Jon Is No Longer Stark Or Snow: Implications For Many People

[lidsa]

1) She technically already wasn't the last dragon, Davos just didn't tell her that Gendry was still alive and that he has Targaryen blood.  
And Dany's claim is still better than Jon's, because she inherited in a direct line from Aerys, through Viserys. Jon was never even mentioned in any Targaryen succession plans.   Dany inherited directly from two Targaryen kings while Jon is the son of a man who died as a prince. Not to mention Jon has no way of proving that he is the product of a lawfully wedded Rhaegar and Lyanna, because Ned Stark officially claimed him.

On top of that, house Targaryen has been deposed, they have no claim on the current, nor even on the past (Baratheon) throne, so if either Dany or Jon press their claim, their claim is instantly validated by way of conquest. Dany is pressing her own claim, not Jon's, so if she wins the throne, she is the unquestionable queen.

2) It's unlikely that Sansa would be the first woman to rule Winterfell and the North, the last time probably just lies back further than current memory. That being said, why wouldn't Sansa (or Arya, in case Sansa dies) rule? It is their birthright.

3) He shouldn't have been KitN in the first place, because Sansa/the Starks were still alive, but since the show did emphasise the "Ned Stark's blood runs through his veins" and "can't trust a Targaryen", it seems his parentage will disqualify Jon from being KitN.  
As it stands, nothing would change, because Sansa is effectively doing all the ruling anyway.

 

4) Robert didn't kill the lineage anyway, Viserys and Daenerys were alive in Essos. He even considered Dany's unborn baby a threat, that's why he sent assassins.

[SansaJonRule]

24 minutes ago, Iron Mother said:

She was calling her out.  She's always loved Jon and always had issues  with Sansa.  It has to be seen as a familial clash.  Neither of them is trying to undermine Winterfell......... if you think, Arya's "cut off heads" is more of a Ned Stark way of dealing with things.  Sansa is acting more like LF in her diplomacy.  If Ned Stark was sitting up there and people were bitching, he wouldn't "hear their complaints" he would be like "WHAT did you say?"  And take them outside if they were too hostile.  Sansa (in Arya's POV) is not portraying enough strength.  The conversation was too skewed by their past relationship as sisters.

At the same time, I said I believe Sansa's way in this is right because you can't risk ANYONE leaving.  I can see both of their POVs.  Arya was being rabid about anyone (her sister included) even thinking Jon might not come back. 

+ the show needs some drama in WF because there would be nothing else happening there.  The preview of Arya's voice "are afraid?  what are you scared of?"  I think Sansa is going to fear Arya's strength in "Im not messing around here".

Oh, I agree there has to be some conflict between Arya and Sansa.  For one it would be boring if there wasn't, but more importantly it would not be in character for them to just be so happy to see each other that they have totally forgotten what they dislike about each other.

Arya and Jon were each other's favorites, while the sisters strongly disliked each other, so yeah it totally makes sense that Arya would take offense when she thought Sansa didn't defend Jon strongly enough.  I did understand that you believe handled the situation with the lords appropriately.  Sorry if I made it sound otherwise.

I don't think I can totally agree with you about how Ned would have handled disagreement from his liege lords.  I think he would hear them out unless they were just downright insubordinate, in which case he would not hesitate to call them out and remind them of their place.  I really don't recall seeing evidence that Ned was quick to cut off heads, except in cases where the law clearly demanded it, such as a NW deserter.

[Gaz0680]

7 minutes ago, SansaJonRule said:

I don't think I can totally agree with you about how Ned would have handled disagreement from his liege lords.  I think he would hear them out unless they were just downright insubordinate, in which case he would not hesitate to call them out and remind them of their place.  I really don't recall seeing evidence that Ned was quick to cut off heads, except in cases where the law clearly demanded it, such as a NW deserter.

I agree. Ned would never execute his liege lords unless they were clearly committing treason through their actions, not just words.

[Iron Mother]

11 minutes ago, SansaJonRule said:

Oh, I agree there has to be some conflict between Arya and Sansa.  For one it would be boring if there wasn't, but more importantly it would not be in character for them to just be so happy to see each other that they have totally forgotten what they dislike about each other.

Arya and Jon were each other's favorites, while the sisters strongly disliked each other, so yeah it totally makes sense that Arya would take offense when she thought Sansa didn't defend Jon strongly enough.  I did understand that you believe handled the situation with the lords appropriately.  Sorry if I made it sound otherwise.

I don't think I can totally agree with you about how Ned would have handled disagreement from his liege lords.  I think he would hear them out unless they were just downright insubordinate, in which case he would not hesitate to call them out and remind them of their place.  I really don't recall seeing evidence that Ned was quick to cut off heads, except in cases where the law clearly demanded it, such as a NW deserter.

I guess I see  it as........ what is the "spirit" of Ned?  Can you see Ned up there just quietly listening to people outright saying "we want a different leader"?  Those words are, in effect, treason.  They wouldn't say that to Jon's face.  We only saw a smidge of what they were probably building up to that.  The spirit of Ned would not tolerate that shit.  Arya is seeing it that way.  Sansa is like I said being a politician and she didn't reprimand anyone or be like "my lords, your KING is out there doing what he needs to do and here you are trying to usurp him when he's not even here?"

When you consider WHAT they were asking and saying, those were pretty strong sentiments.  Plus  the fact the person who was hearing them out was the person they wanted to replace Jon.  King is King. 

I can just see it from both sides.  That's all I'm saying.  Ned wouldn't tolerate that, neither would (especially not) Catelyn.  She would call the guard or whatever and put them in a cell.  That would send a message "no more treasonous talk.  You know how that stuff spreads.  If you don't put it down quickly and with force, it can get out of control.

So look at it from Arya, Sansa is like "ok, whatever, Jon is King he is doing what he thinks is right" when SHE is the person who would benefit from what they are proposing.  Arya could see it as she was not forceful in putting down what is basically insurrection (I love that word ) because if she lets it continue and spread, she is the person directly benefiting from it.

[Iron Mother]

4 minutes ago, Gaz0680 said:

I agree. Ned would never execute his liege lords unless they were clearly committing treason through their actions, not just words.

Isn't it treason(ous) to go before the "warden" and say "we want you instead of the King"?

[Mikkel]

18 minutes ago, lidsa said:

Dany's claim is still better than Jon's, because she inherited in a direct line from Aerys, through Viserys. Jon was never even mentioned in any Targaryen succession plans.   Dany inherited directly from two Targaryen kings while Jon is the son of a man who died as a prince.

You may think this makes sense, but that's not how it works in Westeros. Son of a son comes before a younger brother or sister in all cases. It's not going to matter in this case, since

19 minutes ago, lidsa said:

On top of that, house Targaryen has been deposed, they have no claim on the current, nor even on the past (Baratheon) throne, so if either Dany or Jon press their claim, their claim is instantly validated by way of conquest. Dany is pressing her own claim, not Jon's, so if she wins the throne, she is the unquestionable queen.

Which IMO is true, but Dany is still pressing her claim based on being Aerys' heir, though that distinction is largely theoretical

21 minutes ago, lidsa said:

Robert didn't kill the lineage anyway, Viserys and Daenerys were alive in Essos. He even considered Dany's unborn baby a threat, that's why he sent assassins.

Of course he considered it a threat, because he feared the Targaryens crossing with an army of Dothraki (and not unreasonably so).

Rule of Conquest has always been the only true rule, it's exactly what Aegon I used in the first place. Everything else is just a polite fiction laid on top of political and military machinations. Convincing people you are "the true king/queen" is what people use to convince others to fight for them so they can enforce their rule of conquest.

[SansaJonRule]

2 minutes ago, Iron Mother said:

I guess I see  it as........ what is the "spirit" of Ned?  Can you see Ned up there just quietly listening to people outright saying "we want a different leader"?  Those words are, in effect, treason.  They wouldn't say that to Jon's face.  We only saw a smidge of what they were probably building up to that.  The spirit of Ned would not tolerate that shit.  Arya is seeing it that way.  Sansa is like I said being a politician and she didn't reprimand anyone or be like "my lords, your KING is out there doing what he needs to do and here you are trying to usurp him when he's not even here?"

When you consider WHAT they were asking and saying, those were pretty strong sentiments.  Plus  the fact the person who was hearing them out was the person they wanted to replace Jon.  King is King. 

I can just see it from both sides.  That's all I'm saying.  Ned wouldn't tolerate that, neither would (especially not) Catelyn.  She would call the guard or whatever and put them in a cell.  That would send a message "no more treasonous talk.  You know how that stuff spreads.  If you don't put it down quickly and with force, it can get out of control.

So look at it from Arya, Sansa is like "ok, whatever, Jon is King he is doing what he thinks is right" when SHE is the person who would benefit from what they are proposing.  Arya could see it as she was not forceful in putting down what is basically insurrection (I love that word ) because if she lets it continue and spread, she is the person directly benefiting from it.

I get your point.  I was thinking of Ned listening to complaints in general, not possibly treasonous statements.  I don't know why because that scenario is clearly not what we're talking about.  Maybe I need to go to bed?  LOL  You are absolutely correct in your assessment.  Ned would quickly lay down the law, and anyone who persisted would surely find himself in a cell.  Arya expected Sansa to do the same.

[lidsa]

3 hours ago, Mikkel said:

but that's not how it works in Westeros

Yes, that's exactly how it works. "Son of a son comes before a brother" is a tradition, not a law. More important is that a ruler can choose their own heir. Aerys chose Viserys over Aegon, and Viserys chose Dany. So Dany inherited in direct line from two Targ kings, while Jon was never on anyone's radar.

[Mikkel]

18 minutes ago, lidsa said:

Yes, that's exactly how it works. "Son of a son comes before a brother" is a tradition, not a law.

It's most certainly law. Everything suggests this is so, please provide a counter example. Of course that doesn't stop a lot of ambitious "uncles" from trying to usurp power if the son-of-the-son is young, but that's just what it is: usurpation.

 

19 minutes ago, lidsa said:

More important is that a ruler can choose their own heir.

No, your heir is your oldest son, or the eldest of his line if he's dead, and so on and so forth. For a practical example, see Randyll Tarly and the lengths he went to, to get Sam out of the way. If you can just choose your heir, none of that would have been necessary.

 

20 minutes ago, lidsa said:

Aerys chose Viserys over Aegon, and Viserys chose Dany. So Dany inherited in direct line from two Targ kings, while Jon was never on anyone's radar.

Aerys chose Viserys? Maybe, I don't remember that but let's say for the sake of argument that he did. Nothing suggests he had the power to do that, though. Westeros is not an absolute monarchy, something a lot of Targaryens seemingly forgot. Aerys may have preferred Viserys, and Dany is Viserys' only heir, but none of them were ever crowned as the actual ruler of the Seven Kingdoms or in King's Landing, they basically crowned themselves which counts for nothing outside of what you can enforce with the sword.

V+D were presumed to be the last heirs of the Targaryen line, and if Jon doesn't exist, then V+D are the natural heirs, no matter what Aerys thought or said, so everyone who cared about the Targaryen line assumed that those two were the only option.

Once Jon pops up, all that goes out the window, at least for those who want an alternative to Dany, assuming that Jon would want to pursue it (which I doubt).

[lidsa]

57 minutes ago, Mikkel said:

 please provide a counter example.

GRRM as much as said there are no laws on inheritance.

And the show has thrown out any logic to succession long ago.

 

57 minutes ago, Mikkel said:

 If you can just choose your heir, none of that would have been necessary.

But Randyll did choose his heir, he chose Dickon. And then made sure that Sam would never have children who could one day take up arms against Dickon. Sam is in the NW, he has no claim. And now Sam's sister has inherited, so even if the NW is disbanded, Sam would first have to fight his sister for Horn Hill, because she is now the rightful Lady of Horn Hill and the head of house Tarly.

57 minutes ago, Mikkel said:

 

Aerys chose Viserys? Maybe, I don't remember that

Viserys was made prince of Dragonstone (the seat of the heir apparent) right after Rhaegar died, while Aegon was still alive. And after Aerys died, Viserys was crowned king. And Viserys made Dany the princess of Dragonstone (though in name only, obviously, but it was intended to present her as his heiress).

 

57 minutes ago, Mikkel said:

 Westeros is not an absolute monarchy,

Westeros under Targaryen rule was very much an absolute monarchy. They were only shown their limits when Jon, Robert, and Ned rebelled.

57 minutes ago, Mikkel said:

 which counts for nothing outside of what you can enforce with the sword.

Which goes for every title, ever.

57 minutes ago, Mikkel said:

Once Jon pops up, all that goes out the window, at least for those who want an alternative to Dany, assuming that Jon would want to pursue it (which I doubt).

All those who want an alternative to Dany won't give a hoot about customary succession anyway. But no, once Jon's parentage comes out that does not all go out the window. A piece of paper doesn't just erase what all happened. And even with the document of the annulment Jon can't really prove that he is Lyanna's and Rhaegar's son. Dany otoh has no problem proving her parentage,

[Mikkel]

24 minutes ago, lidsa said:

GRRM as much as said there are no laws on inheritance.

And the show has thrown out any logic to succession long ago

Not quite, he's saying there are 'laws', but that they were often not followed. Not quite the same thing. From the link: 

Quote

A man's eldest son was his heir. After that the next eldest son. Then the next, etc. Daughters were not considered while there was a living son, except in Dorne, where females had equal right of inheritance according to age.

That's "the default", though in practice it was not always followed. The thing many fail to understand is that "laws" only make sense when they are enforced - and for a position with no-one to oversee it, such as the king, the only real enforcement is by the sword.

26 minutes ago, lidsa said:

But Randyll did choose his heir, he chose Dickon. And then made sure that Sam would never have children who could one day take up arms against Dickon. Sam is in the NW, he has no claim. And now Sam's sister has inherited, so even if the NW is disbanded, Sam would first have to fight his sister for Horn Hill, because she is now the rightful Lady of Horn Hill and the head of house Tarly.

Randyll had his favorite, and he "conspired" to make him the heir - by making sure Sam was taken out of the succession. Sam was forced by threat of violence to join the Night's Watch, which wouldn't have been necessary if Randyll could just have called up the local Maester or Septon and said 'Dickon is my heir'. Same reason Tywin doesn't nominally get to remove Tyrion as his heir, much as he would love to, and it's IMO a large part of Tywin's motivation for going through with the sham trial against Tyrion.

Sam has now joined two separate organizations that both prohibit him from becoming Lord Tarly (the Night's Watch and the Maesters), even if he were so inclined, that is why his sister is the Lady of Horn Hill, not because Randyll said so.

30 minutes ago, lidsa said:

Viserys was made prince of Dragonstone (the seat of the heir apparent) right after Rhaegar died, while Aegon was still alive. And after Aerys died, Viserys was crowned king. And Viserys made Dany the princess of Dragonstone (though in name only, obviously, but it was intended to present her as his heiress).

Well that would certainly indicate that Aerys would have preferred Viserys to become king, but I'm still not sure he would have the "legal right" according to the faith etc to do that. It is debatable, at the very least.

32 minutes ago, lidsa said:

Westeros under Targaryen rule was very much an absolute monarchy. They were only shown their limits when Jon, Robert, and Ned rebelled.

Which is the whole point. They were beholden to a set of very powerful lords - the Lords Paramount - for their power. It was a two-way street, though obviously some of them thoroughly failed to understand that (and hence, rebellion).

33 minutes ago, lidsa said:

Which goes for every title, ever.

Indeed, as I mentioned above

34 minutes ago, lidsa said:

All those who want an alternative to Dany won't give a hoot about customary succession anyway. But no, once Jon's parentage comes out that does not all go out the window. A piece of paper doesn't just erase what all happened. And even with the document of the annulment Jon can't really prove that he is Lyanna's and Rhaegar's son. Dany otoh has no problem proving her parentage

No, but "a claim" is still just a polite fiction behind which those who support you can rally. It may be objectively true or not according to a set of arbitrary rules, but that hardly ever matters if enough people with swords agree or disagree with that interpretation. Then once you win, your version of events become fact, and that's it. There's very little practical difference in this case though, since Dany's claim was always dependent on Death by Dragon to the other side.

[UnmaskedLurker]

5 hours ago, lidsa said:

1) She technically already wasn't the last dragon, Davos just didn't tell her that Gendry was still alive and that he has Targaryen blood.  
And Dany's claim is still better than Jon's, because she inherited in a direct line from Aerys, through Viserys. Jon was never even mentioned in any Targaryen succession plans.   Dany inherited directly from two Targaryen kings while Jon is the son of a man who died as a prince. Not to mention Jon has no way of proving that he is the product of a lawfully wedded Rhaegar and Lyanna, because Ned Stark officially claimed him.

On top of that, house Targaryen has been deposed, they have no claim on the current, nor even on the past (Baratheon) throne, so if either Dany or Jon press their claim, their claim is instantly validated by way of conquest. Dany is pressing her own claim, not Jon's, so if she wins the throne, she is the unquestionable queen.

2) It's unlikely that Sansa would be the first woman to rule Winterfell and the North, the last time probably just lies back further than current memory. That being said, why wouldn't Sansa (or Arya, in case Sansa dies) rule? It is their birthright.

3) He shouldn't have been KitN in the first place, because Sansa/the Starks were still alive, but since the show did emphasise the "Ned Stark's blood runs through his veins" and "can't trust a Targaryen", it seems his parentage will disqualify Jon from being KitN.  
As it stands, nothing would change, because Sansa is effectively doing all the ruling anyway.

 

4) Robert didn't kill the lineage anyway, Viserys and Daenerys were alive in Essos. He even considered Dany's unborn baby a threat, that's why he sent assassins.

 

2 hours ago, lidsa said:

Yes, that's exactly how it works. "Son of a son comes before a brother" is a tradition, not a law. More important is that a ruler can choose their own heir. Aerys chose Viserys over Aegon, and Viserys chose Dany. So Dany inherited in direct line from two Targ kings, while Jon was never on anyone's radar.

Although @Mikkel has made many of the point I would have made, I would like to elaborate a bit.

Based on Targ history of succession -- such as Dance of Dragons 1.0 and the choosing of Aegon V as King over Prince Maegor (son of Prince Aerion Brightflame) -- certain rules have developed over time. DoD 1.0 leads to the general rule of male candidates taking precedence over female candidates (that favors Jon over Dany) and that the naming of an heir by the King is not effective (Viserys I named his daughter Rhaenyra as his heir and even though she was crowned, and her son eventually became King, she is not recorded in the official Targ history as ever having been Queen of Westeros -- thus that factor does not favor Dany even if Areys named Viserys, which might not have even happened on the show). In addition, under general primogeniture rules (which the Targs basically followed with the exception of favoring males even "up the chain" over females) would have the son of the older son prevail over the daughter of the King (again, favoring Jon over Dany under any version of primgeniture because Jon is both male and son of the older son of the King).

The only instances in Targ history in which the "normal" rules were not followed (other than when Maegor I ceased power over his nephew, Aegon -- who Maegor eventually killed, I believe) was when a Great Council was called to deal with situations in which the "normal" succession rules would lead to a troublesome result (like an infant King, Maegor, who was the son of an "insane" prince, Aerion). The GC that named Aegon V as King did not do so because the members of the council considered the son of the king to be ahead of the son of an older son of the King. Rather then GC used their discretionary power to overlook the normal succession rules and name a different person as the King.

So I disagree that the rules of succession are just a "tradition" -- rather they are guidelines that are followed unless a GC is called in an unusual situation to resolve a problematic succession situation. But without a GC, the guidelines prevail. And all of the basic rules that the Targs have adopted would prefer Jon over Dany -- and any naming by Aerys simply is not binding at all for the reasons noted above (and unclear that on the show that even happened). So any choosing by Aerys of Viserys is completely irrelevant -- DoD 1.0 proves that point.

Being deposed does not mean that the the former dynasty's rules become irrelevant in respect of that dynasty. In history, restorations have occurred and often are based on who would have been King but for the "usurpation" of their throne. Specifically, Dany is making the claim that the Baratheons are Usurpers and she is the rightful Queen -- not by right of conquest alone -- but by being the last Targaryen who she asserts are the rightful ruling dynasty. Sure, she needs force to push that claim -- but she is not stating pure "right of conquest" as her justification for pushing that claim by force -- she is claiming to be the rightful heir to the Targ dynasty -- and it turns out that she is not. Oh, and when she says that she is the "last dragon" -- she does not mean that she is the only person with any Targ blood that exists in her world -- there likely are many and she knows that. In context, she clearly means that she is the last legitimate member of the Targaryen Dynasty. And again, she is mistaken given Jon's heritage. But they appear to be the only two -- Gendry definitely would not fit into Dany's definition of a "dragon" -- but Jon would (once she learns the facts).

So in sum -- Kings cannot name their heirs in Westeros (see DoD 1.0), Dany is basing her claim not primarily on raw force of right of conquest but primarily on being the legitimate heir to the Targ Dynasty (but she is not). While she needs force to press her claim -- she has never simply argued that "might makes right" -- but rather that her family's dynasty never lost their right to rule and should be restored. Under that theory -- Jon should be King and not Dany (absent a GC to decide otherwise).

Now the books are likely to make this issue more complicated because the marriage will likely be a polygamous marriage rather than annulment and then marriage. So the legitimacy of the marriage to Lyanna could be questioned (although again, based on Targ history the argument for Jon is still stronger given the history of polygamy and incest by the Targs) -- but on the show, based on Dany's own justifications used for pressing her claims -- Jon's claims are stronger than her own. This issue really only matters, however, in terms of how Dany reacts to the information. Jon is highly unlikely ever to press his claim through force or directly challenge Dany -- but Dany has an internal conflict because she has always considered herself the rightful Queen based on the Targ Dynasty being the rightful Dynasty -- and by her own standards, Jon now would be the rightful King, not her as the Queen.So the more interesting question is not who will be viewed by the general public as having the stronger claim -- but how will Dany react to the information that under her own standards, Jon has the stronger claim.

As to whether Jon is entitled to be KitN -- they had a GC and unanimously chose Jon -- so he is entitled to be KitN.

[Iron Mother]

On 8/16/2017 at 6:44 AM, Mikkel said:

Not quite, he's saying there are 'laws', but that they were often not followed. Not quite the same thing. From the link: 

That's "the default", though in practice it was not always followed. The thing many fail to understand is that "laws" only make sense when they are enforced - and for a position with no-one to oversee it, such as the king, the only real enforcement is by the sword.

Randyll had his favorite, and he "conspired" to make him the heir - by making sure Sam was taken out of the succession. Sam was forced by threat of violence to join the Night's Watch, which wouldn't have been necessary if Randyll could just have called up the local Maester or Septon and said 'Dickon is my heir'. Same reason Tywin doesn't nominally get to remove Tyrion as his heir, much as he would love to, and it's IMO a large part of Tywin's motivation for going through with the sham trial against Tyrion.

Sam has now joined two separate organizations that both prohibit him from becoming Lord Tarly (the Night's Watch and the Maesters), even if he were so inclined, that is why his sister is the Lady of Horn Hill, not because Randyll said so.

Well that would certainly indicate that Aerys would have preferred Viserys to become king, but I'm still not sure he would have the "legal right" according to the faith etc to do that. It is debatable, at the very least.

Which is the whole point. They were beholden to a set of very powerful lords - the Lords Paramount - for their power. It was a two-way street, though obviously some of them thoroughly failed to understand that (and hence, rebellion).

Indeed, as I mentioned above

No, but "a claim" is still just a polite fiction behind which those who support you can rally. It may be objectively true or not according to a set of arbitrary rules, but that hardly ever matters if enough people with swords agree or disagree with that interpretation. Then once you win, your version of events become fact, and that's it. There's very little practical difference in this case though, since Dany's claim was always dependent on Death by Dragon to the other side.

Jon is the legal and proper heir to The Iron Throne.  Rhaegar put aside Elia and married Lyanna.  Rhaegar was the successor.  Since the children from the first union are dead, his child in a legal union with Lyanna is the proper heir. 

NOT Rhaegar's sister.

Consequently, Jon is also legal and proper heir to all that dragon glass he humbly asked for since he owns Dragonstone as the familial inheritor.

JON ALSO MAY OWN WINTERFELL as Sansa's Great Uncle - Ned's uncle.  Is that right?  It's late..................

[UnmaskedLurker]

3 hours ago, Iron Mother said:

Jon is the legal and proper heir to The Iron Throne.  Rhaegar put aside Elia and married Lyanna.  Rhaegar was the successor.  Since the children from the first union are dead, his child in a legal union with Lyanna is the proper heir. 

NOT Rhaegar's sister.

Consequently, Jon is also legal and proper heir to all that dragon glass he humbly asked for since he owns Dragonstone as the familial inheritor.

JON ALSO MAY OWN WINTERFELL as Sansa's Great Uncle - Ned's uncle.  Is that right?  It's late..................

Jon would be Ned's nephew and Sansa's cousin. Lyanna, Jon's mother, was Ned's younger sister.

I agree with you, however, that based on the arguments that Dany is making regarding why she is the rightful ruler of Westeros -- Jon is the rightful ruler. Others might have a different view on what makes someone the rightful ruler (e.g., right of conquest), but the arguments that Dany herself makes favor Jon over Dany.

[Illiterati]

2 hours ago, UnmaskedLurker said:

Jon would be Ned's nephew and Sansa's cousin. Lyanna, Jon's mother, was Ned's younger sister.

I agree with you, however, that based on the arguments that Dany is making regarding why she is the rightful ruler of Westeros -- Jon is the rightful ruler. Others might have a different view on what makes someone the rightful ruler (e.g., right of conquest), but the arguments that Dany herself makes favor Jon over Dany.

As this wouldn't be a peaceful succession, rights of succession go out the window.  If there is an iron throne remaining at the end, it will be either might or persuasion of the stakeholders (the various lords that would accept one as their regent) that determines who sits.  Dany has the might, Jon has home field advantage and a more kind and just reputation.

 

So succession will be by conquest or by referendum.

[UnmaskedLurker]

31 minutes ago, Illiterati said:

As this wouldn't be a peaceful succession, rights of succession go out the window.  If there is an iron throne remaining at the end, it will be either might or persuasion of the stakeholders (the various lords that would accept one as their regent) that determines who sits.  Dany has the might, Jon has home field advantage and a more kind and just reputation.

 

So succession will be by conquest or by referendum.

I doubt both Jon and Dany survive to the end -- so I doubt there ever will be actual choosing between them for King/Queen. Jon's right to the throne over Dany is not likely to be relevant to the story because they actually compete for the throne. Who cares? They never will. 

The issue is relevant because since the death of Viserys, Dany has believed she is the rightful ruler of Westeros. Dany's actions have been justified -- in Dany's mind and through her words by arguing that she is the last member of the Targ Dynasty and the only person entitled to rule Westeros. Once she finds out that based on her own rationale for leading Westeros -- Jon really has the superior claim -- how she deals with that revelation will be potentially quite interesting.

Dany has NEVER stated that anyone who can conquer Westeros has the right to rule by Right of Conquest and she is going to press that Right of Conquest because she has 3 dragons and Dothraki soldiers and an Unsullied army. She theoretically could make that argument -- but she never does. She clings to her birthright. And Jon's birthright supersedes her birthright based on the rationale that Dany is using to maintain the argument for her birthright. So how that plays out has the potential for interesting viewing/reading. Some technical legal argument of right of conquest vs. birthright vs. who "really" has the better claim is boring an unlikely to be addressed directly in the show or the books.

[Illiterati]

42 minutes ago, UnmaskedLurker said:

I doubt both Jon and Dany survive to the end -- so I doubt there ever will be actual choosing between them for King/Queen. Jon's right to the throne over Dany is not likely to be relevant to the story because they actually compete for the throne. Who cares? They never will. 

The issue is relevant because since the death of Viserys, Dany has believed she is the rightful ruler of Westeros. Dany's actions have been justified -- in Dany's mind and through her words by arguing that she is the last member of the Targ Dynasty and the only person entitled to rule Westeros. Once she finds out that based on her own rationale for leading Westeros -- Jon really has the superior claim -- how she deals with that revelation will be potentially quite interesting.

Dany has NEVER stated that anyone who can conquer Westeros has the right to rule by Right of Conquest and she is going to press that Right of Conquest because she has 3 dragons and Dothraki soldiers and an Unsullied army. She theoretically could make that argument -- but she never does. She clings to her birthright. And Jon's birthright supersedes her birthright based on the rationale that Dany is using to maintain the argument for her birthright. So how that plays out has the potential for interesting viewing/reading. Some technical legal argument of right of conquest vs. birthright vs. who "really" has the better claim is boring an unlikely to be addressed directly in the show or the books.

She clings to her birthright, at first because she was taught all her life that Vyserion's (and by extension her) reason for existence is to reclaim the throne for the Targaryans, and add now that she believes it gives her legitimacy.  If she finds out she doesn't have birthright, do you think she would just bend the knee and bow her head to Jon?  She has tasted both power and adoration as a queen.

 

But I digress, I agree that both of them are not going to survive to even need to resolve this dilemma.

[UnmaskedLurker]

4 minutes ago, Illiterati said:

She clings to her birthright, at first because she was taught all her life that Vyserion's (and by extension her) reason for existence is to reclaim the throne for the Targaryans, and add now that she believes it gives her legitimacy.  If she finds out she doesn't have birthright, do you think she would just bend the knee and bow her head to Jon?  She has tasted both power and adoration as a queen.

 

But I digress, I agree that both of them are not going to survive to even need to resolve this dilemma.

I think you are making my point in even more stark terms than I was making it. Yes, I agree, it will not be easy for Dany to acknowledge that Jon is the true heir the Targ dynasty -- using the very rationale that Dany had been using for herself. I am not sure she ever will so acknowledge.

My point is that I think (or at least hope) that the issue becomes a struggle for her. I don't expect her just to make a snap conclusion as to why she still has the birthright and never revisit the issue again. I think she will resist the idea in different ways but continue to struggle with the notion that Jon is the true heir. I have no idea if it will play out that way -- or how it might be resolved.

I simply am arguing that the finer points of who has the better claim from an "objective legal analysis" standpoint is not really that relevant to the story as I doubt that the reveal of Jon as legit son of Rhaegar will be relevant to the story for that purpose. The relevancy in this context is in how it affects how Dany sees herself more than in how others view the competing claims. Of course, it will be relevant for other reasons as well, not least of which is how Jon sees himself. But with respect to the question of whether Jon has the better claim than Dany to the throne, I think it likely will matter only with respect to how Dany sees herself and her right to the throne.

[Illiterati]

12 minutes ago, UnmaskedLurker said:

 

I simply am arguing that the finer points of who has the better claim from an "objective legal analysis" standpoint is not really that relevant to the story as I doubt that the reveal of Jon as legit son of Rhaegar will be relevant to the story for that purpose. The relevancy in this context is in how it affects how Dany sees herself more than in how others view the competing claims. Of course, it will be relevant for other reasons as well, not least of which is how Jon sees himself. But with respect to the question of whether Jon has the better claim than Dany to the throne, I think it likely will matter only with respect to how Dany sees herself and her right to the throne.

We're in complete agreement....and my comment that the rules of succession ("objective legal analysis") should have no play IF a dilemma between the two even exists at endgame.