Jump to content

Jon Snow claim to the throne


cam22

Recommended Posts

Guest Thorrand

If Jon is the child of Lyanna and Rhaegar then does that mean he has a claim to the iron throne? if he does what will he do about it? (providing he isn't dead)

The Targaryen claim to the throne ended with Robert's Rebellion. They can take the throne back by conquest if it comes to that, but no longer have a built in claim. The seven kingdoms swore fealty to Robert Baratheon. The only person with a claim at this point is Stannis (the readers knowing Cersei's children don't have a drop of Baratheon blood). I don't see how R+L=J serves any purpose but helps Jon find himself. I can't see him running around calling himself 'Blood of the Dragon'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That would depend on whether Aegon is real or an imposter as well as whether Jon is Rhaegars legitimate son. If Aegon is an imposter and Jon is legitimate then he does have a claim. Whether he pursues that claim is another matter. As it stands, as per Robbs will, Jon is already a legitimate Stark and perhaps KiTN as well depending on the exact wording of said will.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Thorrand

That would depend on whether Aegon is real or an imposter as well as whether Jon is Rhaegars legitimate son. If Aegon is an imposter and Jon is legitimate then he does have a claim. Whether he pursues that claim is another matter. As it stands, as per Robbs will, Jon is already a legitimate Starks and perhaps KiTN as well depending on the exact wording of said will.

How does he have a claim? The Targaryens were overthrown with the Mad King. Rhaegar had a chance to keep the targaryen dynasty on the throne, he had other priorities though. End result = new dynasty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1.Daenerys reconquers Westeros with her dragons, thus ending the Baratheon rule and breaking their claim to the Throne through a renewed Right of Conquest.



2. Daenerys cannot have children.



3. Jon is revealed as Rhaegar's true heir and takes over the Throne from Dany, who returns to Essos to continue her quest to end slavery.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Thorrand

Daenerys reconquers Westeros with her dragons, thus ending the Baratheon rule and breaking their claim to the Throne through a renewed Right of Conquest.

Daenerys cannot have children.

Jon is revealed as Rhaegar's true heir and takes over the Throne from Dany, who returns to Essos to continue her quest to end slavery.

That would involve control of the dragons and actually, you know, going to Westeros. I'll believe it when I see it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Daenerys reconquers Westeros with her dragons, thus ending the Baratheon rule and breaking their claim to the Throne through a renewed Right of Conquest.

Daenerys cannot have children.

Jon is revealed as Rhaegar's true heir and takes over the Throne from Dany, who returns to Essos to continue her quest to end slavery.

Sounds like fan fiction and is subject to a lot of "ifs".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Jon is the child of Lyanna and Rhaegar then does that mean he has a claim to the iron throne? if he does what will he do about it? (providing he isn't dead)

If Jon were to become king, it would not be because he's Rhaegar's son, and he'd do so as Jon Snow. There's no such thing as "the true heir" in this story, and given Jon's personal development, his claiming a Targ identity doesn't follow (not to mention, after Aegon's shown up as Rhaegar's son, no one will believe that Jon is yet another long lost son and a legitimate one at that). I wrote this out in another recent thread, but I think it applies here as well:

I don't think R+L will play out in a literal Return of the King scenario (and further, I think Jon and Aegon are completely deconstructing that expectation when looked at adjacently). One supreme difference between ASOIAF and LotR is that ASOIAF's world is indeed changing-- ASOIAF is a social critique through a deconstruction and remapping of power. Meaning, there's no "true heir" and the whole construct of "rightfulness" via bloodline has been completely shattered. Aragorn could return as the long lost king because the social structure of Middle Earth was never challenged; conversely, ASOIAF is undergoing a major social crisis and dissolution of the status quo.

I've grown increasingly favorable to the idea that we'll see Jon on the throne, but not because his Targ bloodline puts him there. I suspect that he's the legitimate son of R+L, but will choose to identify himself and be recognized as a bastard and may end up on the throne because of that. I don't think he's THE hero of everything or anything like that, but I do think he's positioned to play a significant role wrt the Battle of the Dawn, and I suspect he'll earn recognition in that role. I'm also suspecting he'll be one of the few leaders standing by the end. I can see his ascending the throne via consensus in the aftermath of crisis, in part because his identity as a Snow places him outside of specific family loyalties and makes him an outsider to the extant power structures (sort of like how the Targs were originally outsiders and that helped their recognition as authorities above the rest). There's also incredibly elegant literary symmetry to seeing Jon, a (potentially) legitimate, though publicly perceived bastard sitting on the throne at the end as a symbol of peace, while an illegitimate, though publicly legitimate bastard's sitting the throne is what started the war in the first place.

Though I think Jon is positioned to be the best candidate to do this, I think in general we're going to see a king take the throne due to deeds and consensus rather than due to bloodline. Look at Varys' plans for Aegon. Yes, part of the plan is to have Aegon sold as Rhaegar's returned son, but that wasn't enough; Varys had him trained to be an Enlightened Monarch and was fabricating this strawman Dothraki invasion so that Aegon could swoop in and win over Westeros as a savior. Consider also Stannis' goal; post Davos' intervention, Stannis believes that once he performs his Azor Ahai heroics in battle, he'll be recognized as rightful for those deeds and ascend the throne. Increasingly, candidates are recognizing that they must perform some sort of valuable service to the realm and gain consensus, and I strongly believe that someone who does, in fact perform a valuable service will be chosen (not that I'm suggesting Westeros will move toward democracy or anything, but rather, that the next king will be chosen through a Council of sorts for reasons that reveal a sense of political progress, such as earned rightfulness, fitness for rule, etc).

I think the Battle for the Dawn is the big "service" a candidate will have to perform in, and I think Jon is in prime position for that. I think he'll distinguish himself as a leader, but not necessarily as the "big main hero of prophesies" and so forth.

So the way I see R+L is mainly of incredible significance to Jon's character, specifically, his finally choosing to be a Snow, which I think actually gives him a better shot at being chosen by those remaining after all this for kingship, given the way the status quo has been shattered and moving toward progress.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How does he have a claim? The Targaryens were overthrown with the Mad King. Rhaegar had a chance to keep the targaryen dynasty on the throne, he had other priorities though. End result = new dynasty.

As we have seen time and again, oaths of fealty mean very little. To quote Varys: “Power resides where men believe it resides.” Of course simply having a claim is not enough. If Dany, Aegon or Jon has aspirations to sit the IT they will have to take it by force as I don't see the Lannisters or Tyrells meekly stepping aside.

As we see in TPatQ, previous oaths of fealty don't mean much. At the end of the day, if enough people choose to believe that either Jon or Dany or Aegon are the rightful heirs then they will follow them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Thorrand

As we have seen time and again, oaths of fealty mean very little. To quote Varys: “Power resides where men believe it resides.” Of course simply having a claim is not enough. If Dany, Aegon or Jon has aspirations to sit the IT they will have to take it by force as I don't see the Lannisters or Tyrells meekly stepping aside.

As we see in TPatQ, previous oaths of fealty don't mean much. At the end of the day, if enough people choose to believe that either Jon or Dany or Aegon are the rightful heirs then they will follow them.

At that point the only claim that matters is who has the biggest army. Hence, right of conquest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jon has no claim, he is a man of the watch.

He is a man of the watch but he still vowed to march south on the Boltons after robb's death so I think that he is prepared to cast his vows aside for certain things. Perhaps the iron throne?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Thorrand

He is a man of the watch but he still vowed to march south on the Boltons after robb's death so I think that he is prepared to cast his vows aside for certain things. Perhaps the iron throne?

It seems out of character for him to aspire to rule the seven kingdoms. He didn't even really want to be LC did he?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...