A King in Hiding: Adding It All Up

[J. Stargaryen]

Martin is a fan of English succession wars, as we already know.

Personally I place Stark children before Jon in the line of succession, even with Robb's will.

If Sansa, Bran, or Rickon show up they are immediately placed ahead of Jon regardless because they are legitimate children of Ned and Cat Stark.

It's implied that Jon is legitimized, but since it's likely that he isn't Ned's son that is up for debate. You can't legitimize Jon if he wasn't a bastard in the first place.

But you can still name him your heir.

[Eira Seren]

Well, that would certainly defy all Westerosian tradition, which is based on male inheritance.

If Jon is descended through Lyanna (which I certainly believe is the case, although Rhaegar is not his father), Ned's male children Bran and Rickon would unquestionably inherit before him.

Now, if Robb named him heir, things get a bit murkier... but Robb would only have done so under the premise that Jon was his half-brother. Which, if Lyanna were Jon's mother, would be false; Jon would only be his cousin. Dicey situations like this are what English civil wars were all about.

The idea that the North's aristocracy are secretly lined up behind Jon as liege lord, ready to serve when the time is right, is ludicrous, though. To whatever extent they're familiar with Jon, they're also familiar with the fact that he is a sworn brother of the Night's Watch.

As far as all the northern nobles would know, the odds of Jon being released from that vow are zero. I doubt a single person reading this can name a single precedent, going back eight thousand years, in which a Lord Commander of the Watch was released from his vow to serve at the Wall for any reason.

unless the Night's King somehow survived. . . otherwise none come immediately to mind

[James Arryn]

Succession is not a straightforward process. Never has been. It is a series of arguments. Which is why you always hear 'Richard of York MAY have had a better claim, but...or the Florents MAY have a better claim', etc. It is somewhat akin to a trial; varying experts will have varying answers. They will even have varying rules which they feel ought to apply. It's complicated; anyone who believes X means Y is king is, imo, oversimplifying. Harold I. Acclaimed by the moot, designated by the preceding King, ruled de facto prior to...and yet at least 3 other people were considered to have a better argument by many. The Wars of the Roses. The Anarchy. Robert Curthose vs. Rufus vs. Henry. Etc. If it were straightforward, the world would have missed out on a lot of wars.

[indignant mushroom]

But you can still name him your heir.

Jon still could not serve as heir because he's taken his vows. Considering that he holds a nice postion in the NW, and is likely dead or close to, it goes against law that he abandon his post (which he's already done once).

Robb could have easily named a pig farmer as his heir, and would you still defend his choice?

Succession is never so simple, it never has been. There will be supporters of the Stark children and supporters of Jon.

It's dependent on who gives whom support, in the end.

[J. Stargaryen]

Jon still could not serve as heir because he's taken his vows. Considering that he holds a nice postion in the NW, and is likely dead or close to, it goes against law that he abandon his post (which he's already done once).

Robb could have easily named a pig farmer as his heir, and would you still defend his choice?

Succession is never so simple, it never has been. There will be supporters of the Stark children and supporters of Jon.

It's dependent on who gives whom support, in the end.

I'm really not sure what your point is.

[Eira Seren]

As far as all the northern nobles would know, the odds of Jon being released from that vow are zero. I doubt a single person reading this can name a single precedent, going back eight thousand years, in which a Lord Commander of the Watch was released from his vow to serve at the Wall for any reason.

also, i forgot about Brynden Rivers, who at some point left his post to become a tree.

there are a number of Lord Commanders who went bad. . . but it doesn't say much in the wiki about what exactly happened to them and memory just doesn't serve. i'm assuming they died or were killed as a result (Robin Hill, Tristan Mudd, Marq Rankenfell, Rodrik Flint, Runcel Hightower).

[indignant mushroom]

I'm really not sure what your point is.

It's in the first sentence.

The chance of Jon being released from his vows is about zero. So he either forfeits the throne or forgoes his vows.

Also, considering that it's impossible for 100% of the population to agree with a bastard as heir rather than a legitimate child, I see a split in loyalties.

If Rickon comes back with the support of Stannis, there will be supporters of his claim to the throne.

This is all dependent on whether or not Jon was named heir at all.

[J. Stargaryen]

It's in the first sentence.

The chance of Jon being released from his vows is about zero. So he either forfeits the throne or forgoes his vows.

Also, considering that it's impossible for 100% of the population to agree with a bastard as heir rather than a legitimate child, I see a split in loyalties.

If Rickon comes back with the support of Stannis, there will be supporters of his claim to the throne.

This is all dependent on whether or not Jon was named heir at all.

Being named heir is, I'd think, more important than the legitimization issue; i.e., he can't be legitimized by Robb if he was already legitimate. I think the legitimization issue that you brought up isn't really relevant since Jon is the heir. Robb could certainly name Jon Targaryen his heir, if he wanted. Of course you're correct that succession issues aren't always simple matters. One thing to keep in mind though, Robb named Jon his heir knowing full well that he was already a sworn brother of the NW. I think after all of the years of helping out the watch, the Starks are due for a little reciprocity.

[The guy from the Vale]

To add to that, if Jon leaves the NW and is accepted as king by his bannermen, I don't see what the problem is. Yes, he'd be an oathbreaker. But so are many other respected Westerosi. And there's noone who could judge and execute Jon for deserting the Watch, not if he's king and accepted as such. Not the least of which might be the situation that the Watch might have outlived its usefulness, Jon can potentially release himself.

[Ice Turtle]

Not so much about Jon being king, but Ygritte is called kissed by fire and later Jon gives Ygritte "lord's kiss" she is kissed by Jon and Jon has element of fire in him.

[Boy and Girl Wadish]

This thread was inspired by a brief-but-illuminating exchange with Fire Eater in the Moments of Foreshadowing thread. FE dropped in a little foreshadowing nugget about Jon that I had completely missed, and yet after seeing it, it amazed me at how obvious it was.

I'm speaking, of course, of little clues and easter eggs in the text that point to Jon being a king and/or having royal blood.

Mormont's warged raven cawing "King! King!" is the obvious one here. But there is also Jon's (ironic?) observation that Mance's blood is "no more royal" than his own. Varamyr says that a direwolf would be a second life worthy of a king. To expand further and tie in "king" to "hero," we also have Sansa wishing for a hero to chop off Janos Slynt's head. Jon eventually does the deed — is that an obtuse way of saying that Jon is "a" hero, perhaps even "the" hero?

When thinking about the nomenclature of Wylla in another discussion, it dawned on me that Lyanna Stark and Wylla of Dorne and Lyanna Mormont and Wylla Manderly sort of book-end each other. The former pair nurtured and protected Jon in the first part of his life, while the latter pair is vehemently calling for a Stark King in the North, and Robb legitimized Jon in his will.

And then there's the one FE brought up, the one that made me wonder how many of these things are out there that we haven't even noticed yet.

Anyone have any more of these? Either in Jon's POV or someone else's. I have to think that there are other clues out there that have been overlooked thus far.

Very good stuff! I really like it. I've always taken it for granted that Jon is Rhaegar and Lyanna's son and even the third head of the dragon (and the AA and PtwP) but this all puts a new perspective on things. Gosh I do love this forum so much.

[Boy and Girl Wadish]

I like it. Or you could interpret it that Tyrion's shadow is tall as a King, but since Jon is taller still than a King, he is a King of Kings.

I am in awe, you guys.

[Boy and Girl Wadish]

2) Jeyne Westerling very well could be pregnant with Robb's child which would displace Jon's claim to Winterfell despite Robb's legitimization.

But wasn't it established that Jeyne Westerling wasn't able to get pregnant thanks to her mom and the herbal stuff she's been giving Jeyne? Or am I missing something else?

[lady m]

But wasn't it established that Jeyne Westerling wasn't able to get pregnant thanks to her mom and the herbal stuff she's been giving Jeyne? Or am I missing something else?

No, lots of people don't think that's so. That there might have been a switch and the Jeyne that went west isn't the real Jeyne, we don't see her face. She might be with Blackfish.

[Winterfellian]

But wasn't it established that Jeyne Westerling wasn't able to get pregnant thanks to her mom and the herbal stuff she's been giving Jeyne? Or am I missing something else?

Some people see in the different descriptions of Jeyne given first by Cat and then by Jaime a potential for a theory involving a Jeyne switch. When she first met Jeyne Cat mentioned that she has broad hips (or something similar), good for birthing babies. When Jaime meets her he makes a remark about her having narrow hips.

[Boy and Girl Wadish]

Some people see in the different descriptions of Jeyne given first by Cat and then by Jaime a potential for a theory involving a Jeyne switch. When she first met Jeyne Cat mentioned that she has broad hips (or something similar), good for birthing babies. When Jaime meets her he makes a remark about her having narrow hips.

I see. Thanks for clearing that up then. I suppose I'm not too good with details as I originally thought. :)

[Ruby Chevrolet]

Here's another one. Theon Greyjoy, speaking to the captain's daughter on his way back to the Iron Islands in A Clash of Kings:

As many times as I've fucked you, you're likely with child. It's not every man who has the honor of raising a king's bastard.

He thinks he is talking about the captain raising his (Theon's) bastard, since he thinks he is the Crown Prince of the Iron Islands. He is actually talking about Lord Eddard raising Prince Rhaegar's child.

[Real Heir of Bear Island]

I thought I've seen every "easter egg" as Apple Martini put it, found regarding Jon's destiny as king. Roberts line and the Tyrion shadow example just blew my mind. I always harborded some doubt if Jon would ever be the King in the end. I always hoped he would, and now my hope has turned to confidence. I am confident Jon will be King in the end.

[Stark Wolf]

Pretty sure the North's independence ended when it was invaded by the Ironmen and the effective leadership of the rebellion murdered or held prisoner. Most of the Northern and Riverlands lords' have bent knee to the Iron Throne. Believing there is a kingdom for Jon to inherit is wishful thinking at best at this point. You can't recognize two kings of the same Kingdom. Even though it's called the "seven kingdoms" it's actually just one. Meaning there can be only one king. Most of the North is now choosing to recognize Tommen.

Rob's will is meaningless unless the North rises up again around another Stark.

This can be looked at in several ways. Tommen is a sweet little boy, but has no claim to the throne, he is the son of Jamie and Cersei, a child of incest. Robb's right to be King of the North is more valid than Tommens as Starks had been Kings of the North in the past. Robb's Northern Bannermen called for him to be King, like a Kings moot, he did not name himself King. Prior to Targaryen rule there were mutipule Kings in Westeros. Technicaly Stannis should be King if going by the ascendencey from the last seated King. Point, the lines of ascendency are very blurrey through out this series. Thus, which rules are to be followed and who gets to make the decisions? There is little clarity here.

[Dreadnaught]

then that would make the entire line of succession thing completely pointless

Not really, English monarchs did name their heirs.