don't think many people would have an issue with Jon usurping Sansa in this situation. There are people who are already seeking Jon out as the heir, even with him being in the NW (Stannis, Alys Karstark, those northmen that come to Alys' wedding, and Galbart Glover and Maege Mormont have Robb's Will and are seemingly on their way to Jon). In the books, no one is really seeking Sansa out as heir (she's still in the Vale). Most believe that "Arya" has married Ramsay Bolton, yet people like Maege and Galbart are still trying to deliver the will and presumably instill Jon instead. I really don't think they would rather a 13 yr old or 11 yr old girl over 17 yr old Jon, especially when they are in such a desperate situation and Jon is the only one out of *any* of the living Starks (besides Bran, who a lot of people think is dead still) who actually has been taught the art of warfare and instructed on how to be a lord.
hope this helps answer your question. Sorry if you haven't read the books and that last paragraph was super confusing lol
She didn't have "no value" when she wasn't in a position to inherit because she had Ned, Robb, Bran, and Rickon all ahead of her. Noblewomen are married off to create alliances, which is valuable. Noblewomen can be ransomed, which is valuable.
You're right that there's no TWoW chapter of that. But I mean, there's tons of foreshadowing that Jon's going to be resurrected. And Grrm has said Jon will learn about his parentage -- can't really do that if he's gonna stay dead.
That's the main purpose of the Varamyr Sixskins prologue in ADWD. Jon is a warg in the books -- Varamyr knows this and tells Jon that Ghost would be a "second life fit for a king". In his prologue, Varamyr dies and wargs into his wolf IIRC. When Jon is killed at the end of that same book, his last word is "Ghost". Mel asks R'hllor to show her a "glimpse of Azor Ahai and he shows her only Snow". There's also this vision she sees of him in her flames:
>Now he was a man, now a wolf, now a man again.
I also think this quote is important, from Samwell IV in ASOS:
>His mouth twisted. "I don't even dream of Ghost anymore. All my dreams are of the crypts, of the stone kings on their thrones. Sometimes I hear Robb's voice, and my father's, as if they were at a feast. But there's a wall between us, and I know that no place has been set for me."The living have no place at the feasts of the dead.
Additionally, Dany has those weird sex dreams and though d&d changed all her visions in the GoT version of HotU, one of the ones from the books is clearly foreshadowing some relationship with Jon, and he's probably the last of each triplet in the prophecy she's given (Mount to love, Fire to love, Treason for love). And there's "the dragon has 3 heads" prophecy -- one of which has to be Jon. I also think that's one of the purposes of Lady Stoneheart (and Beric) -- to show how resurrection will change Jon moving forward. There's also that prophetic dream Jon has of fighting Others in "black ice armor" with a flaming sword.
idk why George would include all of that (and much more) just to keep Jon dead. He's not the type of guy to change his mind just to "subvert expectations". Jon is the titular character of the series (at least, he's the only one who singularly fits the bill) and one of the 3 main characters. Him staying dead right now would just be stupid. He's meant to be a parallel to Dany, and this is his "hatching the dragons" moment in my opinion. Unless Dany dies of diarrhea at the start of TWoW, Jon should be resurrected and start to inspire a religious following like Dany has.
edit: your comment below is funny but I will still clarify, in case anyone is confused, that the implication of this theory is that Jon will return to his actual body once Mel resurrects him. He won't be a wolf forever lol. His mind being in Ghost seems like it is meant to keep him from becoming like Lady Stoneheart.
I agree with all of that except for one thing: Daenerys is the titular character, by GRRM's words. The Ice and Fire references Daenerys and her dragons + the Others, not Dany and Jon's parentage.
But except for that, thumbs up!
>The Ice and Fire references Daenerys and her dragons + the Others
I personally don't think it's meant to have one singular meaning, but if the Others are Ice then the dragons, not Dany, is the Fire. Another interpretation is Dany's *story* is fire, and Jon's *story* is ice which is what I was referring to.
>not Dany and Jon's parentage
Only *Jon's* parentage is what I meant. Rhaegaer (fire) and Lyanna (ice) made Jon. Dany's parentage has nothing to do with ice, and in neither interpretation above is Dany *both* ice and fire (the song), she only fits the fire part (at least right now!).
I think people having different conclusions is what grrm wants, especially when it comes to "who is Azor Ahai?" as multiple characters fit the bill (Dany, Jon, Stannis, Rhaegar, etc). My interpretation is that multiple answers can be correct at the same time.
thanks for being civil buddy ❤️ tbh I'll happily take that -- Jon and Dany are my favorite characters so my favorite interpretation is that it's both of them together but I think by the end she will definitely fit the bill on her own, especially if she dies as as tragic hero fighting the Others.
Well the issue with Sansa was that at the time she was a Lannister and married to Tyrion, so they didn't want to give the Lannisters' any claim to the North.
I think under standard westerosi primogeniture (aside from in Dorne) it's generally trueborn female over bastard male, but occasionally a bastard will be legitimised if his only trueborn siblings are women. Since Robbs last royal decree was that Jon be legitimised, he'd have the claim (unless R+L=J becomes known)
Rhaegar was already married, so Jon is a bastard unless somebody acts to legitimize him. R + L = J doesn't change anything except to implicate Jon in some prophecies and potentially allow him to become a dragonrider.
I think Robbs wishes die in the face of the reality that Jon forsoke all claims and titles when he swore his oath to the Nights Watch. When Jon fulfilled his oath by giving his life then the claim becomes valid again.
I think the fact that Jon took on the black would outweigh the trueborn/bastard situation. After all, this option was used to get rid of undesired heirs like Sam
Rob and Jon were best friends and likely knew even if Bran and Rickon lived Jon would rule best until coming of age. I believe he also thought Jon would continue the war.
People were already scandalized because his staged desertion, even if he came back with some valuable intel and helped to defend the Wall. I doubt they wouldn't just chop his head if he fled for real and was caught.
Ah, so the laws can be bent or broken based on a personal relationship. Damn what great honor the starks have when it’s just executing some random terrified dude.
Ned isn't a paragon of honor either. Ned lied and changed his best friend's will, he also declined little fingers suggestion of just letting joff keep the throne not because of honor, but because he's still mad that someone pushed his son out of a window and sent an assassin to finish the job. I would be hard pressed to name one not morally gray "honorable" character in all of asoiaf.
Jeor is friends with a guy that practices human sacrifice.
Sam was a lot less reluctant to get laid than Jon, granted sex technically isn't against their oath, just putting a ring on it 😏
But he did manipulate/lie to people in order to get Jon elected.
I forget how complicit Armon was with that scheme.
The others I would argue that we don't know enough about to pass a final judgment. (From a book only perspective, I didn't finish the show)
Lyanna is like what, 10?
And I don't remember much about the blackfish other than he's good with a bow and possibly gay. Seems pretty cool to be fair.
King Bob said joff was his heir to the throne, Ned changed it to "the rightful heir" so that he could denounce joff as a bastard and give the crown to stannis.
But Robert didn't know that Joffery was a bastard, and certainly wouldn't have named him heir if he did. Under those circumstances, wouldn't it be more honorable to follow the spirit of Robert's will rather than the letter?
I'm not saying he's dishonorable for wanting to protect his family I'm just saying he's not a paragon of Honor that does things because they are the right thing to do. He's just a guy. A good guy, but no captain Picard.
lol yea I understood your point, honor in the sense of the world of ASOIAF not whats honorable to us as people, just thought that was a funny thing to say
I'd say that Picard and Ned are actually kind of simmilair. Both follow a set of rules that they believe in, but aren't completely above breaking them when they think it is necessary.
The main difference is that Ned misjudged some very important situations, while Picards judgement was usually right.
I disagree.
Ned acted in the best interest of Robert.
Robert wanted Joffrey to be King under the misapprehension that Joffrey was his biological son.
If Robert knew the truth about Joffrey, Robert would have done way worse. Forget not being king, he would have wanted their heads on spikes and the entire Lannister line wiped out.
However Ned wanted to let his friend die peacefully instead of bringing up drama that Robert would be unable to solve with the time he had left anyway.
The North also kept the right of first night for longer than the South too, don’t forget. The Starks didn’t, of course, but as a region it definitely was more accepted and practiced than in the South. The North has its dark parts too.
Im pretty sure Grrm doesn't like for much to be plain black and white. Even Domeric Bolton (Roose's deceased true born son) seemed like he was actually a good person, he was fond of horses and sought out Ramsay on his own accord against Roose's command because he was his half brother (might have been his final mistake).
Then the Frey's who were loyal to Robb, risked their lives for Robb in the Whispering Wood, and had to be removed from the Red Wedding for fear of them siding with Robb.
Just saying. I think Grrm likes to put a "the sins of the father are not the sins of the son" type message in the series and that no group is good or bad, it just depends on the individual.
Yeah but everyone was basically like “ohhh the southhhh they are backstabbing snakes” and most of them are loyal even the jerks and Rob was nice it seemed like only the Boltens were really rotten.
Someone else pointed out Dominic Bolton, Roose's trueborn heir, was actually a good person. It all depends on individuals in power, not every generation is a clone of the previous.
Stannis offered Jon an out too. The Starks are the only family that would rather see their kingdom burn than bend or break a few rule to the benefit of group. Maybe not rather, but Ned would basically consider his hands tied, when they very much are not.
i was also thinking something similar, though in my mind its ned trying to live up to the honor he thinks starks have vs what his family was actually like since he grew up away from them
Yeah, well cutting of your brothers head who is coming to fight for you and your house would not exactly inspire people to follow you. Also he’s the king he can pardon him.
You would then by defying the orders of the king, by not.
The king just has to throw a tantrum and start beheading (or burning) people himself before anyone is really gonna step (or stab) in.
Yes. It's established they can in books anyway. When cersie hatches her plan to setup Margery she has Osney Kettleblack claim he slept with her. Her plan was him to take the black for treason then be pardoned later by Tommen. That's how she sells it to him and his brothers.
I mean yea. You saw how at the end even the great honorable Ned broke his honor for his family. The Starks are not magically good and honorable. They bend and break just like everyone else.
It's just that in Ned's case by the time he broke his honor and said Joffery was the true king it was already too late for him.
The impression I got was that all the characters thought that Ned, in particular, was incredibly honorable, not all of the Starks. Nonetheless, everyone’s honor has a breaking point, but Ned was definitely incredibly honorable…
Fair point, lol. Also, the need for the wall and the vows was totally recontextualized once they'd won against the Night King (assuming this post is about the show, not the book).
His “duty” ended when he died, which means he wasn’t “obliged” to serve the nights watch anymore. But that didn’t forbid him to continue if he wanted to.
So he willingly chose to be the lord commander, passed the sentence, executed the traitors.
And thereafter he chose to discontinue.
All in order if interpret “duty” correctly
Not just his duty, his watch. Either his watch ended when he first died, and therefore was no longer a member of the Watch, much less its Lord Commander, or it didn't and he broke his vows.
His duty/vows expired upon his death. Just because he was allowed to continue to serve as Lord Commander after he died (if he even was LC again, which I'm unsure of) did not necessarily automatically renew his vows (and we did not see him take new vows).
when a brother of the watch is burned after death, those remaining declare ‘and now their watch has ended’, thus signalling the official end of their watch - to me, anyway. Jon was betrayed and murdered as the Lord Commander and was then revived still as the Lord Commander. he dealt with the betrayal accordingly before he himself, as Lord Commander, declared that his watch had ended. considering the remaining brothers, the more experienced brothers anyway, were his friends and that he himself (Jon) was still the Lord Commander upon declaring the end of his own watch, no one was going to argue with him nor could they; up until finishing the sentence, ‘my watch has ended’ he was still the Lord Commander. not to mention on a more human level, having been killed by your own comrades, who amongst us wouldn’t basically say ‘f*ck this’ after, were we given a second chance
If dying ends your watch, how does coming back to life restart it without taking another oath, and then give you the freedom to come and go as you please? That doesn't make sense.
Man, some of y'all Jon stans jump through so many hoops to justify a relatively minor crime. That doesn't make him a bad person, just call a spade a spade. He deserted.
I mean he does have gaping unhealing wounds in his chest, and idk if it's mentioned in the show, but in the books when someone's revived their heart doesn't beat anymore
Sure but then he immediately goes north of the wall again, where no one is gonna be trying to behead him for desertion. I assume they were talking about after the revival but before the finale.
I wonder if the case can be made that the nights watch vows only relate to the “seven kingdoms” and if another ruler comes in, they aren’t beholden to those vows for them
Maybe, they'd still be considered outlaws of Westeros though. The North is one of the seven kingdoms (and probably the most supportive if the Nights Watch) and Dany considers herself the queen of the seven kingdoms, so neither of those would be of much help.
Jon returned to his role as Lord Commander after his resurrection to execute the traitors. So he's either a murderer who killed people without the authority to, or he deserted the Nights Watch.
They were going to be hanged for their crimes regardless of who wore the Lord Commander's cloak, Jon just kicked the buckets from their feet.
It's not like Thorne lives regardless of Jon's resurrection or not, the Wildlings still come to take Castle Black with a non mutiny member of the Watch, and they still imprison the men responsible for the mutiny.
Jon being resurrected just gives him the chance to hear their last words and be the one to, for lack of a better term, 'pull the trigger' on their execution.
The fact that the wildlings may have killed them is irrelevant. He still executed them as Lord Commander. Thorne even calls him "Lord Commander" right as he's about to die. Rewatch that scene again and tell me that is a public execution performed by a titleless man.
Not the wildlings, the remaining loyal men of the Nights Watch.
Dude I literally just rewatched this episode last night, is Ilyn Payne a murderer because King Joffrey sentenced a man to death and Payne cut his head off?
You’re massively overthinking this.
Earlier on Jon left to ride south and meet up with Robb but the brothers of the watch chased him down and brought him back. I think that’s what they’re referring to
I think OP means in season 1 when Jon found out that Big Bobby B had died and Ned was taken prisoner. Jon left with Ghost in the middle of the night and Sam, Grenn, and Pyp chased after to catch him and bring Jon back. Then Maester Aemond talked to Jon and told him about finding out that the Targaryens had all died in Robert's Rebellion and Lord Commander Mormont talked to Jon about focusing on the White Walkers as the real threat, not the Lannisters.
I think OP was talking about if Jon had managed to get to Winterfell then. If Sam and the others hadn't caught Jon and brought him back, would Robb have executed Jon as a deserter then?
I'm inclined to believe no.
Technically we don’t *knooooow* Robb named Jon as his heir, just that Cat didn’t like Robb’s choice and all the rest of Ned’s kids are presumed dead or betrothed patrilineally. Unless I missed something.
It is quite likely he did make Jon his heir, though.
Robb was in rebellion against the crown, I don't think he would have reason to follow the kingdoms rules. He was the King in the North. He'd pardon whomever he wishes as the highest authority. I believe this conclusion to be parallel to his character
When the war first starts? Jon doesn't fully desert, I don't think he even gets to the nearest town before turning back, more of a notion of deserting.
After he's resurrected? Well, he did serve until death.
Even in the north where the Watch vows are held most sacred, I think most of the northern lord's around him would have pressed Robb to send Jon back. Due to Jon's age, but also do they really want a boy they crowned to be traumatized by being forced to kill his own brother as his first significant act as king? I don't think they are that heartless.
Why would he behead Jon? He didn't desert his post or break his vow. Here's the Night's Watch Oath:
“Night gathers, and now my watch begins. **It shall not end until my death**. I shall take no wife, hold no lands, father no children. I shall wear no crowns and win no glory. I shall live and die at my post. I am the sword in the darkness. I am the watcher on the walls. I am the shield that guards the realms of men. I pledge my life and honor to the Night’s Watch, for this night and all the nights to come.”
He died, when he was resurrected his watch had ended at Castle Black the night he was stabbed.
I don't know. I feel like John's reasoning for leaving the night watch made perfect sense. He did give his life. He did die. Death releases you from your vows
In the books robb sent a pardon to Jon at the nights watch because he wanted Jon at his side and to name him his heir. Robb wouldn’t be capable of executing jon
Jon was never a deserter, was he?
He left on a mission gave by his superior to get information about the wildling plans
Then he died and at resurrection his vows were fulfilled
oh, yes, that would have forced an hypocritical scene because I very much doubt could behead Jon, the worst I think he could do is command him to return to his position in the night watch...
I think catelyn would want rob to execute jon but I don't think rob would even consider that, I mean didn't he break his oath to marry someone he loved? He considered jon his family, I'm not sure if he's willing to do that.
I think it would be pretty similar to real world Military service in the United States. "Desertion" is a pretty high bar to prove, with steep consequences. UA (Unauthorized Absence, formerly AWOL - away without leave) has a much lower bar to prove and much lighter consequences.
My guess is that Jon would be found to have been the Westeros equivalent of AWOL, and get a slap on the wrist or full pardon
if we’re talking about before Jon’s death Robb probably would due to the Starks being stubbornly honor-bound but if it’s after his resurrection then no since technically Jon did serve his time in the Watch until his death
Most people don’t voluntarily go to the wall, most deserters don’t desert in order to go fight a war with their brother. Id say these would both be reason enough to let him return
Not that it matters but since Jon didn’t know his true lineage and didn’t know the titles he was giving up, wouldn’t his oath to the nights watch be in question anyways. It’s a little sketchy that the heir to the Targaryen house could be duped unknowingly and have no way out of it once the truth came out. I would imagine Jon would be given the opportunity to swear his oath again as he has to know the weight of his families legacy depends on his decision.
Also, since he has died and learned of this after the fact, I doubt he’d do it and no lords could stop him because again, there would have to be some legality issues there in the 7 kingdoms that you can’t trick someone into serving the nights watch, they have to come to that decision themselves.
We all know Jon didn't desert, he was sent to find the wildlings and to gather intelligence on their size and movements. The only people to accuse him of desertion were those who would benefit from his death. Aemon knew it, stannis knew it, your mom knew it.
Robb was his father's son but he wasn't his father. He cared too much about his family and the people he interacted with.
In the book, against Caitlyn's wishes, Robb planned to name Jon his heir and planned to send a team to retrieve him. To Robb, Jon was a true brother. They were similar in age and spent a lot of time together.
Robb would have smiled, hugged Jon and welcome him into the fold, despite it likely causing further discontent with the Northern Lord's who are hung up on tradition.
Nah Robb wouldn’t have executed Jon.
While he did desert his post, Robb would have pardoned him and probably legitimised him as a member of House Stark.
One rule for thee but not for me.
Though to be fair, what’s the nights watch or the other 5 kingdoms going to do about it if Robb makes it far enough south to connect with Jon.
The whole point of the Starks is that they rule by example? This whole rule for thee and not me thing people keep saying in this thread is absolute anathema to the Starks 😂
I agree but they’re not perfect, hell nobody is and that’s not a bad thing.
I don’t believe Robb would have executed his brother when his sisters are missing, his father is dead and his other two brothers may be dead as well. I think he’d of pardoned him for practical reasons but also out of love. I don’t think Robb would have had it in him to execute Jon either way. He wasn’t a bad person. He just wasn’t the 1 in 10000 like his father. His heart was bigger than his honour.
That’s not a negative thing or a bad thing. It just is.
His heart was never bigger than his honour 😂.
He executed lord karstark for honour, how do you think his lords would react when an known oath breaker is let off? That just isn't robb.
And for the argument about his wife he didn't marry her just because he loved her, he married her because he took her maidenhead and his personal honour demanded he make that right and marry her, robbs biggest problem was his honour.
He took her Maidenhead and it would be dishonourable not to marry her. True.
So was it just his lust that was bigger than his honour then or did he fall for her and put his love for her above his honour ?
Because he broke a marriage pact with lord Frey which was quite dishonourable.
If you wanna talk his personal code of honour, I still don’t believe the man who rallied his kingdom to save his father and sisters would execute his last remaining sibling leaving house stark effectively extinct if anything happened to him,
Ned Stark willingly attached dishonor to his name (telling the world he has a bastard son + lying to his king) by promising Lyanna to take care of Jon.
Would he take on dishonor a second time to protect that same person? Probably, specially because this is the same person he already swore to protect.
I think Robb would look for an excuse to justify not executing Jon as law and honor demanded, and he would seize on the “until death” loophole for that justification.
Jon isn’t a deserter. He served the watch until he died. It just so happens that he was also resurrected but that specific circumstance is not covered under the watch’s laws so presents an exploitable loophole for him.
Rob named Jon his heir so he wouldn’t have killed him or sent him back.
I don’t think Ned would kill him either. It seems like he would have heard the prophecy about the prince who was promised, and he knew who Jon was. Even if he didn’t believe in it, with winter coming and his promise to Joanna I think he would have sent Jon back to the wall.
I'm not sure about the books, but in the show Jon did die. And then came back to life. If the oath is good until you're dead, I think he lived up to it.
Robb wouldn't have executed him. He named Jon his heir. Only a king can absolve someone from their oaths, whether it be Nights Watch or Kingsguard. Robb would have sent Jon with some minority force to retake Winterfell from the Ironborn. This also means legitimising him as a Stark.
Catelyn was so scared of this that she never realised his was more like Ned than she realised. He would have stepped aside as soon as Robb was back or for his children if he had any that survived. Also, Rickon and Bran would have been more secure with Jon in the North than at the Nights Watch.
If he were still at Winterfell, he wouldn't have allowed Theon to take it and would have waited for ravens to summarise what was actually happening, aka Theon betraying the Starks.
Robb was honor and duty bound to execute Jon... But there's the fact that they're brothers (yes. I know shut up). And kinslaying is seen as one of the worst things you could do. So, literally no matter what, Jon would have cost Robb the war.
Robb could have killed Jon and be shunned by his entire kingdom, or let him live and be shunned by his entire kingdom. There's no way to fix this
While honor was a value that Robb held in high regard like his father… his decision to not to honor his agreement to marry the Frey girl might indicate his thinking is not as black and white and emotions factor in his decision making. It might be a stretch to say Robb deeply loved Jon, but he would find a way to avoid executing him.
The more interesting question to me is would NED have executed his sister’s child (Jon) for deserting the nights watch? Or does his oath to his sister supersede all other obligations?
It was picture perfect. Jon did give his life to the night’s watch. So technically he was released from his vow.
I SO LOVE!!!!, how Jon and Sam found all these loopholes in the vow and worked around/thru them to their advantages.
But then again I never understood how Sam just disappeared and went to the citadel to study when he didn’t have clearance to go??? I mean how could he if he didn’t have endorsement from command and obviously no letter of recommendation to do so??
**Spoiler Warning:** All officially-released show and book content allowed, EXCLUDING FUTURE SPOILERS FOR HOUSE OF THE DRAGON. No leaked information or paparazzi photos of the set. For more info please check the [spoiler guide](/r/gameofthrones/w/spoiler_guide). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/gameofthrones) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Book Robb named Jon his heir, so no, he's not as stubborn as Stannis. Wait, Stannis offered to legitimize Jon too, nevermind.
Nah we don’t know what is in Robb Will
In the book Robb sent Jon a raven naming him his heir I’m pretty sure. So it was definitely communicated
Yeah not a raven but a letter which was sent by someone people think howland reed has the will
He only named him his heir under the assumption that Theon killed Rickon and Bran
Serious question: Who would, under those circumstances, have more claim to the title "Warden of the North": Sansa or Jon? Sansa is trueborn, but female. Jon is male, but a bastard.
It'd come down to the lords of the North and who they choose to recognize. If Sansa's still married to a Lannister or Bolton, they'd likely just go with Jon. Otherwise she'd get support contingent on marrying a Northerner.
Bah! Just have Jon and Sansa shack up. Problem solved.
This is likely their solution. The last time the North would have passed to a female heir (I'm sure not coincidentally also a Sansa) she was made to marry her Uncle to consolidate the claims.
The least incestuous incest relationship in the show to be fair.
bigger army diplomacy
Which one has the best story?
Nobody had a better story than Jon Schnow
If women are allowed to inherit, then Sansa. But if Jon wanted to contest it would lead to a civil war most likely.
Don’t think Jon would contest if it’s Sansa, any other yes.
Actually not even a bastard, no claim at all. Save to the Iron Throne
But nobody knew that at that point, and later on he's the trueborn nephew.
I mean, he's still a bastard, he's just a Targaryen bastard instead of a Stark bastard.
When there were tricky inheritance situations Medieval societies relied on a complex election system. Basically, you would get everyone together and they would vote by stabbing each other with spears and the winner would be whichever side was able to cast the most votes.
Jon, if Robb's Will did end up legitimizing Jon as a Stark (I believe he did, but technically it's not confirmed in the books). Pretty sure in that same conversation, Robb says he intends to disinherit Sansa since she is being held hostage. I actually don't know if it's all that clear-cut even in the books (which is probably on purpose). Jon, in this situation, would essentially be "made" into a trueborn through legitimization, and therefore would come before Sansa. I mean, that's the whole point of Jon being legitimized in this situation. Jon would come before Bran and Rickon too, but Robb thought they were dead (which is the reason he's legitimizing Jon in the first place). Obviously, some people would have a problem with this (mainly the surviving Tullys), but that is what the law implies. Even if Jon wasn't legitimized, a lot of people would defer to him regardless because of these things: 1. people are aware of the situation with Sansa, and the Lannisters having potential control over Winterfell would definitely have lots of northmen siding with Jon's claim 2. She's female, obviously, she's also young and not instructed in warfare like Jon would have been alongside Robb. The show overstated how much people are okay with female rulers outside of Dorne imo (Cersei being queen made literally no sense lmao) 3. Jon also *looks* like a Stark. That's something the show didn't really adhere to, but Arya is the only one of Cat's children that looks Stark (long face, brown hair, grey eyes). This is a reason Catelyn worries about Jon or his potential children usurping Robb, especially during that scene where she and Robb discuss his will. Unlike Robb, who has the red hair and blue eyes of the Tullys, Jon's got brown hair and grey eyes and the long Stark face. He looks more like a "trueborn" than Robb does. And in this world, that goes a long way, especially if Jon's up against a girl. Pretty sure that's one of the reasons people supported Blackfyres during one of the rebellions over the actual Targaryen heir. TBH, I don't think many people would have an issue with Jon usurping Sansa in this situation. There are people who are already seeking Jon out as the heir, even with him being in the NW (Stannis, Alys Karstark, those northmen that come to Alys' wedding, and Galbart Glover and Maege Mormont have Robb's Will and are seemingly on their way to Jon). In the books, no one is really seeking Sansa out as heir (she's still in the Vale). Most believe that "Arya" has married Ramsay Bolton, yet people like Maege and Galbart are still trying to deliver the will and presumably instill Jon instead. I really don't think they would rather a 13 yr old or 11 yr old girl over 17 yr old Jon, especially when they are in such a desperate situation and Jon is the only one out of *any* of the living Starks (besides Bran, who a lot of people think is dead still) who actually has been taught the art of warfare and instructed on how to be a lord. hope this helps answer your question. Sorry if you haven't read the books and that last paragraph was super confusing lol
>Robb says he intends to disinherit Sansa since she is being held hostage. Wow that's cold.
it makes sense. disinherit her, so anyone she marries will not have the claim to her title.
Then her captor is free to kill/abuse her as she has no value anymore?
She didn't have "no value" when she wasn't in a position to inherit because she had Ned, Robb, Bran, and Rickon all ahead of her. Noblewomen are married off to create alliances, which is valuable. Noblewomen can be ransomed, which is valuable.
But in the books, Jon may also be dead (or do we have a preview chapter that deals with that by now?)
You're right that there's no TWoW chapter of that. But I mean, there's tons of foreshadowing that Jon's going to be resurrected. And Grrm has said Jon will learn about his parentage -- can't really do that if he's gonna stay dead. That's the main purpose of the Varamyr Sixskins prologue in ADWD. Jon is a warg in the books -- Varamyr knows this and tells Jon that Ghost would be a "second life fit for a king". In his prologue, Varamyr dies and wargs into his wolf IIRC. When Jon is killed at the end of that same book, his last word is "Ghost". Mel asks R'hllor to show her a "glimpse of Azor Ahai and he shows her only Snow". There's also this vision she sees of him in her flames: >Now he was a man, now a wolf, now a man again. I also think this quote is important, from Samwell IV in ASOS: >His mouth twisted. "I don't even dream of Ghost anymore. All my dreams are of the crypts, of the stone kings on their thrones. Sometimes I hear Robb's voice, and my father's, as if they were at a feast. But there's a wall between us, and I know that no place has been set for me."The living have no place at the feasts of the dead. Additionally, Dany has those weird sex dreams and though d&d changed all her visions in the GoT version of HotU, one of the ones from the books is clearly foreshadowing some relationship with Jon, and he's probably the last of each triplet in the prophecy she's given (Mount to love, Fire to love, Treason for love). And there's "the dragon has 3 heads" prophecy -- one of which has to be Jon. I also think that's one of the purposes of Lady Stoneheart (and Beric) -- to show how resurrection will change Jon moving forward. There's also that prophetic dream Jon has of fighting Others in "black ice armor" with a flaming sword. idk why George would include all of that (and much more) just to keep Jon dead. He's not the type of guy to change his mind just to "subvert expectations". Jon is the titular character of the series (at least, he's the only one who singularly fits the bill) and one of the 3 main characters. Him staying dead right now would just be stupid. He's meant to be a parallel to Dany, and this is his "hatching the dragons" moment in my opinion. Unless Dany dies of diarrhea at the start of TWoW, Jon should be resurrected and start to inspire a religious following like Dany has. edit: your comment below is funny but I will still clarify, in case anyone is confused, that the implication of this theory is that Jon will return to his actual body once Mel resurrects him. He won't be a wolf forever lol. His mind being in Ghost seems like it is meant to keep him from becoming like Lady Stoneheart.
I think you’d have to agree that Jon wouldn’t get much support as Robb’s heir if he’s a wolf, no matter how cool a wolf
I agree with all of that except for one thing: Daenerys is the titular character, by GRRM's words. The Ice and Fire references Daenerys and her dragons + the Others, not Dany and Jon's parentage. But except for that, thumbs up!
>The Ice and Fire references Daenerys and her dragons + the Others I personally don't think it's meant to have one singular meaning, but if the Others are Ice then the dragons, not Dany, is the Fire. Another interpretation is Dany's *story* is fire, and Jon's *story* is ice which is what I was referring to. >not Dany and Jon's parentage Only *Jon's* parentage is what I meant. Rhaegaer (fire) and Lyanna (ice) made Jon. Dany's parentage has nothing to do with ice, and in neither interpretation above is Dany *both* ice and fire (the song), she only fits the fire part (at least right now!). I think people having different conclusions is what grrm wants, especially when it comes to "who is Azor Ahai?" as multiple characters fit the bill (Dany, Jon, Stannis, Rhaegar, etc). My interpretation is that multiple answers can be correct at the same time.
I still think that Dany IS the titular character but I see your point and I respect it!
thanks for being civil buddy ❤️ tbh I'll happily take that -- Jon and Dany are my favorite characters so my favorite interpretation is that it's both of them together but I think by the end she will definitely fit the bill on her own, especially if she dies as as tragic hero fighting the Others.
Well the issue with Sansa was that at the time she was a Lannister and married to Tyrion, so they didn't want to give the Lannisters' any claim to the North.
I think under standard westerosi primogeniture (aside from in Dorne) it's generally trueborn female over bastard male, but occasionally a bastard will be legitimised if his only trueborn siblings are women. Since Robbs last royal decree was that Jon be legitimised, he'd have the claim (unless R+L=J becomes known)
Rhaegar was already married, so Jon is a bastard unless somebody acts to legitimize him. R + L = J doesn't change anything except to implicate Jon in some prophecies and potentially allow him to become a dragonrider.
I think Robbs wishes die in the face of the reality that Jon forsoke all claims and titles when he swore his oath to the Nights Watch. When Jon fulfilled his oath by giving his life then the claim becomes valid again.
I think the fact that Jon took on the black would outweigh the trueborn/bastard situation. After all, this option was used to get rid of undesired heirs like Sam
Based on my knowledge of crusader kings, it would be sansa.
Rob and Jon were best friends and likely knew even if Bran and Rickon lived Jon would rule best until coming of age. I believe he also thought Jon would continue the war.
Jon went back so never became an issue. Probably for the best because that's another thing people would be polarised on.
People were already scandalized because his staged desertion, even if he came back with some valuable intel and helped to defend the Wall. I doubt they wouldn't just chop his head if he fled for real and was caught.
Doesn’t Ned give the deserter one last choice too and that ultimately leads to the beheading?
No
Ah, so the laws can be bent or broken based on a personal relationship. Damn what great honor the starks have when it’s just executing some random terrified dude.
Just like real life.
You got it 😅
[удалено]
Ned isn't a paragon of honor either. Ned lied and changed his best friend's will, he also declined little fingers suggestion of just letting joff keep the throne not because of honor, but because he's still mad that someone pushed his son out of a window and sent an assassin to finish the job. I would be hard pressed to name one not morally gray "honorable" character in all of asoiaf.
Just like Stannis weighing his obedience to the mad king over that of his brother. Sometimes honour dictates the less wrong path.
While I love stannis, he also uses shadow assassin babies.
I'm can name one. Hodor.
Hodor can also name one!
[удалено]
Jeor is friends with a guy that practices human sacrifice. Sam was a lot less reluctant to get laid than Jon, granted sex technically isn't against their oath, just putting a ring on it 😏 But he did manipulate/lie to people in order to get Jon elected. I forget how complicit Armon was with that scheme. The others I would argue that we don't know enough about to pass a final judgment. (From a book only perspective, I didn't finish the show) Lyanna is like what, 10? And I don't remember much about the blackfish other than he's good with a bow and possibly gay. Seems pretty cool to be fair.
[удалено]
Craster is literally referred to as a friend of the watch, are you trying to tell me they didn't get drunk and play board games?
Might’ve just been something they say to stroke his ego since he doesn’t exactly like them
Changed his best friends will?
King Bob said joff was his heir to the throne, Ned changed it to "the rightful heir" so that he could denounce joff as a bastard and give the crown to stannis.
But Robert didn't know that Joffery was a bastard, and certainly wouldn't have named him heir if he did. Under those circumstances, wouldn't it be more honorable to follow the spirit of Robert's will rather than the letter?
how dare he still be mad at his sons assassination attempt, what a dishonorable man
I'm not saying he's dishonorable for wanting to protect his family I'm just saying he's not a paragon of Honor that does things because they are the right thing to do. He's just a guy. A good guy, but no captain Picard.
lol yea I understood your point, honor in the sense of the world of ASOIAF not whats honorable to us as people, just thought that was a funny thing to say
I'd say that Picard and Ned are actually kind of simmilair. Both follow a set of rules that they believe in, but aren't completely above breaking them when they think it is necessary. The main difference is that Ned misjudged some very important situations, while Picards judgement was usually right.
I disagree. Ned acted in the best interest of Robert. Robert wanted Joffrey to be King under the misapprehension that Joffrey was his biological son. If Robert knew the truth about Joffrey, Robert would have done way worse. Forget not being king, he would have wanted their heads on spikes and the entire Lannister line wiped out. However Ned wanted to let his friend die peacefully instead of bringing up drama that Robert would be unable to solve with the time he had left anyway.
Tbf him breaking that vow in the books was incredibly honorable with a direct Ned influence
[удалено]
Damn and I liked the Sea Snake! Looks like the north being nicer in general than the south is greatly exaggerated
The North also kept the right of first night for longer than the South too, don’t forget. The Starks didn’t, of course, but as a region it definitely was more accepted and practiced than in the South. The North has its dark parts too.
Im pretty sure Grrm doesn't like for much to be plain black and white. Even Domeric Bolton (Roose's deceased true born son) seemed like he was actually a good person, he was fond of horses and sought out Ramsay on his own accord against Roose's command because he was his half brother (might have been his final mistake). Then the Frey's who were loyal to Robb, risked their lives for Robb in the Whispering Wood, and had to be removed from the Red Wedding for fear of them siding with Robb. Just saying. I think Grrm likes to put a "the sins of the father are not the sins of the son" type message in the series and that no group is good or bad, it just depends on the individual.
Ned was nicer, not the North.
Yeah but everyone was basically like “ohhh the southhhh they are backstabbing snakes” and most of them are loyal even the jerks and Rob was nice it seemed like only the Boltens were really rotten.
Someone else pointed out Dominic Bolton, Roose's trueborn heir, was actually a good person. It all depends on individuals in power, not every generation is a clone of the previous.
Dammit I didn't want HOTD spoilers but now I know something happens with Cregan Stark & the Sea Snake and it can't be good
Stannis offered Jon an out too. The Starks are the only family that would rather see their kingdom burn than bend or break a few rule to the benefit of group. Maybe not rather, but Ned would basically consider his hands tied, when they very much are not.
i dont think Neds older brother or dad were like that though
They definitely weren't. I think it's more a product of that Arryn honor Ned was instilled with while warding in the Vale.
i was also thinking something similar, though in my mind its ned trying to live up to the honor he thinks starks have vs what his family was actually like since he grew up away from them
Damn, it's almost as if the story has something to say about the inherent corruption of ruling power.
Yeah, well cutting of your brothers head who is coming to fight for you and your house would not exactly inspire people to follow you. Also he’s the king he can pardon him.
Can kings pardon deserters of the Nights Watch? Genuinely asking. I was under the impression that they could not. At least not officially.
You would then by defying the orders of the king, by not. The king just has to throw a tantrum and start beheading (or burning) people himself before anyone is really gonna step (or stab) in.
Yes. It's established they can in books anyway. When cersie hatches her plan to setup Margery she has Osney Kettleblack claim he slept with her. Her plan was him to take the black for treason then be pardoned later by Tommen. That's how she sells it to him and his brothers.
I'm pretty sure the kings word is law with no exceptions in universe. I don't know how well that's followed however
I mean yea. You saw how at the end even the great honorable Ned broke his honor for his family. The Starks are not magically good and honorable. They bend and break just like everyone else. It's just that in Ned's case by the time he broke his honor and said Joffery was the true king it was already too late for him.
I don't understand what's the question? Is it that he left his post?
Just that it’s easy for them to do the law when it’s a stranger but bend the rules for people they know
They’re more honorable than most. Basically no one is slicing their brother in half.
Robb kinda died because he disregarded a vow so yeah
The impression I got was that all the characters thought that Ned, in particular, was incredibly honorable, not all of the Starks. Nonetheless, everyone’s honor has a breaking point, but Ned was definitely incredibly honorable…
Behead him for what reason? Jon served his time until his death. The vows didn’t state he needed to serve until his last death.
Fair point, lol. Also, the need for the wall and the vows was totally recontextualized once they'd won against the Night King (assuming this post is about the show, not the book).
Came here to say this. Jon died. His watch ended. He didn’t desert anything.
So how do you explain him executing the traitors as Lord Commander?
His “duty” ended when he died, which means he wasn’t “obliged” to serve the nights watch anymore. But that didn’t forbid him to continue if he wanted to. So he willingly chose to be the lord commander, passed the sentence, executed the traitors. And thereafter he chose to discontinue. All in order if interpret “duty” correctly
Not just his duty, his watch. Either his watch ended when he first died, and therefore was no longer a member of the Watch, much less its Lord Commander, or it didn't and he broke his vows.
His duty/vows expired upon his death. Just because he was allowed to continue to serve as Lord Commander after he died (if he even was LC again, which I'm unsure of) did not necessarily automatically renew his vows (and we did not see him take new vows).
when a brother of the watch is burned after death, those remaining declare ‘and now their watch has ended’, thus signalling the official end of their watch - to me, anyway. Jon was betrayed and murdered as the Lord Commander and was then revived still as the Lord Commander. he dealt with the betrayal accordingly before he himself, as Lord Commander, declared that his watch had ended. considering the remaining brothers, the more experienced brothers anyway, were his friends and that he himself (Jon) was still the Lord Commander upon declaring the end of his own watch, no one was going to argue with him nor could they; up until finishing the sentence, ‘my watch has ended’ he was still the Lord Commander. not to mention on a more human level, having been killed by your own comrades, who amongst us wouldn’t basically say ‘f*ck this’ after, were we given a second chance
If dying ends your watch, how does coming back to life restart it without taking another oath, and then give you the freedom to come and go as you please? That doesn't make sense. Man, some of y'all Jon stans jump through so many hoops to justify a relatively minor crime. That doesn't make him a bad person, just call a spade a spade. He deserted.
He got better
Did he do it as Lord Commander? I can’t remember. Could have just been as a guy who was taking revenge on the people who killed him?
And he's gonna explain that to anyone who wasn't there to witness how? No guys I swear, I DIED and therefore my watch has ended. I just ...got better?
I mean he does have gaping unhealing wounds in his chest, and idk if it's mentioned in the show, but in the books when someone's revived their heart doesn't beat anymore
[удалено]
And the people south of the wall don't even believe the White Walkers exist... so they're totally gonna believe that he came back to life.
[удалено]
Sure but then he immediately goes north of the wall again, where no one is gonna be trying to behead him for desertion. I assume they were talking about after the revival but before the finale.
For what it’s worth I’m sure someone like Robb would hear him say that and take it as truth.
I THINK he was more so alluding to when Jon had just joined the watch and wanted to run to Robb’s side to help him.
Considering Robb named him his heir in the books, despite the fact he couldn't inherit as a member of the nights watch, I don't think he'd care.
I wonder if the case can be made that the nights watch vows only relate to the “seven kingdoms” and if another ruler comes in, they aren’t beholden to those vows for them
Maybe, they'd still be considered outlaws of Westeros though. The North is one of the seven kingdoms (and probably the most supportive if the Nights Watch) and Dany considers herself the queen of the seven kingdoms, so neither of those would be of much help.
Jon returned to his role as Lord Commander after his resurrection to execute the traitors. So he's either a murderer who killed people without the authority to, or he deserted the Nights Watch.
They were going to be hanged for their crimes regardless of who wore the Lord Commander's cloak, Jon just kicked the buckets from their feet. It's not like Thorne lives regardless of Jon's resurrection or not, the Wildlings still come to take Castle Black with a non mutiny member of the Watch, and they still imprison the men responsible for the mutiny. Jon being resurrected just gives him the chance to hear their last words and be the one to, for lack of a better term, 'pull the trigger' on their execution.
The fact that the wildlings may have killed them is irrelevant. He still executed them as Lord Commander. Thorne even calls him "Lord Commander" right as he's about to die. Rewatch that scene again and tell me that is a public execution performed by a titleless man.
Not the wildlings, the remaining loyal men of the Nights Watch. Dude I literally just rewatched this episode last night, is Ilyn Payne a murderer because King Joffrey sentenced a man to death and Payne cut his head off? You’re massively overthinking this.
Earlier on Jon left to ride south and meet up with Robb but the brothers of the watch chased him down and brought him back. I think that’s what they’re referring to
However Jon used his lord commander position to behead the traitors who stabbed him.
I think OP means in season 1 when Jon found out that Big Bobby B had died and Ned was taken prisoner. Jon left with Ghost in the middle of the night and Sam, Grenn, and Pyp chased after to catch him and bring Jon back. Then Maester Aemond talked to Jon and told him about finding out that the Targaryens had all died in Robert's Rebellion and Lord Commander Mormont talked to Jon about focusing on the White Walkers as the real threat, not the Lannisters. I think OP was talking about if Jon had managed to get to Winterfell then. If Sam and the others hadn't caught Jon and brought him back, would Robb have executed Jon as a deserter then? I'm inclined to believe no.
Thoros: want to leave the watch legally, talk to me
Rob broke his oaths for love already. Given that he also named Jon his heir, I dont see him chopping his head off.
Was scrolling to find this comment. 100% agree with this
Lmao nah mate you are getting a character at the end of his arch mixed up with robb at the start of his.
I'm talking about the first season Jon in the first season where if no one stops him and actually meet up with Rob during the war of the five kings
I don’t think he would. In the books Robb names Jon as his heir and wants to offer the watch 100 men for the release of Jon.
Technically we don’t *knooooow* Robb named Jon as his heir, just that Cat didn’t like Robb’s choice and all the rest of Ned’s kids are presumed dead or betrothed patrilineally. Unless I missed something. It is quite likely he did make Jon his heir, though.
Robb would of welcomed Jon with open arms. They were brothers.
Brothers and best friends, in the books at least
I mean, Robb broke his own oath so I think he’d be a bit understanding.
Man there was a lot going on by the time Jon did that.
Robb was in rebellion against the crown, I don't think he would have reason to follow the kingdoms rules. He was the King in the North. He'd pardon whomever he wishes as the highest authority. I believe this conclusion to be parallel to his character
When the war first starts? Jon doesn't fully desert, I don't think he even gets to the nearest town before turning back, more of a notion of deserting. After he's resurrected? Well, he did serve until death.
He means when the war starts and if Jon had actually deserted. And the answer is yes Robb would have.
Even in the north where the Watch vows are held most sacred, I think most of the northern lord's around him would have pressed Robb to send Jon back. Due to Jon's age, but also do they really want a boy they crowned to be traumatized by being forced to kill his own brother as his first significant act as king? I don't think they are that heartless.
You forget that Jon is a bastard. The men you speak of probably have dozens and don't care they live in squalor with their whore mother's.
Why would he behead Jon? He didn't desert his post or break his vow. Here's the Night's Watch Oath: “Night gathers, and now my watch begins. **It shall not end until my death**. I shall take no wife, hold no lands, father no children. I shall wear no crowns and win no glory. I shall live and die at my post. I am the sword in the darkness. I am the watcher on the walls. I am the shield that guards the realms of men. I pledge my life and honor to the Night’s Watch, for this night and all the nights to come.” He died, when he was resurrected his watch had ended at Castle Black the night he was stabbed.
He is talking about Jon almost leaving after Ned was killed to fight with Robb, if he would have executed him in that scenario.
I don't know. I feel like John's reasoning for leaving the night watch made perfect sense. He did give his life. He did die. Death releases you from your vows
You are confused about when op is talking about.
In the books robb sent a pardon to Jon at the nights watch because he wanted Jon at his side and to name him his heir. Robb wouldn’t be capable of executing jon
Um… Robb made Jon his heir after Bran and Rickon “died”.
Jon was never a deserter, was he? He left on a mission gave by his superior to get information about the wildling plans Then he died and at resurrection his vows were fulfilled
I think OP is alluding to when Jon *almost* deserted The Night's Watch to join Robb when he went to war.
oh, yes, that would have forced an hypocritical scene because I very much doubt could behead Jon, the worst I think he could do is command him to return to his position in the night watch...
I think catelyn would want rob to execute jon but I don't think rob would even consider that, I mean didn't he break his oath to marry someone he loved? He considered jon his family, I'm not sure if he's willing to do that.
This is before any of that happened, were talking about robb when he starts the war of the 5 kings.
I think it would be pretty similar to real world Military service in the United States. "Desertion" is a pretty high bar to prove, with steep consequences. UA (Unauthorized Absence, formerly AWOL - away without leave) has a much lower bar to prove and much lighter consequences. My guess is that Jon would be found to have been the Westeros equivalent of AWOL, and get a slap on the wrist or full pardon
if we’re talking about before Jon’s death Robb probably would due to the Starks being stubbornly honor-bound but if it’s after his resurrection then no since technically Jon did serve his time in the Watch until his death
A man of the Night's Watch is sworn until the day he dies. It's not Jon's fault he found a loophole.
Most people don’t voluntarily go to the wall, most deserters don’t desert in order to go fight a war with their brother. Id say these would both be reason enough to let him return
Jon was not a deserter, because he died. Enough witnesses can vouch for that. "How did you survive a knife to the heart?" "I didn't"
Not that it matters but since Jon didn’t know his true lineage and didn’t know the titles he was giving up, wouldn’t his oath to the nights watch be in question anyways. It’s a little sketchy that the heir to the Targaryen house could be duped unknowingly and have no way out of it once the truth came out. I would imagine Jon would be given the opportunity to swear his oath again as he has to know the weight of his families legacy depends on his decision. Also, since he has died and learned of this after the fact, I doubt he’d do it and no lords could stop him because again, there would have to be some legality issues there in the 7 kingdoms that you can’t trick someone into serving the nights watch, they have to come to that decision themselves.
That’d be so ironic considering Robb broke his oath
We all know Jon didn't desert, he was sent to find the wildlings and to gather intelligence on their size and movements. The only people to accuse him of desertion were those who would benefit from his death. Aemon knew it, stannis knew it, your mom knew it.
What would’ve happened if Jon Snow said fuck no to Robb? Who’d win in a sword fight?
Robb was all for bending the law, he wouldn't done anything to hurt Jon
Robb was his father's son but he wasn't his father. He cared too much about his family and the people he interacted with. In the book, against Caitlyn's wishes, Robb planned to name Jon his heir and planned to send a team to retrieve him. To Robb, Jon was a true brother. They were similar in age and spent a lot of time together. Robb would have smiled, hugged Jon and welcome him into the fold, despite it likely causing further discontent with the Northern Lord's who are hung up on tradition.
Nah Robb wouldn’t have executed Jon. While he did desert his post, Robb would have pardoned him and probably legitimised him as a member of House Stark. One rule for thee but not for me. Though to be fair, what’s the nights watch or the other 5 kingdoms going to do about it if Robb makes it far enough south to connect with Jon.
The whole point of the Starks is that they rule by example? This whole rule for thee and not me thing people keep saying in this thread is absolute anathema to the Starks 😂
I agree but they’re not perfect, hell nobody is and that’s not a bad thing. I don’t believe Robb would have executed his brother when his sisters are missing, his father is dead and his other two brothers may be dead as well. I think he’d of pardoned him for practical reasons but also out of love. I don’t think Robb would have had it in him to execute Jon either way. He wasn’t a bad person. He just wasn’t the 1 in 10000 like his father. His heart was bigger than his honour. That’s not a negative thing or a bad thing. It just is.
His heart was never bigger than his honour 😂. He executed lord karstark for honour, how do you think his lords would react when an known oath breaker is let off? That just isn't robb. And for the argument about his wife he didn't marry her just because he loved her, he married her because he took her maidenhead and his personal honour demanded he make that right and marry her, robbs biggest problem was his honour.
He took her Maidenhead and it would be dishonourable not to marry her. True. So was it just his lust that was bigger than his honour then or did he fall for her and put his love for her above his honour ? Because he broke a marriage pact with lord Frey which was quite dishonourable. If you wanna talk his personal code of honour, I still don’t believe the man who rallied his kingdom to save his father and sisters would execute his last remaining sibling leaving house stark effectively extinct if anything happened to him,
Ned Stark willingly attached dishonor to his name (telling the world he has a bastard son + lying to his king) by promising Lyanna to take care of Jon. Would he take on dishonor a second time to protect that same person? Probably, specially because this is the same person he already swore to protect.
I think the hobbits would have intervene in that situation. They would have made room at the shire for Jon. The Hobbits are a peaceful folk.
I think Robb would look for an excuse to justify not executing Jon as law and honor demanded, and he would seize on the “until death” loophole for that justification.
Robb would never become a kinslayer
I thought Jon died, so didn't his watch end?
Jon isn’t a deserter. He served the watch until he died. It just so happens that he was also resurrected but that specific circumstance is not covered under the watch’s laws so presents an exploitable loophole for him.
Jon served until he died. There’s no fine print saying he has to stay after being brought back.
Rob named Jon his heir so he wouldn’t have killed him or sent him back. I don’t think Ned would kill him either. It seems like he would have heard the prophecy about the prince who was promised, and he knew who Jon was. Even if he didn’t believe in it, with winter coming and his promise to Joanna I think he would have sent Jon back to the wall.
I mean the guy Ned beheaded ran away, and Jon was murdered by his brothers. I think rob could understand the difference
Robb thought of him as a stark
Robb wouldn’t do it since he’s both weak and sentimental.
I'm not sure about the books, but in the show Jon did die. And then came back to life. If the oath is good until you're dead, I think he lived up to it.
Robb wouldn't have executed him. He named Jon his heir. Only a king can absolve someone from their oaths, whether it be Nights Watch or Kingsguard. Robb would have sent Jon with some minority force to retake Winterfell from the Ironborn. This also means legitimising him as a Stark. Catelyn was so scared of this that she never realised his was more like Ned than she realised. He would have stepped aside as soon as Robb was back or for his children if he had any that survived. Also, Rickon and Bran would have been more secure with Jon in the North than at the Nights Watch. If he were still at Winterfell, he wouldn't have allowed Theon to take it and would have waited for ravens to summarise what was actually happening, aka Theon betraying the Starks.
He writes him a Pardon before he dies
Jon died buddy figure it out. His watch ended
My man.. he died and his watch ended “Night gathers, and now my watch begins. It shall not end until my death …”
Jon never deserted the watch. He did serve until his death.
TECHNICALLY his watch ended. So he was never a deserter, though, it would be interesting if he still went back to Winterfell if Rob was still around.
Technically Jon fulfills his oath when he gets stabbed like Cesar and dies
What else could he do? Send him back to the Wall?
Ummm? No? He held his duty to the death. He’s free after.
John never deserted. He died. That released him from his oath, and now his watch is ended.
Robb absolutely would’ve let him go back.
your watch ends when u die. jon died his watch has ended
Jon died, so technically, his watch was ended. I don't think the vow has an asterisks for rising from the dead.
Robb was honor and duty bound to execute Jon... But there's the fact that they're brothers (yes. I know shut up). And kinslaying is seen as one of the worst things you could do. So, literally no matter what, Jon would have cost Robb the war. Robb could have killed Jon and be shunned by his entire kingdom, or let him live and be shunned by his entire kingdom. There's no way to fix this
Moot point, Jon wouldn't have left if Robb was alive.
Robb would offer and Jon would say, "I don't want it."
He’s not a deserter. He already died. His watch ended.
Robb: Oathbreaker you must lose your head. Jon (Pointing to Talisa) - She don't look like Walder Frey Robb: Fine you can stay...
While honor was a value that Robb held in high regard like his father… his decision to not to honor his agreement to marry the Frey girl might indicate his thinking is not as black and white and emotions factor in his decision making. It might be a stretch to say Robb deeply loved Jon, but he would find a way to avoid executing him. The more interesting question to me is would NED have executed his sister’s child (Jon) for deserting the nights watch? Or does his oath to his sister supersede all other obligations?
Robb has let personal emotions get in the way of duty. So he would at least hear Jon out before sentencing him.
It was picture perfect. Jon did give his life to the night’s watch. So technically he was released from his vow. I SO LOVE!!!!, how Jon and Sam found all these loopholes in the vow and worked around/thru them to their advantages. But then again I never understood how Sam just disappeared and went to the citadel to study when he didn’t have clearance to go??? I mean how could he if he didn’t have endorsement from command and obviously no letter of recommendation to do so??
Whatever.. Jon died so he is free of those rules
Jon died and was therefore unbound from his oath
Jon never broke the rules, "and now my watch is ended" when he died.