Jump to content

Who is the True Targaryen Heir?


Nezza86

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Maxxine said:

This is a lot of what ifs.

Yeah, I think most of the thread has shown the dangers of confusing the facts and what-ifs.

Fact is, at this point in the series, Dany's claim is by far the best. Dragons alone should make that clear.
(f)Aegon's claim is a close second, since Aegon should have been heir at some point (and even was, technically, for a very brief period).

Jon's hypothetical claim is, at this point, irrelevant. Despite textual elements that can be seen as clues hinting at a future reveal, there's nothing solid just yet. Most importantly, such a claim is, well, hypothetical since Jon is miles away from thinking about it, and no one has shown willingness to make one on his behalf. The irony here being that it's entirely possible that Jon never even makes the claim, if for some reason he decides to stay in the North (not unlike Maester Aemon, who was a king that-could-have-been), or even, well, dies. For good.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Nezza86 said:

Two different religions, two different types of weddings. Does one nullify the other? Could rhaegar have set aside Elia with her blessing before "kidnapping" Lyanna.

You cannot set aside a woman without the permission of the Faith (and the king, in Rhaegar's case). We know that both from Maegor's example (whose second marriage was not only not recognized by the Faith but also by King Aenys I himself) as well as from Prince Daemon's example - who, while a dragonrider himself, could not set aside is first wife, Rhea Royce, and take another wife without his royal brother's permission. In fact, if Targaryen polygamy had still been a thing Daemon would have had not reason to try to blackmail Viserys I into annulling his marriage and allow him to marry Rhaenyra instead - he could just have married her.

Later he married Laena Velaryon without royal permission but by that time he actually was a widower - but still, this second marriage did not have the blessing of the king and Daemon, Laena, and their twin daughters only became members of the royal family after Viserys I allowed Daemon to return to Westeros and received them all at court.

You can easily enough deduce from all that some secret marriage between Rhaegar and Lyanna - or even a public wedding done without the permission of the king and the blessing of the Faith - would have been considered pretty much null and void by a majority of the people of Westeros.

Perhaps Rhaegar and Lyanna would have then been 'married in their hearts' or something of that sort, but the purpose of an actual marriage - which is that a sexual relationship and subsequent children from such a union are considered to be legitimate in the eyes of the world - wouldn't have been accomplished by such a charade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

You cannot set aside a woman without the permission of the Faith (and the king, in Rhaegar's case). We know that both from Maegor's example (whose second marriage was not only not recognized by the Faith but also by King Aenys I himself) as well as from Prince Daemon's example - who, while a dragonrider himself, could not set aside is first wife, Rhea Royce, and take another wife without his royal brother's permission. In fact, if Targaryen polygamy had still been a thing Daemon would have had not reason to try to blackmail Viserys I into annulling his marriage and allow him to marry Rhaenyra instead - he could just have married her.

Later he married Laena Velaryon without royal permission but by that time he actually was a widower - but still, this second marriage did not have the blessing of the king and Daemon, Laena, and their twin daughters only became members of the royal family after Viserys I allowed Daemon to return to Westeros and received them all at court.

You can easily enough deduce from all that some secret marriage between Rhaegar and Lyanna - or even a public wedding done without the permission of the king and the blessing of the Faith - would have been considered pretty much null and void by a majority of the people of Westeros.

Perhaps Rhaegar and Lyanna would have then been 'married in their hearts' or something of that sort, but the purpose of an actual marriage - which is that a sexual relationship and subsequent children from such a union are considered to be legitimate in the eyes of the world - wouldn't have been accomplished by such a charade.

Any legalistic argument faces the inevitable question: Who enforces these laws?

There is no Supreme Court that gives a definitive judgment. It is up to whoever holds the balance of power at any given time to decide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Any legalistic argument faces the inevitable question: Who enforces these laws?

There is no Supreme Court that gives a definitive judgment. It is up to whoever holds the balance of power at any given time to decide.

Have you read my post? I did not make a legalistic argument, I talked about popular opinion. We can be reasonably sure that Rhaegar did not get permission either by his royal father or the High Septon to set aside Elia or take another wife, but even if he did - the majority of the Westerosi popular would not be in favor of this.

If Jon Snow was the son of a bigamist from his second wife about 95% of the people or more would consider him a bastard, unable to inherit or claim anything. This might even be the case if Rhaegar had been king when he fathered Jon (which he wasn't) because people even opposed King Maegor's many marriages.

Thus we can reasonably assume that even if people would believe that Jon was Rhaegar's son - which I don't think many people would want to believe - nobody would actually consider him his trueborn son even if there was some proof that he and Lyanna were 'married'. And thus pretty much nobody would support any 'claim' he might think he has.

Thinking about Robb's will one should actually expect the Jon's supporters up there (assuming he will have any) to suppress whatever revelations Howland Reed or Bran might going to present to them because Jon would have no claim to Winterfell or anything in the North if he was merely Lyanna's son, and possibly her bastard. Robb did not legitimize or anoint his (bastard) cousin his heir but rather his half-brother, a son of Lord Eddard Stark.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Have you read my post? I did not make a legalistic argument, I talked about popular opinion. We can be reasonably sure that Rhaegar did not get permission either by his royal father or the High Septon to set aside Elia or take another wife, but even if he did - the majority of the Westerosi popular would not be in favor of this.

If Jon Snow was the son of a bigamist from his second wife about 95% of the people or more would consider him a bastard, unable to inherit or claim anything. This might even be the case if Rhaegar had been king when he fathered Jon (which he wasn't) because people even opposed King Maegor's many marriages.

Thus we can reasonably assume that even if people would believe that Jon was Rhaegar's son - which I don't think many people would want to believe - nobody would actually consider him his trueborn son even if there was some proof that he and Lyanna were 'married'. And thus pretty much nobody would support any 'claim' he might think he has.

Thinking about Robb's will one should actually expect the Jon's supporters up there (assuming he will have any) to suppress whatever revelations Howland Reed or Bran might going to present to them because Jon would have no claim to Winterfell or anything in the North if he was merely Lyanna's son, and possibly her bastard. Robb did not legitimize or anoint his (bastard) cousin his heir but rather his half-brother, a son of Lord Eddard Stark.

I disagree with the popular opinion argument. The opinion of the smallfolk does not matter. The opinions of the lords matter. And they will largely go with what serves their own interests best. If there are two candidates, both with claims of varying strength to the Throne, the lords will support the claimant that serves their personal interests best. Legalistic or religious based technicalities be damned.               

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are we all convinced that Jon's claim to the Iron Throne will even matter in the grand scheme of things? Sure, Dany and Aegon's claims have a direct impact on their roles as protagonists, but I'm not sure Jon's does. While I'm sure the fact that he is (probably) a true Targ WILL matter in the foreseeable future, I don't think it's guaranteed that he will ever attempt to seize the throne or that it will be offered to him. I think George has too much to cover in two books for Jon's supposed claim to be of any consequence. Any opposing thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

I disagree with the popular opinion argument. The opinion of the smallfolk does not matter. The opinions of the lords matter. And they will largely go with what serves their own interests best. If there are two candidates, both with claims of varying strength to the Throne, the lords will support the claimant that serves their personal interests best. Legalistic or religious based technicalities be damned.               

In light of the sparrow movement and the new High Septon the opinions of the smallfolk actually do matter quite a bit.

But I'm including the nobility in the percentage I gave, of course. There is no reason to believe that any lord in the Seven Kingdoms is in favor of polygamy.

And, of course, many lords actually care about legalistic arguments. They are part of their day-to-day lives and shape their biases and preferences to various degrees. We see this both during the Dance and the War of the Five Kings. Robb is not keen to support the claims of Stannis and Renly because he thinks that Tommen comes after Joffrey, and he has no issues with Tommen. Grover Tully, Ironrod Wylde, and others supported Aegon II because they believed a son should come before a daughter, and so on.

It is the same with religious views. There are actually pious lords who are fervent followers of the Faith. Not all of them, of course, but a considerable portion of them.

There are very few total cynics in Westeros who don't give a damn about either the law or the gods.

But even if you are right - there is no good reason to assume that (m)any lords would consider it a great idea to seat Jon Snow on the Iron Throne. Certainly not the Targaryen loyalists who most definitely will either join Aegon or Daenerys, but not Jon. And any Northmen would actually not be interested in seating him on the Iron Throne if they continue the secessionist game. They would want to make him only the King in the North.

And even if they changed their mind on that - they would never have the strength to even try to seat Jon Snow on the Iron Throne, even with the support of the Riverlands and the Vale. They are simply too weak militarily and politically.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know whether Jon will become king. I'd always assumed that if he does become king it will be because someone convinces Dany he is Rhaegar's son. The Targaryens have the incest thing, and assuming she means to continue that to preserve the Targaryen bloodline a match between them might appeal to her. It would not be necessary, in this situation, for Jon to have a huge amount of popular support. The Targaryens did not traditionally cement their rule through marriage. If this happens Jon might have a strong following in the north to sweeten the deal, or he might not. Anyway, he would not really need to be trueborn for this scenario to play out. Dany would be hunting around for any other family members and would take what she could get.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only true heir to House Targaryen and the iron throne is Daenerys,  The dragons and her appearance prove who she is.  The prophecy made it clear who she is.  The "child of three" proves she is Daenerys of House Targaryen.  Three is one of the symbols of House Targaryen.  Aegon and his sisters.  The three-headed dragon on their banner.  Child of three just means she is a Targaryen.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jon could have a hard time proving he's Rhaegar's son. Maybe that's the plan and Jon learning who his real parents are will be just for his own peace of mind? I don't think it's written anywhere that "the prince who was promised" will sit a throne. The claims are only as good as the people backing it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

In light of the sparrow movement and the new High Septon the opinions of the smallfolk actually do matter quite a bit.

But I'm including the nobility in the percentage I gave, of course. There is no reason to believe that any lord in the Seven Kingdoms is in favor of polygamy.

And, of course, many lords actually care about legalistic arguments. They are part of their day-to-day lives and shape their biases and preferences to various degrees. We see this both during the Dance and the War of the Five Kings. Robb is not keen to support the claims of Stannis and Renly because he thinks that Tommen comes after Joffrey, and he has no issues with Tommen. Grover Tully, Ironrod Wylde, and others supported Aegon II because they believed a son should come before a daughter, and so on.

It is the same with religious views. There are actually pious lords who are fervent followers of the Faith. Not all of them, of course, but a considerable portion of them.

There are very few total cynics in Westeros who don't give a damn about either the law or the gods.

But even if you are right - there is no good reason to assume that (m)any lords would consider it a great idea to seat Jon Snow on the Iron Throne. Certainly not the Targaryen loyalists who most definitely will either join Aegon or Daenerys, but not Jon. And any Northmen would actually not be interested in seating him on the Iron Throne if they continue the secessionist game. They would want to make him only the King in the North.

And even if they changed their mind on that - they would never have the strength to even try to seat Jon Snow on the Iron Throne, even with the support of the Riverlands and the Vale. They are simply too weak militarily and politically.

Where was the legal and religious imperative or smallfolk support when Robert Baratheon, Ned Stark, Jon Arryn and Hoster Tully rose up and overthrew the Targaryen dynasty? Robert's selection afterward was only an aftethought, to try and find a reason to make the rebellion look even somewhat a continuation of the previous order.

In that case, the support of the North, Vale, Riverlands, Stormlands and Westerlands was enough to force the installation of a new king, the feelings of any remaining opponents be damned.

The point is simply that the wishes of the smallfolk and whatever the Septons might feel about the overthrow of the Faith backed Targaryen rulers were utterly ignored. The smallfolk in the North, Vale, Riverlands etc. weren't consulted over their views on who should rule. It was enough that the Lords Paramount of those regions chose a cause, and raised their banners accordingly. Sure, it was up to each vassal lord to still choose to honor their oaths to their liege lords or not, but in the end enough did so for might to make right.

The same will apply this time around.

In any case, we have no idea what the state of each of the Seven Kingdoms will be when the dust settles and Jon's identity is revealed. Nor do we know what the state of Dany's forces will be at that point. And as I keep saying. There won't be a war between a "Jon" side and a "Dany" side. But there will be factions of various strengths that will support the various contenders.

And thus a marriage between the two might just be brokered to unite all of those factions in the face of impending doom from the Others.

And I am sure, based on previous examples, that there are some very unexpected developments and revelations still to ocur, which will have a significant impact on the state of affairs and attitudes of various lords when the appropriate time arrives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On February 13, 2017 at 8:17 AM, Nezza86 said:

Of Targaryen blood We have Dany and Aegon. Jon is likely a Targ though thats still unconfirmed. Also, Tyrion could be counted although thats even less confirmed than Jon and much debated. I havent counted bloodraven nor other characters that are theorised to be Targaryens as they wouldnt fall in the line of succession.

The natural sucession to the throne after Aerys is the eldest son Rhaegar. After Rhaegar is his eldest son, Aegon. As it stands Aegon should become king but we've been told from the beginning (or when Viserys is killed) that Dany sees the throne as hers. I've read some theories that Elia and Rhaegar may have split up officially given that she could only give him two children and he knew he needed three. Is it possible then that Jon would be the rightful heir somehow? I guess this requires a legitimised marriage to Lyanna and some declaration that Jon would be the heir, who would that declaration be made to?

 

Rhaegar's children would only have a claim to the throne via Aerys, who was the last person in their house to hold it. 

Aerys removed Rhaegar's children from the line of succession. 

Thus, Rhaegar's children have no claim to the throne.

 

On February 13, 2017 at 8:17 AM, Nezza86 said:

Or if Dany was half Targaryen and half Dayne i.e Ashara is her mother, then would Dornish law mean that she could be the rightful heir. And if thats not the case then what on earth was the point in that Arianne chapter were she was going to make Myrcella the queen? I found that plotline pretty confusing and ridiculous. Why would anyone in Kings Landing give a damn if Arianne started telling people that Myrcella was Queen? Dornish law doesnt apply to the rest of westeros.

 

I have a feeling this may prove to be the very purpose of the influx of Dornish characters since AFFC.

The series began with Ice, and now we are learning more about Fire - which is Dorne. Westeros' southernmost kingdom is the land of red suns, red sands, fire peppers, and women that sure seem to be touched by the wolf-blood.

Oh, and then there's that sword (which used to be named "Ice") that's been hanging down there for 17 years. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, ShadowCat Rivers said:

The one who will gather the support of the powerful and influential, as well as win over the smallfolk. Timing, PR and what each one has to offer will be much more important in determining the answer to this question, than rigid succession laws.

Well, as I have said before, I don't think it is going to come down to one or the other. I think they will both sit the Throne, one after the other. Dany is the Conqueror. That is her theme. She will conquer the Throne with Fire and Blood. But Jon is foreshadowed to be King. He will rule the Realm after Dany's death at the end of the series.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Well, as I have said before, I don't think it is going to come down to one or the other. I think they will both sit the Throne, one after the other. Dany is the Conqueror. That is her theme. She will conquer the Throne with Fire and Blood. But Jon is foreshadowed to be King. He will rule the Realm after Dany's death at the end of the series.

I was thinking more between Dany and Aegon. If/when Jon's parentage is publically revealed and, subsequently, if/when he ever sits the throne, I somehow don't think that it will come as the conclusion to a conflict between Targaryen claimants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Where was the legal and religious imperative or smallfolk support when Robert Baratheon, Ned Stark, Jon Arryn and Hoster Tully rose up and overthrew the Targaryen dynasty? Robert's selection afterward was only an aftethought, to try and find a reason to make the rebellion look even somewhat a continuation of the previous order.

It is all there. Robert had a great charisma and won a lot of lords, knights, and smallfolk over. The man became a veritable folk hero, and about his war for love, etc. are still sung to this day.

People had to choose whether to join or oppose the rebels, and in the end the rebels won. But they fought with all the means at their disposal, not just swords, and the Targaryens made it pretty easy. All they had was a Mad King and an absent love-sick prince. Robert alone had more charisma than them both.

16 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

In that case, the support of the North, Vale, Riverlands, Stormlands and Westerlands was enough to force the installation of a new king, the feelings of any remaining opponents be damned.

You know that the combined power of the Stormlands, the Vale, the North, the Riverlands, and the West for exceeds whatever power Jon Snow could ever lead into the field should he even dream of challenging the claim of Daenerys, right?

16 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

The point is simply that the wishes of the smallfolk and whatever the Septons might feel about the overthrow of the Faith backed Targaryen rulers were utterly ignored. The smallfolk in the North, Vale, Riverlands etc. weren't consulted over their views on who should rule. It was enough that the Lords Paramount of those regions chose a cause, and raised their banners accordingly. Sure, it was up to each vassal lord to still choose to honor their oaths to their liege lords or not, but in the end enough did so for might to make right.

Back then the Faith had no teeth. This time it has teeth, and if a faction is going to grow stronger rather than weaker in the conflicts to come it will be the Faith Militant. People are suffering. That always makes the Church stronger in a medieval setting. And the nobility and royals are not strong enough to cull the Faith's power again while they are at each other's throat.

The religious element will become an important factor. Prince Aegon is a follower of the Seven, Jon Snow follows the old gods. The High Septon would never allow a tree worshiper to rule over the Realm, just as he will never allow Stannis to become king in KL.

16 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

The same will apply this time around.

If you say so. But if you are right Jon Snow will be completely crushed.

16 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

In any case, we have no idea what the state of each of the Seven Kingdoms will be when the dust settles and Jon's identity is revealed. Nor do we know what the state of Dany's forces will be at that point. And as I keep saying. There won't be a war between a "Jon" side and a "Dany" side. But there will be factions of various strengths that will support the various contenders.

And thus a marriage between the two might just be brokered to unite all of those factions in the face of impending doom from the Others.

Your scenario is one where you dream up some sort of equal strength on both sides and a weird idea that they would enter into a political alliances (if Dany is wise enough to do that with Jon and whatever pitiful host he might be able to assemble while he is still protecting the Wall, presumably, why the hell can't she reach such a compromise with Aegon earlier on?).

16 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

And I am sure, based on previous examples, that there are some very unexpected developments and revelations still to ocur, which will have a significant impact on the state of affairs and attitudes of various lords when the appropriate time arrives.

Sure, there will be a lot conflicts and stuff but the idea that the North ends up leading some powerful coalition while millions of people will die in the South in the meantime just doesn't make much sense. Conflict will continue everywhere, and even if it subsides in the North after the battles at Winterfell we can be reasonably sure that winter is going to become a massive problem, killing a lot of people very soon.

18 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Well, as I have said before, I don't think it is going to come down to one or the other. I think they will both sit the Throne, one after the other. Dany is the Conqueror. That is her theme. She will conquer the Throne with Fire and Blood. But Jon is foreshadowed to be King. He will rule the Realm after Dany's death at the end of the series.

I don't think George is going to seat some zombie on the Iron Throne at the end of the story. Jon's death and subsequent resurrection makes it very unlikely he is going to survive the series. He is a crucial hero and will have a role to play but it won't be ruling happily ever after for him. Not after he was killed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...