Jons legitimacy

[dsug]

Ok I have a genuine question. If Jon is indeed Rhaegar and Lyanna's son, why would he have any claim to the iron throne? He is a bastard.

At first I thought, "well maybe Elia died first and Rhaegar married Lyanna." But then I remembered, "Rhaegar died before Elia."

With his wife still alive, there's no way Rhaegar could have legitimately married Lyanna Stark and had more heirs.

So can someone please explain to my why Jon has any right to the throne. Kings have bastards all the time, and they never get anything. What makes Jon Snow any different?

[Rippounet]

There's a thread running on that very subject right now:

http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/130113-jon-snow-is-still-a-bastard/

[bb1180]

Is he a bastard? Maybe he is, maybe he isn't. The Targaryens historically practiced polygamy.

Regardless, though not technically in the line of succession, even a bastard has a claim on his father's titles. Those claims are generally weaker than those of trueborn children, but they still exist.

[dsug]

Thank you. I apologize.

[RumHam]

I would say that any pre-rebellion claims are invalid now anyway. If Jon, Aegon,or Daenerys are gonna take the throne it's not going to be because people decide "Lets pretend Robert's Rebellion never happened, who's next in line?" That said it could have a certain public relations value.

[bb1180]

I would say that any pre-rebellion claims are invalid now anyway. If Jon, Aegon,or Daenerys are gonna take the throne it's not going to be because people decide "Lets pretend Robert's Rebellion never happened, who's next in line?" That said it could have a certain public relations value.

Agreed. At this point, with civil war ongoing, anyone new on the IT is most likely going to have to take it through brute force. The claims would likely help the new ruler gain acceptance and acknowledgement from the high lords AFTER the conquest, but at this point, they don't hold much sway of their own accord.

[Ferocious Veldt Roarer]

I would say that any pre-rebellion claims are invalid now anyway. If Jon, Aegon,or Daenerys are gonna take the throne it's not going to be because people decide "Lets pretend Robert's Rebellion never happened, who's next in line?" That said it could have a certain public relations value.

And so would say many people in-universe. Some other would say otherwise, though. There's Doran Martell with his old plan to marry his daughter to the Beggar King. There's Tywin Lannister, who judged that "Rhaegar’s children had to die if Robert's throne was ever to be secure". There are Varys and Illyrio, who had their pawn go after the throne under the name of Aegon Targaryen, not any other. Seems the invalidity of the Targaryen claim is at the very least a matter of discussion. It's not as if Doran Martell, Tywin Lannister and Varys were political rookies. It's not as if they failed to notice Robert's Rebellion.

Of course, the issue gets perfectly clear if you support one specific pretender. He/she's the Rightful King/Queen, whoever that might be.

[TimJames]

Kings have the authority to legitimize bastards, which leaves two possibilities.

The first is that Rhaegar somehow tricks Aerys into legitimizing Jon Snow. There is no hint of this in the books. Whatsoever.

The second (and at least somewhat plausible) is that Robb Stark signed a decree legitimizing Jon Snow, unaware that he was a Targaryen Bastard instead of a Stark Bastard.

Truth be told, I hope Jon Snow never finds a crown on his head. I like the idea of the person who worked his way up to leadership and accomplished great things despite being discriminated for things he can't help (like being born a bastard).

Bluntly put, Jon Snow finding out he's The Prince That Was Promised would be like Davos finding out he was of old noble blood all along: "You didn't really get where you got to be by hard work, it was just special blood".

I hope Jon Snow lives and dies at his post.

[ShelbySmythe]

Kings have the authority to legitimize bastards, which leaves two possibilities.

The first is that Rhaegar somehow tricks Aerys into legitimizing Jon Snow. There is no hint of this in the books. Whatsoever.

The second (and at least somewhat plausible) is that Robb Stark signed a decree legitimizing Jon Snow, unaware that he was a Targaryen Bastard instead of a Stark Bastard.

Truth be told, I hope Jon Snow never finds a crown on his head. I like the idea of the person who worked his way up to leadership and accomplished great things despite being discriminated for things he can't help (like being born a bastard).

Bluntly put, Jon Snow finding out he's The Prince That Was Promised would be like Davos finding out he was of old noble blood all along: "You didn't really get where you got to be by hard work, it was just special blood".

I hope Jon Snow lives and dies at his post.

I agree. The whole 'true heir to the Throne' thing sorta goes against the character of Jon Snow, and disregards everything he's portrayed throughout the series. It's the same with Tyrion not being Tywin's son; it makes Tyrion's character seemingly useless in terms of identity.

[Dorian Martell]

Ok I have a genuine question. If Jon is indeed Rhaegar and Lyanna's son, why would he have any claim to the iron throne? He is a bastard.

At first I thought, "well maybe Elia died first and Rhaegar married Lyanna." But then I remembered, "Rhaegar died before Elia."

With his wife still alive, there's no way Rhaegar could have legitimately married Lyanna Stark and had more heirs.

So can someone please explain to my why Jon has any right to the throne. Kings have bastards all the time, and they never get anything. What makes Jon Snow any different?

He was duly elected as the lord commander of the nights watch. That is all the legitimacy he will ever need in life

[Lord Lannister]

Assuming they married you're still going to have the problem convincing anyone of it.

[addicted to snow]

He probably is, but the Jon Snow that we know through ADWDs will never sit the iron throne, it looks as if GRRM has a different sort of Kingship in store for Jon Snow... He will more that likely play the part of the Night's King...

[stateofdissipation]

Is he a bastard? Maybe he is, maybe he isn't. The Targaryens historically practiced polygamy.

Regardless, though not technically in the line of succession, even a bastard has a claim on his father's titles. Those claims are generally weaker than those of trueborn children, but they still exist.

Aegon married his sisters before the conquest of Westeros Until the conquest Dragonstone was part of the freehold of Valyria--not the Seven Kingdoms. Maegor the second Targaryen King to have to multiple wives and the first and last to have multiple wives from outside of his family.

Maegor died in 48 AC without children. The historical example of polygamy in Westeros begins and ends with Maegor. There is not a historical example of children of subsequent wives inheriting.

A bastard does have a claim on his father's titles... his claim comes after all legitimate relatives (not just children). The bastard son Jon's claim would actually come after Cousin Robert's claim.

[ilikethesebooks]

I agree. The whole 'true heir to the Throne' thing sorta goes against the character of Jon Snow, and disregards everything he's portrayed throughout the series. It's the same with Tyrion not being Tywin's son; it makes Tyrion's character seemingly useless in terms of identity.

He's always wished he was legit I don't think it goes against his wishes. Doesn't he dream he will rule Winterfell and then realizes it would be faking from Robb or something like that around the time he gets Longclaw?

[bb1180]

A bastard does have a claim on his father's titles... his claim comes after all legitimate relatives (not just children). The bastard son Jon's claim would actually come after Cousin Robert's claim.

I'd argue that its open to interpretation of the nobles. We see an example of this when Stannis' rights of succession and his claim are largely ignored in favor of his younger brother. The line of succession is one thing, but it takes people actually backing your claim to put you on the throne.

Its like a bastard Jon Targaryen vs Dany. Both have claims on the basis of their Targaryen heritage and immediate relation to the deceased heir, Rhaegar, but Jon has zero rights of succession and inheritance. But if it comes right down to it, there's no guarantee that the lords of the realm would support Dany, much as they didn't Stannis.

The issue of claims is what makes this type of succession potentially so murky and problematic. So much of it is in the eye of the beholder.

[sweetsunray]

I'd argue that its open to interpretation of the nobles. We see an example of this when Stannis' rights of succession and his claim are largely ignored in favor of his younger brother. The line of succession is one thing, but it takes people actually backing your claim to put you on the throne.

Its like a bastard Jon Targaryen vs Dany. Both have claims on the basis of their Targaryen heritage and immediate relation to the deceased heir, Rhaegar, but Jon has zero rights of succession and inheritance. But if it comes right down to it, there's no guarantee that the lords of the realm would support Dany, much as they didn't Stannis.

The issue of claims is what makes this type of succession potentially so murky and problematic. So much of it is in the eye of the beholder.

If Jon is a trueborn son, because of a marriage between L&R,then actually Jon has more claim than Dany in birthright ascension. An aunt does not come before a trueborn son or grandson, especially that since after DwD1, it was decreed that women are last in succession line. You are right though that unless he has the backing for it it's unlikely he wins it, certainly if he lacks dragons..

[Nights Kings Queen]

The problem with this polygamy argument is aegon and maegor (later marriages, not his first) married their wives in traditional valyrian ceremonies. Valyria clearly allowed this practice (daenys the dreamers dad had multiple wives).

There is no indication that the old gods (which would be the gods they married through) allow polygamy and quite a few bits of text that suggest the faith don't allow it.

I really don't care for this argument but I'll say this. There isn't at need for them to be married. Jon is now legitimized through Robb, he is Jon Targaryen now which is why these arguments are pointless

[Mithras]

There is no indication that the old gods (which would be the gods they married through) allow polygamy

That being said, many scholars still believe that the greatest of the Gardener kings were the peacemakers, not the fighters. Fewer songs are sung of them, it is true, but in the annals of history the names of Garth III (the Great), Garland II (the Bridegroom), Gwayne III (the Fat), and John II (the Tall) are writ large. Garth the Great extended the borders of his realm northward, winning Old Oak, Red Lake, and Goldengrove with pacts of friendship and mutual defense. Garland accomplished the same in the south, bringing Oldtown into his kingdom by wedding his daughter to Lymond (the Sea Lion) of House Hightower, whilst putting his own wives aside to marry Lord Lymond's daughter. Gwayne the Fat persuaded Lord Peake and Lord Manderly to accept his judgment on their quarrel, and do fealty for their lands, without fighting a single battle. John the Tall sailed his barge up the Mander to its very headwaters, planting the banner of the green hand wherever he went and receiving homage from the lords and petty kings whose lands lined that mighty river's banks.

His usurper ruled for nigh unto thirty years as Ronard the Bastard, smashing rebel bannerman and petty kings alike in battle after battle. Never a man to confine himself to a single woman, he claimed a daughter from every foe who bent the knee. By the time he died, he had supposedly fathered nine-and-ninety sons. Most were bastard born (though Ronard had three-and twenty wives, the songs say) and did not share in their father's inheritance but had to make their own way in the world. For this reason, thousands of years later, many and more of the smallfolk of the stormlands, even the meanest and humblest amongst them, still boast of royal blood.

[Nights Kings Queen]

^ ok, I have been proven wrong.

Old gods allow polygamy but the faith definitely doesn't

[Mithras]

^ ok, I have been proven wrong.

Old gods allow polygamy but the faith definitely doesn't

Good thing Lyanna didnot worship the new gods and Targaryens were always considered above the men.