What if Jon's parentage actually loses him his kingship?

[FuzzyJAM]

So Jon was legitimised by Robb.  He's Jon Stark, the son of Ned Stark, and heir of the King in the North.  Let's say some form of the GNC is true, let's say the North rises from the ashes, let's say they crown Robb's heir.  And then Jon's parentage is revealed.  He's actually not Ned's son, but Rhaegar's.  Perhaps even a legitimate Targaryen.  He's no longer Jon Stark at all, Robb made Jon his heir under false pretences.  Something tells me Jon as a Targaryen is going to have a far harder time keeping the North's loyalty and things could fall apart.  And so, because of his crown prince father, Jon loses a crown. 

It's not hugely likely, but I think it's a pretty neat little inversion of the "boy is the son of the king raised in obscurity but his parentage is revealed and he takes the throne" trope.  Maybe Jon's royal parentage is a great liability to his claim to kingship, not a plus.  Ned's bastard could be King in the North, Rhaegar's legitimate son loses everything.  

[Ice Turtle]

Possible.

Though I am more of an opinion that he will need to take some radical action to keep it. Being a true-born son of Lyanna he will be still in line, after Ned's children and possibly Benjen. 

But than again I am from the minority who believe that Jon will likely marry Arya for this reason. There seems to be a pattern of Stark women marrying Stark men in certain situations and succession mess like this would be one of them.

[King Viserys Targaryen IV]

2 hours ago, FuzzyJAM said:

So Jon was legitimised by Robb.  He's Jon Stark, the son of Ned Stark, and heir of the King in the North.  Let's say some form of the GNC is true, let's say the North rises from the ashes, let's say they crown Robb's heir.  And then Jon's parentage is revealed.  He's actually not Ned's son, but Rhaegar's.  Perhaps even a legitimate Targaryen.  He's no longer Jon Stark at all, Robb made Jon his heir under false pretences.  Something tells me Jon as a Targaryen is going to have a far harder time keeping the North's loyalty and things could fall apart.  And so, because of his crown prince father, Jon loses a crown. 

It's not hugely likely, but I think it's a pretty neat little inversion of the "boy is the son of the king raised in obscurity but his parentage is revealed and he takes the throne" trope.  Maybe Jon's royal parentage is a great liability to his claim to kingship, not a plus.  Ned's bastard could be King in the North, Rhaegar's legitimate son loses everything.  

Jon would still be Lyanna's true born son and Robb's named heir (not just to the North but the Trident as well).

Jon becoming King in the North & King of the Trident is only on step towards becoming King of all of Westeros (and the True North), finding out Jon's Targaryen heritage will only increase his ability to attract followers, not detract.

[FuzzyJAM]

4 minutes ago, King Viserys Targaryen IV said:

Jon would still be Lyanna's true born son and Robb's named heir (not just to the North but the Trident as well).

Jon becoming King in the North & King of the Trident is only on step towards becoming King of all of Westeros (and the True North), finding out Jon's Targaryen heritage will only increase his ability to attract followers, not detract.

Well I'm not really sure what the legality of a bastard legitimised on false premises might be.  How can Jon be the legitimised son of Ned when he's not Ned's son, and maybe not even a bastard?  How's that going to work out?  And what of an heir named based on a false belief?  Ned certainly thought it was a grey area with Joffrey.  

And you really can't see Northerners getting a little peeved that their king is actually the son of Rhaegar and Lyanna, the two who caused Robert's Rebellion more than any other by their selfish actions, and caused the deaths of countless of their brothers?  Maybe him being genetically half Stark would still be enough to command loyalty, but his actual parentage is certainly not going to help him in the North, of that there can be no doubt.  

[ShadowCat Rivers]

24 minutes ago, FuzzyJAM said:

Well I'm not really sure what the legality of a bastard legitimised on false premises might be.  How can Jon be the legitimised son of Ned when he's not Ned's son, and maybe not even a bastard?  How's that going to work out?  And what of an heir named based on a false belief?  Ned certainly thought it was a grey area with Joffrey.  

And you really can't see Northerners getting a little peeved that their king is actually the son of Rhaegar and Lyanna, the two who caused Robert's Rebellion more than any other by their selfish actions, and caused the deaths of countless of their brothers?  Maybe him being genetically half Stark would still be enough to command loyalty, but his actual parentage is certainly not going to help him in the North, of that there can be no doubt.  

I think that Jon's parentage might play in that regard in a similar way as Samwell used his bastard/noble status to present him as a compromise candidate for Mallister and Pyke.

 

With Bran, Rickon, Sansa and Arya alive, I don't believe that Jon himself (as we've known him) would want to accept the kingship ahead of them either as a bastard son of Ned or as a (trueborn or bastard, no matter) son of Lyanna. It doesn't change much really, I think.

[TeamWhiteWalkerz]

1 hour ago, ShadowCat Rivers said:

I think that Jon's parentage might play in that regard in a similar way as Samwell used his bastard/noble status to present him as a compromise candidate for Mallister and Pyke.

 

With Bran, Rickon, Sansa and Arya alive, I don't believe that Jon himself (as we've known him) would want to accept the kingship ahead of them either as a bastard son of Ned or as a (trueborn or bastard, no matter) son of Lyanna. It doesn't change much really, I think.

Bran is in a tree, probably for the rest of his life. Arya is currently no one. Sansa is Allayne Stone and to be lady of the Veil. Rickon is too young to lead anyone. No one likes boy kings.

[UnViserion]

Being the son of Lyanna is meaningless. he derives northern favor through being Ned's son. 

being Rhaegar's son is more meaningful for Westeros as a whole, but actually pretty harmful for the North. 

And being the fruit of this reckless Union, even if it was a "legitimate marriage," scores you points with pretty much nobody. Except certain members of the fandom.

[redtree]

Even if he was legitimized he'd still be called bastardborn not trueborn just like Bittersteel or Daemon Blackfyre, they were still called the great bastards. Trueborn is for the result of marriage

[WhitewolfStark]

1 hour ago, redtree said:

Even if he was legitimized he'd still be called bastardborn not trueborn just like Bittersteel or Daemon Blackfyre, they were still called the great bastards. Trueborn is for the result of marriage

There are those who theorize that Rhaegar married Lyanna in secret. The only problem is that there are no witnesses to this, and in one of the cited inspirations to GRRM's book series (he cites Maurice Druon's book series Les Rois Maudits--The Accursed Kings--as an influence) there is a plot where a couple have a secret marriage, but since the pastor who performed it died and there were no other witnesses, the two say that they're married when the girl gets pregnant, but no one accepts the marriage as legitimate in any way. The girl's mother & brothers treat her as though she got pregnant out of wedlock, and as far as the rest of the world is concerned the marriage that occurred never took place, with the girl being sent to give birth to her bastard-not-a-bastard in secret--who later gets involved in a baby swap with the infant King of France and is poisoned to death in the infant King of France's place.

In any case, I see something similar for R+L=J if they married in secret. Even if Rhaegar married Lyanna, no one is left alive to witness or prove it (Howland was with Ned & his bannermen, and Lyanna may have said she was married--but no witnesses left alive makes that difficult to prove), then there's the added difficulty that both Rhaegar and Lyanna both died before either could claim to have done so publicly, and even if Bran sees it through a vision--unless Bran himself holds authority, no one beyond him is going to believe it or accept that it actually happened.

The only way that people would accept this version of history is if Jon managed himself to accumulate power on his own and maintain it through enforcement of his own will. Which if this secret marriage between Rhaegar and Lyanna is supposed to be how he gains power... it immediately undercuts it.

Whether or not Rhaegar married Lyanna or not in secret doesn't really matter in the end, because as Les Rois Maudits shows, if you don't have any witnesses left alive who saw the event take place, then it might as well never have happened in the first place, and will be treated as such.

[The Mountain That Flies]

10 minutes ago, WhitewolfStark said:

The only way that people would accept this version of history is if Jon managed himself to accumulate power on his own and maintain it through enforcement of his own will. Which if this secret marriage between Rhaegar and Lyanna is supposed to be how he gains power... it immediately undercuts it.

Thank you. Jon isn't seizing any throne anywhere without a sizable force backing him up, though I don't think he'll end up ruling anything personally. If he does, it will be because he took power or proved himself to be a leader people want to follow, not because of who is his parents were or what his brother/cousin said.

[purple-eyes]

With Sansa, Bran, Rickon, Arya all alive, why would Jon Stark become the king?

[redtree]

47 minutes ago, WhitewolfStark said:

Whether or not Rhaegar married Lyanna or not in secret doesn't really matter in the end, because as Les Rois Maudits shows, if you don't have any witnesses left alive who saw the event take place, then it might as well never have happened in the first place, and will be treated as such.

Exactly, majority of people in Westeros would just see the claim as a pathetic power grab attempt. Even if Bran backed the claim with his skill, people still wouldn't believe it because Bran isn't unbiased party and would still see it as a power grab attempt. He doesn't even look like a Targaryen
 

[Nozlym]

i think jon is wise enough to realize that if ppl dont want him to be their king, he wont. even if he keeps his name as stark. i think he would do what the majority of ppl want him to do and give over the crown to the next stark in line.

he would have probably realized that robb wouldnt have known about his parentage, and probably wouldnt have made him heir if he had. so he would correct robbs mistake.

[WhitewolfStark]

55 minutes ago, The Mountain That Flies said:

Thank you. Jon isn't seizing any throne anywhere without a sizable force backing him up, though I don't think he'll end up ruling anything personally. If he does, it will be because he took power or proved himself to be a leader people want to follow, not because of who is his parents were or what his brother/cousin said.

Agreed. The revelation of R+L secretly marrying is one of the more underwhelming theories I've encountered. It promises much if you don't look at it for too long, but upon closer examination it begins to crumble.

18 minutes ago, redtree said:

Exactly, majority of people in Westeros would just see the claim as a pathetic power grab attempt. Even if Bran backed the claim with his skill, people still wouldn't believe it because Bran isn't unbiased party and would still see it as a power grab attempt. He doesn't even look like a Targaryen
 

Pretty much this.

[ShadowCat Rivers]

6 hours ago, TeamWhiteWalkerz said:

Bran is in a tree, probably for the rest of his life. Arya is currently no one. Sansa is Allayne Stone and to be lady of the Veil. Rickon is too young to lead anyone. No one likes boy kings.

How convenient.

Yet does not answer that Jon, the character in the way that he has been depicted in the series, would not want to take his siblings rights, as he perceives it.

[Myself656]

1 hour ago, purple-eyes said:

With Sansa, Bran, Rickon, Arya all alive, why would Jon Stark become the king?

Because I think a good number of them won't survive the series, or will do so in such an altered fashion as to be no longer qualified. Let's take them in order of succession...

Bran is the current legitimate Lord of Winterfell/King in the North as the eldest living son of Ned and Cat. But he's also en route to embracing the darkness and becoming a greenseer by permanently merging with a tree well north of The Wall. Unless he changes course (something we've been given zero indication of) he's already removed himself from the running as heir of Winterfell.

Next would be Rickon as the last remaining son of Ned and Cat. Rickon's problem is that, narratively speaking, he's always been the 'spare' or 'backup' Stark; the easy and obvious choice to be the future Lord of Winterfell/King in the North. The specific problem is he's only five and has been barely developed and we're coming into the third act of the story... a place where narratives love to eat safe backup plans for breakfast because they provide too neat and clean an ending without nearly the conflict the situation could otherwise provide. Not to mention (s6 show spoilers/rumors)...

Spoiler

there's some solid rumors that Rickon will be killed off near the end of the coming season. Given the likely importance of Winterfell and its Lord in terms of rallying/uniting the North to the narrative Rickon's death is unlikely to be a show only change.

Then we have Sansa, who, as far as nearly everyone knows is the last living child of Ned and Cat (who has gone missing). The show has also gone and gotten her involved in the Northern plotline already (likely ahead of the books rather than in opposition to them) and my hunch is that while Ice Turtle above is correct that "there seems to be a pattern of Stark women marrying Stark men in certain situations and succession mess like this would be one of them", I believe Ice Turtle is incorrect on which sister would be the bride in such case because, even if Arya lives, Sansa is still ahead of her in terms of the line of succession to Winterfell.

The only way Arya becomes the heir is if she is literally the only other child of Ned and Cat still alive and frankly, there has been a lot more foreshadowing, going all the way back to the first book of the series, that Arya will not actually survive the series than there have been for Sansa. Best case scenario that still fits the foreshadowing is Arya fakes her death by putting her face onto someone else so her family has closure while she goes off to lead another life. Worst case is that after killing some final target she succumbs to her wounds and her family doesn't find her body until spring and she'll be identified, in part, by the fact that she'll still have Needle clutched between her frozen fingers.

In such a case; Bran unavailable, Rickon dead and Arya presumed dead, Jon's parentage making him Sansa's cousin (rather than half-brother) would actually make it easier for him to take the throne as Lord Protector of the North, husband of the Queen in the North.

All of which presumes that Jon's kingship won't be of the whole Seven Kingdoms. My hunch is that Stannis will die in the North fairly soon and Tommen and Myrcella will be killed in the run-up to fAegon taking power, only for fAegon to be toppled by Dany and then Dany either dies or ascends to some higher existence as part of resolving the conflict with the Others (I'm thinking some sort of spiritual marriage/union of opposites with the leader of the Others)... which leaves the seat vacant to Jon Snow/Stark/Targaryan; the last Targ standing when the dust settles (who never even wanted the throne in the first place).

[SevasTra82]

Quick question...do we know for a *fact* that Greenseers need to merge with the Weirwoods?  It seems everyone is jumping to the conclusion that Bran will wind up like Bloodraven, but that very well may not be the case.  Bloodraven may have merged with the tree simply to prolong his life.  

[Reb]

I have some concerns with this theory. But I think that it would be such a GRRM thing to do - have us wishing for a reveal important to a beloved character, only to make the reveal make him loose everything.

You know, be careful what you wish for!

[Yuki_no_JonI]

 

Quote

With Bran, Rickon, Sansa and Arya alive, I don't believe that Jon

himself
(as we've known him) would want to accept the kingship ahead of them either as a bastard son of Ned or as a (trueborn or bastard, no matter) son of Lyanna. It doesn't change much really, I think.

As far as we've seen Jon's character developement up to now and especially in the Dance, I believe that the only reason he would have accepted Robb's will, either with Bran etc alive or not, is IF and ONLY IF this was the only way of him to face the real danger aka the Others. Him being a LC of NW and being in the North made him realise the real danger away from "the game of thrones". If the only way to "protect the realms of men" is with him "robbing" his siblings' rights I think he would do it. Not because he will like it, but due to his responsibility to humanity, not only the North or Westeros. Any possible ally in this is welcome; thus far the wildlings, the iron bank of braavos, even stannis in a way.

[Ferocious Veldt Roarer]

Ned's son or Lyanna's son, Jon Snow is still the blood of Winterfell. So it's not as if that would disqualify him.

Yes, that claims/blood/last will/succession thing is anything but straightforward, but that's not exactly news, is it?