Archived

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

Prince AppleSauce

Jon Snow Lord of Dragonstone

27 posts in this topic

Many people who subscribe to the Rhaegar + Lyanna = Jon Snow theory also seem to assume that Jon Snow would be the true heir to the Iron Throne.



However, is that how succession really works?



Even If R+L=J were true I dont think Jon would have a strong claim to the Iron Throne.



Rhaegar as crown prince was the KING's heir, and he also held the title Lord of Dragonstone.



However, Rhaegar died BEFORE his Father. Therefore he never became king and never inherited his father's claim to the Kingdom of Westeros.


The only title Rhaegar's children could then inherit would be the Lordship of Dragonstone.



The crown would then have passed to the KING's next born son Vicerys. Which is exactly what the book reads.



Many R+L=J believers seem to think the crown would pass to the Prince's son. And many state the Kings guard's presense outside the tower of joy as reason. However, that doesnt make sense. Why would Aegon or Jon inherit the King's crown if his father was never king. Vicery's Father was the king.



This ultimatley makes Daeny's claim much stronger than Aegon or Jon's.



however, they both (if they are real Targaryens) do have a claim to their father's title, Lordship of Dragonstone.











Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many people who subscribe to the Rhaegar + Lyanna = Jon Snow theory also seem to assume that Jon Snow would be the true heir to the Iron Throne.

However, is that how succession really works?

Even If R+L=J were true I dont think Jon would have a strong claim to the Iron Throne.

Rhaegar as crown prince was the KING's heir, and he also held the title Lord of Dragonstone.

However, Rhaegar died BEFORE his Father. Therefore he never became king and never inherited his father's claim to the Kingdom of Westeros.

The only title Rhaegar's children could then inherit would be the Lordship of Dragonstone.

The crown would then have passed to the KING's next born son Vicerys. Which is exactly what the book reads.

Many R+L=J believers seem to think the crown would pass to the Prince's son. And many state the Kings guard's presense outside the tower of joy as reason. However, that doesnt make sense. Why would Aegon or Jon inherit the King's crown if his father was never king. Vicery's Father was the king.

This ultimatley makes Daeny's claim much stronger than Aegon or Jon's.

however, they both (if they are real Targaryens) do have a claim to their father's title, Lordship of Dragonstone.

Dany doesnt have a stronger legal claim because women arent allowed to directly sit on the IT and rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not how succession works. It goes king, then to the king's oldest son, then to his oldest son, next-oldest son, etc. Viserys isn't in contention until Rhaegar's sons are exhausted, even if Rhaegar dies first. If Prince Charles dies before Elizabeth II, Prince William is still next in line, not Prince Andrew. Edward the Black Prince died before Edward III; the throne passed to Richard II, the Black Prince's son, not John of Gaunt, his younger brother and Edward III's next-oldest surviving son.



Even if your understanding of succession were correct (it's not), Dany, being a female, would still come after any male Targaryen claimants.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And just because Aegon and Jons dad didnt become King doesnt mean they dont have a claim on the IT, theyre apart of the Royal family and the line of succession if everyones dead in front of them then it falls on them.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not how succession works. It goes king, then to the king's oldest son, then to his oldest son, next-oldest son, etc. Viserys isn't in contention until Rhaegar's sons are exhausted, even if Rhaegar dies first. If Prince Charles dies before Elizabeth II, Prince William is still next in line, not Prince Andrew. Edward the Black Prince died before Edward III; the throne passed to Richard II, the Black Prince's son, not John of Gaunt, his younger brother and Edward III's next-oldest surviving son.

Even if your understanding of succession were correct (it's not), Dany, being a female, would still come after any male Targaryen claimants.

Yes exactly what I was trying and mostly failed to explain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dany doesnt have a stronger legal claim because women arent allowed to directly sit on the IT and rule.

she would have to marry someone right

and jon snow would not be a great king

he'l turn into another robert

because people like jon, eddard and even robert belong in the batlefield

and not in court

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can not see two characters totally different then Jon and Robert Baratheon. Two completely different people.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I seriously doubt that Jon would claim a right to the IT or any other throne. Like many other posters I believe that he belongs to the North, en heart and soul. Of course IMO he would be a good King in the North, or Winterfell Regent. To me he seems to be a natural leader.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Succession laws are always a little murky but my guess is and this is based on the assumption that the rebellion never happened and Rhaegar and Lyanna's marriage was deemed valid the line would have been as follows:



Aerys- Rhaegar-Aegon-Jon-Viserys-Rhaenys-Daenerys


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dany doesnt have a stronger legal claim because women arent allowed to directly sit on the IT and rule.

Not true. They just come after all male TARGARYEN relatives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Assuming... the theory is correct then either Jon or fAegon is currently the rightful reigning monarch with with Daenarys coming after them. Of course we don't have any specific documentation on any successions (bar the obvious eldest son inherits), but depending on the particularities it might even displace Daenarys entirely from succession and making her SONS valid to inherit the throne, whilst barring her own succession.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not how succession works. It goes king, then to the king's oldest son, then to his oldest son, next-oldest son, etc. Viserys isn't in contention until Rhaegar's sons are exhausted, even if Rhaegar dies first. If Prince Charles dies before Elizabeth II, Prince William is still next in line, not Prince Andrew. Edward the Black Prince died before Edward III; the throne passed to Richard II, the Black Prince's son, not John of Gaunt, his younger brother and Edward III's next-oldest surviving son.

Even if your understanding of succession were correct (it's not), Dany, being a female, would still come after any male Targaryen claimants.

basically this ends the thread.

the bolded part: I would imagine history would be even more of an epic backstab clusterf**k if all that a king's brother or nephew would have to do to get in line fot the crown was to kill their male offspring before the king dies. Keeping the succession line the same regardless of who dies first gives at least some stability to the system, and is the only way it makes any sense...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that you are wrong. Heir's sons comes before his younger brothers.



If Charles, Prince of Wales dies before Queen Elizabeth Prince William, Duke of Cambridge is the heir not Prince Andrew, Duke of York.



Dany is at the bottom of the line of succession with Rhaenys, Shireen, Elia and Arianne


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Leaving issues of legitimacy, does it matter whether Jon has been born yet? Does his interest vest at conception (as it would under the RAP) or birth? If it is at birth, then it is possible that his claim was extinguished once Aerys and Aegon were killed.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But the way I see it is this: The Targaryens (including Jon) were removed from the line line of succession, when Robert took the Throne. They still have a claim to the Throne, if someone backs them.



Legally, Stannis is King, and Shireen his heir, but would the Targaryens be in contention if Shireen were to die? One of Roberts numerous bastards could be legitimized, but what would happen if the Baratheon line were to die out (and the Lannisters lose the Throne)? Then there is no obvious heir, so a Great Council would have to be called.


Considering Robert was put forth as King, as he had a Targaryen grandmother, this could mean Doran would be in line for the throne through his Targaryen lineage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not how succession works. It goes king, then to the king's oldest son, then to his oldest son, next-oldest son, etc. Viserys isn't in contention until Rhaegar's sons are exhausted, even if Rhaegar dies first. If Prince Charles dies before Elizabeth II, Prince William is still next in line, not Prince Andrew. Edward the Black Prince died before Edward III; the throne passed to Richard II, the Black Prince's son, not John of Gaunt, his younger brother and Edward III's next-oldest surviving son.

Even if your understanding of succession were correct (it's not), Dany, being a female, would still come after any male Targaryen claimants.

Aegon> Jon> Viserys> Daenerys. Enuff said. And Aegon likely is a fake, so Jon comes first in succession.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You obviously haven't played Crusader Kings II.

Actually i've logged 120+ hours in CKII.

Aren't deposed rulers listed as claimants, not heirs. But I haven't played a scenario, where I win gain the Kingdom of Denmark (for example), and then my whole dynasty is wiped out, so I wouldn't know

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites