Jump to content

Jon is not in the line of succession


Recommended Posts

28 minutes ago, Tygett Lannister said:

Yes all Rhaegar's children come before any other children of Aerys ... only that Jon wasn't born when Viserys already became king and I don't recall Viserys abdicating his crown.

Though when Viserys died, Jon is ahead of Dany. As long as there is a male heir, whose claim is higher than hers, she won't be legal ruler of 7K. Similar situation that was in Targaryens previous succession history, when King wanted to make a female Targaryen his heir, but government has chosen other successor.

28 minutes ago, Tygett Lannister said:

Good job on comparing fictional resurrection that didn't even happen yet and a resurrection we know didn't happen. We know how resurrections in Asoiaf work and they make you a different person so he is a different person if I can use word person since Lady Stoneheart is not really a human. You can see big difference in personality of Catlyn and Lady Stoneheart. Can Lady Stoneheart claim Riverrun? No. 

I think their resurection will be different. Because Jon's soul will stay in the living realm (warged in Ghost's body), while Cat and Berric died, and their souls, even for short time, did went to realm of dead. Or maybe their souls didn't even returned, maybe they are just living bodies, though without a soul. Thus soulless bodies are eventually losing their identity, memory and personality.

28 minutes ago, Tygett Lannister said:

It might say "it shall not end until my death" . But it also says he "shall wear no crowns and win no glory ... I pledge my life and honor to the Night's Watch, for this night and all the nights to come. " He pledges his life so after he is resurrected he has life and he still needs to respect his vow unless you say he is not the same person, but than he doesn't have claim anyways. If his watch ends with his death that doesn't means he is released of other vows (no wife, land children).

He pledged his LIFE, not LIVES. He pledged for all the nights to come, until his death. So nights AFTER his death are not part of bargain. ^_^

His watch will end with his death. So when he will become alive, again, he will be free from his vow. Because that vow was only for the span of ONE life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Megorova said:

Though when Viserys died, Jon is ahead of Dany. As long as there is a male heir, whose claim is higher than hers, she won't be legal ruler of 7K. Similar situation that was in Targaryens previous succession history, when King wanted to make a female Targaryen his heir, but government has chosen other successor.

No. He is member of Night's watch so he cannot inherit land or wear a crown.

2 minutes ago, Megorova said:

I think their resurection will be different. Because Jon's soul will stay in the living realm (warged in Ghost's body), while Cat and Berric died, and their souls, even for short time, did went to realm of dead.

You got PhD in Soul engineering?

3 minutes ago, Megorova said:

He pledged his LIFE, not LIVES. He pledged for all the nights to come, until his death. So nights AFTER his death are not part of bargain. ^_^

Says only all the nights to come. Vow obviously wasn't written for case of resurrection. Well if you claim his soul never left the realm of living he has been alive the whole time and didn't die.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/13/2017 at 8:43 PM, Noble Lothar Frey said:

Jon is not in the line of succession.

R + L = J is not a proven theory.  The youtube channels of The Order of the Greenhand and Preston Jacobs eloquently made their case against this flimsy theory of R + L = J.

Actually, it totally is and there is no reason to visit alternatives. I will put money on it. but enjoy the youtube vids 

On 11/13/2017 at 8:43 PM, Noble Lothar Frey said:

Even if R + L = J is proven, Jon is still a bastard.  Polygamy is not legal in Westeros.  The child of these two will be bastards.  An annulment with his wife is not likely because Rhaegar + Elia was consummated and they have their children to prove it.

If you read the citadel post, polygamy has been practiced in the past 

On 11/13/2017 at 8:43 PM, Noble Lothar Frey said:

King Aerys disinherited Rhaegar's children.  Any child of Rhaegar and Lyanna, even if Rhaegar pulled a divorce and somehow got his second marriage legalized, are no longer in the line of succession because Aerys chose Prince Viserys to be his heir.  Viserys became King Viserys III when his mother, Queen Rhaella, crowned him on Dragonstone.  This removed Aegon and Jon from the line of succession.

Not entirely. It just removed them from the direct line. As Viserys had no kids, succession passed to his brother, then his sister 

On 11/13/2017 at 8:43 PM, Noble Lothar Frey said:

Jon is a sworn brother of the Night's Watch.  Taking the Black means you give up any and all claims.  Aemon Targaryen took the black to permanently remove himself from the line of succession. 

Yes, Aemon did,  but Robb was pretty sure that with the current state of the watch, LC mormont would let Jon leave  the watch in exchange for 100 men. So there is that. 

On 11/13/2017 at 8:43 PM, Noble Lothar Frey said:

Jon committed treason against the Night's Watch, supported Stannis, sent Mance Rayder loose on the north, broke his oaths, and got himself executed for treason.  He's dead.

No, he didn't. He was following orders from the first ranger of the shadow tower. I don't understand why folks like you ignore the everything with the half hand when discussing Jon's time with the wildlings but it is at best selective reading and at worst it is wilful ignorance and immaturity. He was attacked in a mutiny, and if you are not able to see R+L=J as all but confirmed, Jon isn't dead either.

On 11/13/2017 at 8:43 PM, Noble Lothar Frey said:

Jon does not look like a Targaryen.  He looks the opposite.  DNA testing has not been invented yet and like I said above, he is a bastard and Rhaegar's children got disinherited. 

There are ways to show lineage beyond DNA testing.  

On 11/13/2017 at 8:43 PM, Noble Lothar Frey said:

Jon is not in the line of succession. Take note that if Rhaegar pulled a miracle and somehow married Lyanna that it made Aegon and Rhaenys bastards.  Aegon and Jon cannot be both legitimate.  Only one can be legit and the other a bastard. 

Again, Polygamy. As practiced by previous Targ kings, so both can be legit, and (f)Aegon would still be ahead of Jon because he was born first 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tygett Lannister said:

If you think this is Lord of the Rings you haven't been paying attention.

Thank you!

Jon is not Aragon, George did not create a web of politics and deceit just so some random kid from the NW gets the throne in the end. Unlike traditional fantasy novels where the one true king pops up and saves the day asoiaf makes it clear that this isn’t the reality of the world. Stannis is Robert’s legal heir, but do you think that stopped the Starks, Tullys, Lannisters, Tyrells, Greyjoys etc. from crowning their own kings? The king is whoever has the most support, and I’m afraid to say that won’t be Jon. 

Also no one’s answered my question: why would Jon want to be king? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Tygett Lannister said:

1. Wildlings are not considered humans by most of the Iron Throne population.

2. And what do these witnesses know? They saw a baby come from Lyanna and it probably had a paper on him with text saying: true born son of Rhaegar. They can know that he is Rhaegar's son yes but they can't know anything about supposed secret marriages/ annulments/ legitimization. Ned was the only one who Lyanna could whisper something about it and he is dead.

1. Jon will change that. Already partially did. And also when wildlings will be the only line of defence between Undead Army and people of Westeros, those people will gladly acknowledge wildlings as their comrades/brothers/protectors/equals.

(In culture of Ironborn, are children from saltwives, concidered to be legitimate, or bastards? If they are seen as legitimate, then aside from wildlings, there are other 'nations' of Planetos, that acknowledge multiple marriages.)

2. If Ashara and Wylla indeed were at Tower of Joy, when Ned and Howland came there, then they were there for some time. Probably Rhaegar summoned Ashara to TofJ, while he was still there. So both Wylla and Ashara knew from Rhaegar himself that Lyanna is his wife, and their child is a legitimate Targaryen. Maybe Ashara was even present at their wedding ceremony, as a witness. She was Elia's lady-in-waiting, and she was sister of Rhaegar's closest friend. So she was invited to witness their wedding. She may know who married Lyanna and Rhaegar. So aside from Ashara, Howland, and Wylla, there could be another witness - septon that married them. Thus Ashara, Wylla and that septon can testify that Rhaegar and Lyanna married. And Ashara, Wylla and Howland can testify that Jon is Lyanna's baby. 1 + 2 = Jon is a legitimate Targaryen Prince.

39 minutes ago, Widow's Watch said:

I don't know how anything about Aegon will be proven. It's Varys's word against Tywin's who is now dead. Even Kevan Lannister says that no one really looked all that long at the baby because what was done to him was horrific.

And we still don't know what proof Varys has given Jon Connington to make him come on board with this. It was either very convincing or it's Jon Conn's desperation showing.

I think that Young Griff's origin is very questionable. Seems to me, that Varys saw in what state the baby's corpse was, and he just had an idea how to use this. The only person, that could have rebuffed Varys' claim, that he switched the baby - his mother Elia, was dead. And The Mountain never before saw Rhaegar's children, so even if the baby was/wasn't real, The Mountain wouldn't know the difference. But the main reason why I don't belive this, is Elia. How come did she gave her child away? Are we supposed to believe that she trusted to Varys, and gave her baby to him? :bs:

Jon Con may not know the truth, though he believes that the boy is Rhaegar's. Though he himself helped Varys to concoct Aegon's 'legend'. He raised him to be like Rhaegar, believing that he is rasing Rhaegar's child.

Either Varys will eventually acknowledge that it all was a lie, or the dragons will prove that the boy is a fake.

58 minutes ago, Widow's Watch said:

I sincerely doubt that Aerys had a single clue that Lyanna was pregnant, and even if he knew, there's nothing that says she would have a son. And he just got done roasting her father and having her brother strangled to death a few months before and wants Ned's head. Why in the world would he want to make her son the heir? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

If Rhaegar convinced his father, that the baby is needed to fulfill the prophecy. And don't forget that Aerys already suffered thru more than 20 years of unhappy marriage, just to fulfill the prophecy, that his descendant will be the promised Prince.

Or, as I already said in one of previous posts here, Rhaegar could have demanded from his father to legitimise Lyanna's child, in exchange of Rhaegar's participation in rebellion. Because he could have said to his father - "F*ck you!", took Elia and their children, and returned to Dorne, to Lyanna. And later to Dragonstone, or to Essos. Either way, if Aerys didn't agreed, Rhaegar was washing his hands, because it wasn't him who started the rebellion. He may have eloped with Lyanna, but he didn't killed her father and brother, and everything else was also Aerys' doing. So it's either - make Lyanna's baby a legitimate Targaryen, or say goodbye to Rhaegar, and go out from the castle and lead troops to fight against rebels, on your own. Which for Aerys, who at that time suffered from agoraphobia, was impossible.

1 hour ago, Widow's Watch said:

I think Aegon was skipped over for the sake of blood purity. If Rhaegar had married a Targaryen or if there had been a Velaryon available for him to marry, that's where he would have been bid to marry. 

There's also the fact that Aerys believed that Prince Lewyn had betrayed Rhaegar on the Trident, not to mention all the people at court who may have thought the Dornish had far too much influence. 

Maybe he skipped Elia's children, because he thought that Martells betrayed him. Which has nothing to do with Lyanna, and her baby.

1 hour ago, Widow's Watch said:

No one was looking for a girl as Maester Aemon put it because no one took into account that "prince" is gender neutral in High Valyrian. And no one is looking for a bastard boy either. Maybe that's the reason Mel is not understanding what the flames are telling her when she asks R'hllor to show her AA and he keeps showing her Snow. 

As far as I can tell with Jon and the whole PtwP prophecy, things are actually happening in reverse for him.

Maybe to whoever saw this vision of a prophecy, the legal status didn't mattered. And Prince that was promised is indeed not an official legal heir of Iron Throne, but just a saviour. Same as Jesus Christ was King of Kings, even though actually he wasn't even from royal family.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tygett Lannister said:

1. Wildlings are not considered humans by most of the Iron Throne population.

Erhm... what? :wideeyed:

1 hour ago, Tygett Lannister said:

3. Just lol

Sorry, but what's so funny? It's true, we don't know yet of all the promises that Ned made to Lyanna.

1 hour ago, Tygett Lannister said:

4. Yes because message of Asoiaf is prophecies always come true and should be fanatically listened to and blood is the most important thing there is, if you aren't born to the right person you cannot be savior. Mance also wasn't born prince or any kind of noble yet he became king, so can Jon become prince.

I have no idea where you got the above from, but you're off, way way off. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tygett Lannister said:

No. He is member of Night's watch so he cannot inherit land or wear a crown.

As long as he is part of NW. Though after he will die, and then become alive again, Brothers could be scared of him. So they will vote to expell him from NW, based on the fact that he died, and thus his watch is over. And they have a democracy, and can chose their own Lord Commander. So they can choose not to accept Jon in NW, if he will want to pledge again. And they can state that his previous vow is void, because he died, and his watch ended. Thus he is free to go, and preferable as far from Castle Black as possible.

After they already saw wights, it's unlikely that they will want to sleep in the same place where Jon is. Who knows maybe at night, he will come to their room, and eat them :)

2 hours ago, Tygett Lannister said:

Vow obviously wasn't written for case of resurrection.

And Night's Watch is for normal human beings, that should be shield, that protects human realm from whatever. And Jon could be concidered as danger. Thus he will be expelled. Though they will be afraid to do something to him, because they already witnessed, that there is no use in killing him, because he will return.

Quote

Well if you claim his soul never left the realm of living he has been alive the whole time and didn't die.

His soul left his body. He wasn't breathing, and his heart wasn't beating. Thus he was dead. And his soul was still in the realm of living, or more like between two worlds. He was a ghost. Because if the body is dead, and the soul didn't left the world, then that soul is a ghost. Probably GRRM planned it from the very beginning, when he named Jon's direwolf, temporary vessel for Jon's soul - Ghost.

2 hours ago, Tygett Lannister said:

Says only all the nights to come.

Full text of vow:

"Night gathers, and now my watch begins. It shall not end until my death. I shall take no wife, hold no lands, father no children. I shall wear no crowns and win no glory. I shall live and die at my post. I am the sword in the darkness. I am the watcher on the walls. I am the fire that burns against the cold, the light that brings the dawn, the horn that wakes the sleepers, the shield that guards the realms of men. I pledge my life and honor to the Night's Watch, for this night and all the nights to come."

It shall not end until pledger's death. He shall take no wife, etc, etc, etc UNTIL HIS DEATH.

Also I noticed funny thing, while I was copying the vow from Wikia:

"Brothers of the Night's Watch serve for life. It is customary to finish a black brother's eulogy with the words, "And now his watch is ended."" <- If Brothers will say THIS, then Jon will be officially out of Night's Watch. So even if some time later, he will become alive again, he will be already OUT.

:D

1 hour ago, Pikachu101 said:

Also no one’s answered my question: why would Jon want to be king? 

Someone will have to unite people in upper part of Westeros, and lead them against Undead Army. And all others are too busy with their fighting for who will sit on Iron Throne. Starks, Tullys, Lannisters, Tyrells, Greyjoys etc. didn't cared about people, they just wanted to get the Crown for themselves, or for the sake of revenge, or power. While Jon was always doing what was best for people.

Same reason that in GOT:

Spoiler

Jon accepted title The King in The North (even though, as he himself said, he never wanted it), because someone had to lead people against Night's King.

He doesn't even care whether he will sit on Iron Throne afterwards, or not. All he wants to do, is defeat Night's King.

Practically the same reason why he became Lord Commander. He needed to have that status, for the greater good of others. Not Others others, just others ^_^

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Sigella said:

Bastards is at the end of the line, it would take extreme circumstances for their claim to even be considered. Being legit heir of Aerys firsborn son means first in line.

Military only plays a part in conquest/rebellion and in those cases line of succsession isnt in effect.

And what discourages a lord from rejecting the new King? The threat of facing the combined force of the King's supporters. Military might is implied when the nobility swears fealty to the new King. Hence, it's always important for anyone pressing a claim.

13 hours ago, Sigella said:

Im not saying it would be easy, but difficulty isnt ground to dismiss something. Three? Are you counting Aegon?

Id like to point out that Viserys was crowned after Rhaegars children had died too. He and his mom thought they were the last ones alive. Also being crowned on Dragonstone by his mom in a panic isnt a proper crowning. Partly in exile and all. 

Yes, I'm counting Aegon. Aerys already had three male descendants to pass his crown down to, and was able have more. House Targaryen wasn't short of heirs. Thus, Elia's inability to birth more children wouldn't have been a huge deal, and it certainly wouldn't have been grounds for divorce, let alone annulment. Even if he succeeded in bribing the septon into agreeing to a divorce, such a thing would only hold if the rest of the realm recognised the act as lawful. Dorne certainly wouldn't stand for it. Recognition of an R + L marriage is even more unlikely, especially if it was done in secret. So it isn't impossible, I guess, but it is very contrived.

Viserys was crowned by the Queen, in front of witnesses, cementing the King's wish for Viserys to succeed him, giving Viserys' claim a great of legitimacy. That they weren't aware of any other possible heirs is irrelevant (and I doubt Rhaella would have crowned a baby over her own, older son, anyway, even if she had known of Jon's existence). Jon or Aegon could certainly base their claim is more legit because o the birth order, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Ygrain said:

Nope. Aerys proclaiming Viserys as his heir doesn't automatically mean that Rhaegar's children were disinherited, only that Aerys pushed his preference for Viserys over the normal succession.

 

On the whole, it seems that lots of people are getting really desperate not to see Jon on the IT. I, for one, don't want him sitting the ugly chair, either, but if you want to bust the hidden prince trope, you need, you know, a hidden prince. As in, legitimate.

Rhaegar's children and future grandchildren were all disinherited the moment Aerys chose to pass his throne to Viserys.  The line of succession passed to Viserys and his heir (Dany).  Aegon and Rhaenys were still alive and yet Aerys chose Viserys.  It's clear to anyone that Aerys intended for Viserys and his heirs to inherit the kingdom.  Rhaegar's children are no longer in the line of succession.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One other fact that people forget to mention.  Lyanna Stark was promised to Robert Baratheon.  It wasn't just Rhaegar who was committed to another.  An engagement is taken very seriously and it's not something that could be broken lightly.  Look what happened when Robb broke his engagement. 

A married Rhaegar with children by his wife Elia  and a Lyanna already engaged to Robert make it impossible for Jon to be legitimate.  Rhaegar and Lyanna could not legally marry. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/14/2017 at 6:27 AM, Vaedys Targaryen said:

GRRM asked who Jon's mother was, but that leaves open the option for who his father is.

And also, the show and the books are, as many people have stated before, not the same anymore. D&D are kind of free to do what they want as they've gone past the books. R+L=J has been a commonly known theory for a long time, far before the show was even a thing and you could say that D&D agreed to just simply take the most popular theory so that his true parentage could be a mystery for the book readers until GRRM himself revealed.

I like the Brandon + Lyanna = Jon theory.  It brings symmetry to the story.  There should be an ice equivalent to fire.

On 11/14/2017 at 10:10 AM, Tygett Lannister said:

Ramsay Bolton is a bastard with a lowborn woman legitimized by King I don't know how is his case related to Jon's.

Still king.

So technically he is no longer same person, so he also loses claim to the throne if he ever had one.

 

You're right.  Temporary death is not going to release Jon from his vows.  His watch will not end until he can no longer carry out his duties.  Resurrection means he will have to honor his oaths to serve in the night's watch.  Besides, if death can release one from obligations then it follows that it also removes any right that person has to any privileges that they were entitled to. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

Erhm... what? :wideeyed:

Sorry, but what's so funny? It's true, we don't know yet of all the promises that Ned made to Lyanna.

I have no idea where you got the above from, but you're off, way way off. 

Exactly we dont know what Ned promised to Lyanna maybe that he will eat eggs for breakfast everyday which is more likely than promising he will make Jon King of Iron Throne. Lyanna isnt Cersie to want for her son to be king. If Ned did promise something like that he wasnt planning on keeping the promise. You think a dying woman that knows her son is endangered whispers make him a King.

It is called sarcasm I clearly wrote what you Jon the Rigthful King and Savior of the World believe Asoiaf is about-blood and prophecies.

Ask a KKK member if black people are humans? Than say majority of USA population wasnt the same as KKK members at some point about that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Princess Daenerys said:

Rhaegar's children and future grandchildren were all disinherited the moment Aerys chose to pass his throne to Viserys.  The line of succession passed to Viserys and his heir (Dany).  Aegon and Rhaenys were still alive and yet Aerys chose Viserys.  It's clear to anyone that Aerys intended for Viserys and his heirs to inherit the kingdom.  Rhaegar's children are no longer in the line of succession.

 

1) Unless you can provide a quote - which you cannot - Rhaegar's children were not eternally disinherited, merely passed over, just like the infant son of Aerion Brightflame (?) Their claim was neglected, not made void. You claiming otherwise doesn't make it so.

2) Dany is not Viserys' daughter, so she is not his direct heir. As a female, she is, in fact, behind any male claimant in the normal Targaryen succession.

1 hour ago, Princess Daenerys said:

One other fact that people forget to mention.  Lyanna Stark was promised to Robert Baratheon.  It wasn't just Rhaegar who was committed to another.  An engagement is taken very seriously and it's not something that could be broken lightly.  Look what happened when Robb broke his engagement. 

A married Rhaegar with children by his wife Elia  and a Lyanna already engaged to Robert make it impossible for Jon to be legitimate.  Rhaegar and Lyanna could not legally marry. 

You're mixing apples and pears. Breaking a betrothal is a big deal not because it somehow affect the legitimity of the future children, but because breaking one's word undermines the social order which relies on the validity of a given word instead of a written contract and the offended party feels, well, mightily offended.

Also: the supposed illegality of polygamy aside (its absence seems more a religious or social norm than something codified): incest is also "illegal", yet the Targaryens happily ignored that and "wed brother to sister" because they considered themselves above the laws, and were getting away with it. So, it is not a matter of legalese but if Rhaegar could get enough support to get away with a breach of a custom based on the precedents of his forefathers. The whole Targaryen line in Westeros comes from a polygamous marriage, from the offspring of the second wife, after all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, The Sunland Lord said:

I think it will matter who sits on the Throne. 

It's different whether there's Jon, Daenerys, Cersei, Stannis, or anyone else. Because each of them would have a different approach. 

Agreed, we see this when the Small Council reads the letter that Maester Aemon sent, Tywin refuses and says to tell them aid will not be sent until Janos Slynt is chosen as Lord Commander.

We see it again when Cersei is serving as Tommen's regent, another letter is read that reveals that Jon is the Lord Commander, not only does Cersei refuse to help but she actually plots to kill Jon for the sole crime of existing and being a member of House Stark.

Should Daenerys or Aegon take the throne, it may be more of the same unless of course someone can advise them to journey north and see things for themselves, ie Jorah or Tyrion perhaps.

This is perhaps the only scenario in which i can see Jon taking the throne at all if he has a claim to it, but i expect he will abdicate as soon as the war is over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Princess Daenerys said:

One other fact that people forget to mention.  Lyanna Stark was promised to Robert Baratheon.  It wasn't just Rhaegar who was committed to another.  An engagement is taken very seriously and it's not something that could be broken lightly.  Look what happened when Robb broke his engagement. 

A married Rhaegar with children by his wife Elia  and a Lyanna already engaged to Robert make it impossible for Jon to be legitimate.  Rhaegar and Lyanna could not legally marry. 

Lyanna already being betrothed means little, Prince Duncan was betrothed yet he set it aside and married a common woman, his siblings Jaehaerys and Shaera were both betrothed to others, but that did not stop them from marrying each other, once this marriage was revealed there was nothing to be done and Aegon V let it stand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/13/2017 at 11:43 PM, Noble Lothar Frey said:

Jon is not in the line of succession.

  1. R + L = J is not a proven theory.  The youtube channels of The Order of the Greenhand and Preston Jacobs eloquently made their case against this flimsy theory of R + L = J.
  2. Even if R + L = J is proven, Jon is still a bastard.  Polygamy is not legal in Westeros.  The child of these two will be bastards.  An annulment with his wife is not likely because Rhaegar + Elia was consummated and they have their children to prove it.
  3. King Aerys disinherited Rhaegar's children.  Any child of Rhaegar and Lyanna, even if Rhaegar pulled a divorce and somehow got his second marriage legalized, are no longer in the line of succession because Aerys chose Prince Viserys to be his heir.  Viserys became King Viserys III when his mother, Queen Rhaella, crowned him on Dragonstone.  This removed Aegon and Jon from the line of succession.
  4. Jon is a sworn brother of the Night's Watch.  Taking the Black means you give up any and all claims.  Aemon Targaryen took the black to permanently remove himself from the line of succession. 
  5. Jon committed treason against the Night's Watch, supported Stannis, sent Mance Rayder loose on the north, broke his oaths, and got himself executed for treason.  He's dead.
  6. Jon does not look like a Targaryen.  He looks the opposite.  DNA testing has not been invented yet and like I said above, he is a bastard and Rhaegar's children got disinherited. 

Take note that if Rhaegar pulled a miracle and somehow married Lyanna that it made Aegon and Rhaenys bastards.  Aegon and Jon cannot be both legitimate.  Only one can be legit and the other a bastard. 

 

 

:agree:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Princess Daenerys said:

Rhaegar's children and future grandchildren were all disinherited the moment Aerys chose to pass his throne to Viserys.  The line of succession passed to Viserys and his heir (Dany).  Aegon and Rhaenys were still alive and yet Aerys chose Viserys.  It's clear to anyone that Aerys intended for Viserys and his heirs to inherit the kingdom.  Rhaegar's children are no longer in the line of succession.

Aerys could have disinherited only Elia's children, not all of Rhaegar's children. Because he thought that Martells betrayed Targaryens.

9 hours ago, Princess Daenerys said:

One other fact that people forget to mention.  Lyanna Stark was promised to Robert Baratheon.  It wasn't just Rhaegar who was committed to another.  An engagement is taken very seriously and it's not something that could be broken lightly.  Look what happened when Robb broke his engagement. 

A married Rhaegar with children by his wife Elia  and a Lyanna already engaged to Robert make it impossible for Jon to be legitimate.  Rhaegar and Lyanna could not legally marry.

Shaera Targaryen (mother of Aerys) was betrothed to Luthor Tyrell. And her brother Jaehaerys (father of Aerys) was betrothed to Celia Tully. Nevertheles it didn't stopped them from marrying to each other.

Their brother Duncan was betrothed to daughter of Lyonell Baratheon, but he ditched her and married with Jenny.

And their brother Daeron was betrothed to Olenna Redwynne, but he broke his betrothal, even though he didn't planned to marry with someone else, because he was gay and had a male lover. So Olenna instead married to Luthor Tyrell.

So even though Lyanna was betrothed to Robert, it doesn't mean that she couldn't marry with someone else, even without agreement from her family. And Rhaegar could have married second time, and have two wives, same as his ancestor Aegon I, or he could have divorced with Elia, or annulled their marriage. There could be legally acceptable circumstances under which government of 7K could have accepted what Rhaegar did, either divorce or annulment.

9 hours ago, 300 H&H Magnum said:

Temporary death is not going to release Jon from his vows.  His watch will not end until he can no longer carry out his duties.  Resurrection means he will have to honor his oaths to serve in the night's watch.  Besides, if death can release one from obligations then it follows that it also removes any right that person has to any privileges that they were entitled to. 

That is utterly ridiculous. There's no such thing as temporary death. And what will release Jon from his vows, is when Brothers will say at his eulogy "And now his watch is ended.", which is a custom for Night's Watch. The fact of death alone, doesn't end all obligations that the person had. For example if someone had a debt and died, then that person's family will have to pay in place of that person. Though there are certain vows that are valid only until pledger's death, for example marriage vow, or Night's Watch vow. In both of them it is said "until death". Nevertheless death doesn't change person's identity, or who his/her parents are, and doesn't change his/her DNA. What gives Jon right to be heir for Iron Throne is the identity of his father, who was Crown Prince of Targaryen dinasty. Even though Rhaegar died, he still remained Jon's father. Even though Jon died, his parents are still Rhaegar Targaryen and Lyanna Stark. And the only reason why Jon can't be King of 7K, is because he is dead. Though when he will become alive again, he will still be son of Rhaegar Targaryen, and thus he will be successor of Targaryens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

And what discourages a lord from rejecting the new King? The threat of facing the combined force of the King's supporters. Military might is implied when the nobility swears fealty to the new King. Hence, it's always important for anyone pressing a claim.

Nope, not really. If we are talking a great council (which I figure it would be) no lord paramount could hope to go against all the rest in practicality. The Queen who never was had the Velaryon fleet and more gold than any lord (greatest naval power and the richer than the Lannisters back then) and she was a dragon rider too. And they passed her over.

14 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

Yes, I'm counting Aegon. Aerys already had three male descendants to pass his crown down to, and was able have more. House Targaryen wasn't short of heirs. Thus, Elia's inability to birth more children wouldn't have been a huge deal, and it certainly wouldn't have been grounds for divorce, let alone annulment. Even if he succeeded in bribing the septon into agreeing to a divorce, such a thing would only hold if the rest of the realm recognised the act as lawful. Dorne certainly wouldn't stand for it. Recognition of an R + L marriage is even more unlikely, especially if it was done in secret. So it isn't impossible, I guess, but it is very contrived.

Maybe a bit... I'm hoping GRRM will make it elegant enough if that is where he wants it to go, though.

14 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

Viserys was crowned by the Queen, in front of witnesses, cementing the King's wish for Viserys to succeed him, giving Viserys' claim a great of legitimacy. That they weren't aware of any other possible heirs is irrelevant (and I doubt Rhaella would have crowned a baby over her own, older son, anyway, even if she had known of Jon's existence). Jon or Aegon could certainly base their claim is more legit because o the birth order, though.

Yeah I'm not saying Viserys has no claim. Just that Rhaenys/Aegon/legit Jon has a better one. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎11‎/‎15‎/‎2017 at 10:52 AM, Widowmaker 811 said:

No.  Dragons do not prove that one is a Targaryen.  Only that someone has an ancestor from one of the forty families who ruled Valyria.  Dragons lend power and prestige.  Dragons do not prove that someone is a Targaryen.  

 Thank you!!

 

 People forget this fact.  The Valyrian freehold ruled Essos for centuries, thus it would be ridiculous to assert that a significant portion of the population of the Free Cities doesn't carry some of those genes. Especially if you consider that whilst the nobility can be persnickety about marriage, they are much less fussy about casual sex with commoners and slaves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Reekazoid said:

 Thank you!!

 

 People forget this fact.  The Valyrian freehold ruled Essos for centuries, thus it would be ridiculous to assert that a significant portion of the population of the Free Cities doesn't carry some of those genes. Especially if you consider that whilst the nobility can be persnickety about marriage, they are much less fussy about casual sex with commoners and slaves.

Incest is a custom that goes back to the dragon riding families before the Doom. That means they preferred to marry their own close relatives even over other dragon riding families. The implication is that the dragon riding families kept their blood "pure" even from each other. So no, I don't think descendants of dragon riding families other than Targaryens would have much success with Targaryen dragons, which are the only dragons that have been around the last four hundred years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...