Issue with King Jon I Targaryen theory

[Lee-Sensei]

@Old Gmilet Eye Yes. Being a good fighter or even commander isn't the same thing as being a good ruler. Look at Robert.

@sj4iy 1) What's that old saying? Every time a Targaryen's born the God's flip a coin. I'm not projecting. I like some of the Targaryens. Viserys is one of my favorite characters.

2) We don't even know if Stannis and Shireen are the last of them. They may have their own Harry the Heir hanging around in the Stormlands.

3) They can form an alliance. In WW1 France, Britain, Russia, Italy and a whole host of other countries joined forces against Germany, Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire and Bulgaria. They didn't become one super country.

[OldGimletEye]

@Old Gmilet Eye Yes. Being a good fighter or even commander isn't the same thing as being a good ruler. Look at Robert.

Well, yeah, I get what your saying. But saying Jon wouldn't have any relevant leadership experience is a bit much. And Jon isn't temperamentally like Robert. He isn't going to spend all his time drinking, whoring, and screwing off. Jon is probably more mature at 16 than Robert was at 40.

[Lee-Sensei]

I never said he wouldn't have leadership experience. He has it now. He was leading the NW. Is Jon mature? Sometimes. He can be a bit sulky. Is he more mature than all the Lords and Ladies of Westeros? Some of whom have decades of accumulated knowledge? Is he wiser than them all? I don't think so.

[OldGimletEye]

Well no he isn't going to be wiser than all the lords and ladies of Westeros, put together. But, then who is? And which Lord or Lady would you believe that would make a better monarch? There might be some, but not a lot. It could be the case that Jon might not be the *best* person for the job, but he might just be good enough.

[sertravisredbeard]

If Jon proves to be a capable leader on top of apparently being Rhaegar's son, the rest of the realm will fall in line regardless of their opinions on plural marriages. The history of Westeros proves that the nobles do pretty much whatever they want, depending on the situation. Sometimes some of them will rebel to support a bastard of a maligned and ineffectual king. Sometimes they'll fight against rebels fighting the petulant bastard that's not even the son of the true king. Sometimes they'll go against the wishes of a dead king because of an evil stepmother. Sometimes they'll agree on wasting tens of thousands of lives to subdue a kingdom that's never been a part of the realm. Hasn't GRRM said that the politics of inheritance and royal succession in Westeros reflect the politics of medieval Europe in that the rules are played fast and loose based on the situation?

The supposed legitimacy or illegitimacy of Jon won't have that big an influence as long as some people want him to be king of Westeros, King in the North, Lord Protector of the Realm or whatever.

[Lee-Sensei]

Stannis or they can just break up and rule themselves.

[BRANDON GREYSTARK]

Jon will never be king.

1 The people liked Rhaegar because he was young and represented continuity , The high born know Jon only as Eddard's bastard .

2 Even though the north may accept Jon as king, but the Riverlords think Jon was the Lannister's creature.Sansa kind of cool to Jon

3 There is no belief that Jon wants to be either a king or a Targaryen .

[Fire Eater]

Jon will never be king.

1 The people liked Rhaegar because he was young and represented continuity , The high born know Jon only as Eddard's bastard .

2 Even though the north may accept Jon as king, but the Riverlords think Jon was the Lannister's creature.Sansa kind of cool to Jon

3 There is no belief that Jon wants to be either a king or a Targaryen .

What is the point of giving Jon a secret royal heritage and Arthurian references if it isn't going to impact the story?

The books point overwhelmingly to Jon becoming king the way I see it.

1. Jon's heritage will be revealed at some point, it has to impact the story somehow.

2. Except they have no proof he is, and only the BF says that, and he doesn't know Stannis is at the Wall. Would they think a relative of the Starks and someone who is helping Stannis is the Lannister's creature?

3 Jon didn't expect to be LC of the NW either, yet he was.

[north of the wall]

The Targs have no right to the throne anymore without right of conquest anyway.

IF Jon becomes king it will have nothing (or very little) to do with R+L=J, let alone if he is legitimate. It will be because he lead the attack against the Others and is seen as the logical answer for a broken relm. Nothing more and nothing less.

Although for the record I also believe Jon will be king of something just can't decide between KITN or KOT7K.

[Guest]

I don't think it will matter what Jon's true parentage is, in the end, as far as who sits the throne. Even if he wasn't a real bastard, he chose the Wall. I believe he'll stay there till the end of his days.

[Trickrs]

2. Except they have no proof he is, and only the BF says that,

There is no concrete proof he's Rhaegar's son, beside the claim of a reclusive "bog devil".

[Fire Eater]

There is no concrete proof he's Rhaegar's son, beside the claim of a reclusive "bog devil".

HR has no reputation as a liar, and name to me one person who called him a "bog devil." He was at the ToJ. Mounting a dragon would prove Jon's heritage, given there is precedent for it when Addam of Hull mounted Seasmoke to prove his Velaryon heritage.

[Arya Stark Rules]

Yeah, well, I don't know about all the magic stuff. What I do know is that the NW isn't able to attract enough quality recruits to carry out it's mission. Part of the problem is that too many people "own it", which means nobody does, which in turn means it's constantly short of men and resources.

And there is little evidence that there will be a third. The bottom line is that we just don't know yet.

If you don't know or aren't interested in the "magic stuff" then I see no reason for you to argue that the watch is no longer going to pay a key role in the story. GRRM has stated in SSMs that we should pay attention to Old Nan's story, and considering she stated that as long as the NW stays true then the realms of men will be protected then they are of heavy importance. ANd since the realm isn't being protected and wights are rising within the wall then that means there is something "not true" of the NW, coming back to old Nan's other quote "all crows are liars" which means the NW isn't true. The NW may have problems and in need of reform, however under no circumstances should we dismiss it as useless to the story.

I didn't say there will be a third, my point was that even if westeros wins the war they aren't going to abandon the NW and assume the others are gone forever, they would think it's possible there could be another in the future. Im speaking from the POV of an ordinary westerosi.

'Benerro has sent forth the word from Volantis. Her coming is the fulfilment of an ancient prophecy. From smoke and salt she was born to make the world anew. She is Azor Ahai returned... and her triumph over darkness will bring a summer that will never end... death itself will bend its knee, and all those who die fighting in her cause shall be reborn.'

It's very possible that this IS the last "Long Night" and that defeating the Others this time may actually 'reset' the world to what it was before when the world had predictable seasons.

Im sorry but that prophecy is from the east and the long night started and ended in the west, I take that prophecy as a grain of salt. Also that prophecy is as bad as the Long Night since it says there will be an endless summer

[sj4iy]

Im sorry but that prophecy is from the east and the long night started and ended in the west, I take that prophecy as a grain of salt. Also that prophecy is as bad as the Long Night since it says there will be an endless summer

I do, too. But there is evidence, no matter how credible.

[Sunspear Warrior]

I just can't see Jon ruling Westeros. He seems to take his Nights Watch duties very seriously.

Although with the way ADWD ended for him....

[joluoto2]

Completely agree. Jon won't survive the final conflict and won't ever come south of The Gift. Westeros will need to go to the wall not the Wall come south to King's Landing. The messy legitimate claims and High Sparrow trials will simply lend public support to Aegon, who I do think is real (why would Varys lie to Kevan before killing him?). Aegon will pull the southern kingdoms together, including Dorne, Danny will show up with Dragons and lead everyone north for the final conflict. Jon has to finish what Azor Ahai started. He's the only one who is both Fire and Ice and it is truly his song that we are listening to. Danny and Aegon will wed and together rule.

Nope, won't happen. No fairy tale ending.

[Arya Targaryen]

The NW consists of about 1500 men these days, mostly green recruits and non-rangers. If they are the leading force which defeats the others and gets most of the credit, the Others would be the lamest fantasy villains ever.

Uhm, the Nw consists of about 600 men these days (they had a bit more than 1000 at the beginning of AGOT, and 300 died on the Fist, another 100 with Bowen, not to mention all the rest who died againt the wildlings or went with Cotter to HH. And more will die after the Jon-stabbing.

Sure, they won't be the leading force. However, among them are those who know the most about the Others, so they definitely will play their role. And Jon will be in a leadership position in one way or another.

[Mithras]

He seems to take his Nights Watch duties very seriously.

Agreed. So serious that he killed Qhorin on his command and joined the wildlings. What if he concludes that the only way to defend the Realm is to press his claim and be the king?

[El Guapo]

HR has no reputation as a liar, and name to me one person who called him a "bog devil." He was at the ToJ. Mounting a dragon would prove Jon's heritage, given there is precedent for it when Addam of Hull mounted Seasmoke to prove his Velaryon heritage.

Where is this established in the books?

[Fire Eater]

Where is this established in the books?

Uh, where is it mentioned HR lied about anything or established that he is a liar? When talking of him, no one spoke of him as having lied about anything, all the was mentioned was the he was one of Ned's companions in RR, and the Northmen likely have some good opinion of him for that. Even Robb said Ned knew HR's worth. He also never ventured out of the Neck after RR, so it is unlikely for there to be any interactions where he could have lied. He also has little reason to lie about anything, except R+L=J which no one knows about obviously.