Who Actually Sits on the Throne, Jon or Dany?

[Fire Eater]

Knowing GRRM, he likes to keep things unpredictable and to surprise the reader. Thus, I don't think anyone declared monarchs will sit the IT. I think Jon will be named king in the end by a Great Council after the Others are dealt with. He is essentially the last person one would expect to be king given he is a member of the NW and isn't involved in the war. 

[chrisdaw]

Tommen -> Aegon -> Dany -> Tyrion and Jon may or may not sit the throne after Tyrion as it will not be the throne Jon wants but a realm wide alliance against the Others and he may not need to take the throne to achieve that. Regardless of if he does or doesn't he will have his hour of the wolf moment in KL.

[Ruhail]

Hopefully her defeat of Aegon to seize the IT will show her the merit to and the futility of being a usurper after her own issues with Bobby B's rebellion. 

[Mark the Red]

My bet will be Gendry.  Just a hunch.  The TV show is making a huge deal out of him, and the books are not entirely subtle about it either.  Not to mention he is the LAST Baratheon alive in both the books and TV show.   Both Stannis and Edric are dead in TV Game of Thrones, so its impossible it will be them.

[Protagoras]

Ok, lets see.

In order for either of them to sit the Iron Throne, House Targaryen must win the Iron Throne back.

Jon however, is not officially a part of said dynasty. In order for him to be a Targaryen it must be proved that he is. Unfortunately - Howland Reed won´t count for much evidence (maybe, big maybe that he can convince the lords about R+L=J but even so, Howland Reed can´t prove that there was a marriage), nor can it be proved that R+L was married (which is needed for Jon to enter the succession in the first place). In addition, Jons own wows towards the night´s watch make it impossible for him to leave the watch without (at minimum) the permission of a monarch (or maybe a great council too).

Luckily, he only need to convince one person about all this and that person is Daenerys, the scion and only known member of House Targaryen (I can also see the possibility that Aegon will legitimize him, but I find that unlikely).

So, if Jon want´s the throne (and lets ignore all unrealistic bullshit that Jon will somehow get the throne regardless of blood because he is sooo awesome and everyone somehow "realize" this - thats lame, unrealistic and very much not GRRM and you all know it) he need to be legimized as a Targaryen by a already known Targaryen and freed from his wows by preferably the same person. Sure, in theory, Jon could name himself Jon Targaryen and make an attempt himself but he lacks an army, will be seen as a oathbreaker and, most importantly, a raison d'etre to do this since he today has no connection to the Targaryen name.

If that happens, Daenerys will obviously be the one in charge and will sit the throne. Jon really can´t rebel against her since the fact that he is a legitimate candidate in the first place will be because of her and by refusing to acknowledge her rule he will also refuse his own legitimization. Jons best odds to get the throne is to be named her heir (Pretty likely if he can convince Daenerys of all of the above) and rule after her death.

[Curled Finger]

8 hours ago, Protagoras said:

Ok, lets see.

In order for either of them to sit the Iron Throne, House Targaryen must win the Iron Throne back.

Jon however, is not officially a part of said dynasty. In order for him to be a Targaryen it must be proved that he is. Unfortunately - Howland Reed won´t count for much evidence (maybe, big maybe that he can convince the lords about R+L=J but even so, Howland Reed can´t prove that there was a marriage), nor can it be proved that R+L was married (which is needed for Jon to enter the succession in the first place). In addition, Jons own wows towards the night´s watch make it impossible for him to leave the watch without (at minimum) the permission of a monarch (or maybe a great council too).

Luckily, he only need to convince one person about all this and that person is Daenerys, the scion and only known member of House Targaryen (I can also see the possibility that Aegon will legitimize him, but I find that unlikely).

So, if Jon want´s the throne (and lets ignore all unrealistic bullshit that Jon will somehow get the throne regardless of blood because he is sooo awesome and everyone somehow "realize" this - thats lame, unrealistic and very much not GRRM and you all know it) he need to be legimized as a Targaryen by a already known Targaryen and freed from his wows by preferably the same person. Sure, in theory, Jon could name himself Jon Targaryen and make an attempt himself but he lacks an army, will be seen as a oathbreaker and, most importantly, a raison d'etre to do this since he today has no connection to the Targaryen name.

If that happens, Daenerys will obviously be the one in charge and will sit the throne. Jon really can´t rebel against her since the fact that he is a legitimate candidate in the first place will be because of her and by refusing to acknowledge her rule he will also refuse his own legitimization. Jons best odds to get the throne is to be named her heir (Pretty likely if he can convince Daenerys of all of the above) and rule after her death.

Right on all counts.   HR is in possession of Jon's real back story and beginnings.  Don't write proof off yet.   HR has been in too many right places at too many right times.   If there is proof that Rhaegar & Lyanna were married and the parents of Jon, he will have it.   The information HR has is game changing.   Add to that the possibility he may also know or have the contents of Robb's will and it becomes mind boggling.   I am not claiming he does have it, only that he has access to the information contained therein.   With this in mind Robb already had an idea for legitimizing and releasing Jon from his NW vows.   He planned to send men to replace him.   If there is a written decree and at least 2 of the witnesses (Glover & Mormont who have been missing since setting out to see HR) can vouch for Robb's intent that would by your account release Jon from his vows.  (Though if I was Jon I would take attempted murder as cause for leaving all on its own). 

Proof is subjective.  Could be we only need Jon to have his parents proven to him in which case he will just have to make Dany fall for him.   Could be there is undeniable proof and it goes viral public forcing Jon into the king position willingly or not.  If Jon was to show up at Dany's court with say Aegon's missing valyrian steel crown perhaps that would be enough for her to test him on a dragon or something.    You can't just have these rules in place without a way to test a claim.   Maybe Rhaegal will find Jon somewhere and grab him--who knows.   As to the division of power each would take their strongest interests and lobby for them while those on their council would have to hash the rest out.   That IT is made of steel and defeat.   I say junk it and go with a seat of power that symbolizes peace.  

[The Ned's Little Girl]

21 hours ago, purple-eyes said:

I think it is safe to say in this universe, it looks like you can only have one ruling person. 

Sure, the couple rule together, but one is the final ruler. 

Not necessarily.

The OP asserts as "fact" that only one butt can park itself on the Iron Throne and be the ruler. I'm saying I don't think that is established as "fact". Common practice, sure - but common practice doesn't equate to immutability.

One of the main points of the novels is to force the reader to acknowledge their own unconscious assumptions. These "facts" get challenged all the time.

Like, at first it's a fact that Jaime Lannister is a slimy git who cold-bloodedly murdered his king in order to help his slimy git of a father. Whoops, that was not it; Jaime actually had a darn good reason to kill the king.

It's a fact that, to the Night's Watch, the wildling are the only historical enemy and there is no possibility or point to coming to terms and attempting to live peaceably with them. Whoops, it's not a fact; the wildlings are not the problem and instead may be part of the solution to a far greater danger.

It's a fact to the nobility of Westeros that who rules from the Iron Throne is the only important question in their lives. Whoops, it's really only a distraction from a danger that threatens everyone and has actually caused the depletion of their vital resources simultaneously with the onset of winter.

Facts need to be treated with caution until they are proved to be facts. In Westeros, that is.

 

[purple-eyes]

17 minutes ago, The Ned's Little Girl said:

Not necessarily.

The OP asserts as "fact" that only one butt can park itself on the Iron Throne and be the ruler. I'm saying I don't think that is established as "fact". Common practice, sure - but common practice doesn't equate to immutability.

One of the main points of the novels is to force the reader to acknowledge their own unconscious assumptions. These "facts" get challenged all the time.

Like, at first it's a fact that Jaime Lannister is a slimy git who cold-bloodedly murdered his king in order to help his slimy git of a father. Whoops, that was not it; Jaime actually had a darn good reason to kill the king.

It's a fact that, to the Night's Watch, the wildling are the only historical enemy and there is no possibility or point to coming to terms and attempting to live peaceably with them. Whoops, it's not a fact; the wildlings are not the problem and instead may be part of the solution to a far greater danger.

It's a fact to the nobility of Westeros that who rules from the Iron Throne is the only important question in their lives. Whoops, it's really only a distraction from a danger that threatens everyone and has actually caused the depletion of their vital resources simultaneously with the onset of winter.

Facts need to be treated with caution until they are proved to be facts. In Westeros, that is.

 

I think your examples are different from the "only one ruler for one realm".

I mean, in this universe, like thousands of years, there is no example for real co-rulership.

GRRM usually will make some heads-up or preexisting examples for something. Like he would say there was a long night before. he would set Osha there to let us know wildling can be good. he would make beric resurrected to let us be ready for Jon's reborn. he used other skinchangers to let us ready for Jon's warging. etc.

But two equal rulers, we do not have any examples. So I think it is safe to say this will not happen in this book either.

And it will cause confusion too. Who is whose consort then? what is the last name of their children? how will they inherit?

 

 

 

[khal drogon]

19 hours ago, purple-eyes said:

I think your examples are different from the "only one ruler for one realm".

I mean, in this universe, like thousands of years, there is no example for real co-rulership.

GRRM usually will make some heads-up or preexisting examples for something. Like he would say there was a long night before. he would set Osha there to let us know wildling can be good. he would make beric resurrected to let us be ready for Jon's reborn. he used other skinchangers to let us ready for Jon's warging. etc.

But two equal rulers, we do not have any examples. So I think it is safe to say this will not happen in this book either.

And it will cause confusion too. Who is whose consort then? what is the last name of their children? how will they inherit?

 

 

 

Aegon - Visenya - Rhaenys are examples of co- rulers. And they are all Targs so no problems with inheritance. 

[Myself656]

My hunch is that Dany's going to end up biting it in the last book and King's Landing likely razed before its all over. My hunch is that after the Others are dealt with instead of trying to unify everything, Jon will let the seven kingdoms go their separate ways leading to multiple kings.

Alternately the world is so devastated by the final battle that civilization collapses with 90+% of the population and most of the capitols wiped out. In that scenario, I'd think it would be Jon who ends up as "King" in the same sense that Mance was King Beyond The Wall... he gathers and leads a large group of the survivors by popular assent and begins the generations long process of rebuilding civilization, ultimately being remembered many generations hence as a legendary figure whose tale is known as "The Song of Ice and Fire."

[King Viserys Targaryen IV]

On 1/13/2016 at 2:30 AM, Yet Another Stark Fan said:

One issue with the Jon/Dany political marriage is that co-rulership ,while theoretically possible, does not seem like an effective form of government outside of Disney movies.  This is best emphasized  by the fact that only one person can sit on the Iron Throne at a time.  Assuming they get married, who rules: Jon, Dany, or is co-rulership attempted?

This is my first topic, despite lurking on the forums for close to two years.  I only ask that you stay on topic.  There are many great topics discussing the possibility of Jon and Dany's marriage, but this is not one of them.

Something occurred to me this weekend.

 

The first Iron Throne was created after the Original Three Heads of the Dragon conquered (most) of Westeros and took their enemies' swords and melted them with their Dragon's flames.

 

What if the new Three Heads of the Dragon, win Westeros once again and take their enemies swords (fAegon's armies) and create, either a second Iron Throne, or a new Iron Throne if the old one is destroyed, using their Dragon's flames?

[khal drogon]

4 minutes ago, King Viserys Targaryen IV said:

Something occurred to me this weekend.

 

The first Iron Throne was created after the Original Three Heads of the Dragon conquered (most) of Westeros and took their enemies' swords and melted them with their Dragon's flames.

 

What if the new Three Heads of the Dragon, win Westeros once again and take their enemies swords (fAegon's armies) and create, either a second Iron Throne, or a new Iron Throne if the old one is destroyed, using their Dragon's flames?

I think Dany or Jon would prefer to destroy the Iron throne than sit on it. Dany prefers a bench over a throne while she rules in Meereen. Similarly Jon prefers to sit in an Armory over his official seat.

 

[King Viserys Targaryen IV]

34 minutes ago, khal drogon said:

I think Dany or Jon would prefer to destroy the Iron throne than sit on it. Dany prefers a bench over a throne while she rules in Meereen. Similarly Jon prefers to sit in an Armory over his official seat.

I know what you mean, but there is a lot of symbolism involved with the Iron Throne and/ or a Second Iron Throne for the Targaryen rule/ Dynasty that Daenerys is trying to reestablish.

[Lord Friendzone]

1 hour ago, King Viserys Targaryen IV said:

Something occurred to me this weekend.

 

The first Iron Throne was created after the Original Three Heads of the Dragon conquered (most) of Westeros and took their enemies' swords and melted them with their Dragon's flames.

 

What if the new Three Heads of the Dragon, win Westeros once again and take their enemies swords (fAegon's armies) and create, either a second Iron Throne, or a new Iron Throne if the old one is destroyed, using their Dragon's flames?

Of course if Three Heads of the Dragon is really three people. Rhaegar might've been very wrong with this prophecy when he tried to recreate itwith his children and what if it's in fact Daeny herself. Just stating the possibility. Iron Throne will stand in the end.

[JonDayne]

Personally, I don't think the IT will still stand by the end of the series. I have absolutely no idea of how or why this will come to pass, except a hunch that Dany will more than likely have something to do with it (what with the whole 'breaking the weel' thing).
I just don't believe it matters whose arse polishes that hellish seat (pardon my French), with, you know, winter and dragons and Others and complete chaos and disarray.

I just don't think one person sitting on a throne will matter all that much in the end.

[Amris]

In my opinion Jon is more likely to be ruler of Westeros in the end than Dany is - for the reason that Jon's background and heritage are hidden atm. So him ruling would give GRRM the chance of a reveal and twist while Dany ruling would seem rather straightforward and predictable.

I do not have a problem with predictable and straightforward endings - but I know many readers have. And GRRM seems to not particularly like them either. So - Jon more likely.

That said I am still rooting for Jaime or Tyrion, Jaime in particular.