Noble Lothar Frey

Jon is not in the line of succession

400 posts in this topic

24 minutes ago, Texas Hold Em said:

2.  The north may not like the Boltons but they are not going to prefer a watch deserter over Roose.  The first chapter of the books established that the north consider any watch deserter a criminal and the crime punishable by death.  

You forget the crimes that Roose Bolton has committed against the north. He actively plotted and participated in the Red Wedding and he sent northmen on a suicide mission to Duskendale. The fall and sack of Winterfell. 

They are actively plotting to remove Roose from Winterfell and from the wardenship of the north.

The northmen at the Wall, who have been interacting with Jon, their sons are marching in Stannis's army to rescue Arya and take Winterfell back from Roose. Norrey and Flint aren't still at the Wall when Jon is stabbed just because, reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Pikachu101 said:

Westeros isn't a democracy and Dany has three dragons 

Though there is a democracy present in Westeros (elections of NW's Lord Commander, elections of High Septon, King's elections by Great Council, Ironborn's gathering where they choose their new King), and also there were precedents when people rebelled against dragonlords. And dragons are not immortal, neither invincible - even dragon of Aegon's wife was killed in Dorne.

3 hours ago, Tour De Force said:

1. A Great Council is only convened when neither of the contenders are strong enough to enforce their claim.  In other words, if the playing field is level among the candidates.  Notice that the Great Council was called when the Targaryens no longer had any dragons, the first runner was not strong enough to enforce the claim on her own, and the parentage of the contenders (and their legitimacy) were not in question. 

2. People will easily pick Dany over Jon.  What Jon did at the Wall will come out and it will be a scandal.  Dany will make a better ruler than Jon.  Jon couldn't even manage a few thousand men in the middle of nowhere.  People have suffered too much from the hands of the Starks, Baratheon, Lannisters, and Greyjoys.  They will flock to the Dany, the unquestionable heir to the Targaryen monarchy. 

Pfff

:lmao:

Sorry ^_^

This contradicts nearly EVERYTHING, that you wrote in first part of your post, except maybe 'legitimacy not being in question' part:

http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Great_Council

First three Great Councils were gathered at times when Targaryens were still a dragonriders. Furthermore third out of them was after Dance of the Dragons, and during that gathering they choose seven regents, for recently crowned young King Aegon III, whose mother was eated by a dragon, just a six years prior this Council. And also Aegon himself had a dragon, its name was Stormcloud. Last dragon died during reign of Aegon III, but that was in 153, 17 years after Third Great Council.

Afterwards there was one more, after events in first story about Dunk & Egg.

Also Cat Stark suggested to Renly that they should gather Great Council, to decide who will be King. Though Renly was only amused by this.

2. People suffering from the hands of the Starks, Baratheon, Lannisters, and Greyjoys, has nothing to do with Jon. At that time he was at The Wall.

And also by the time of GC's gathering, it will be already known that he is a legitimate son of Rhaegar, thus he is a Targaryen, and not a Stark.

Also what he did at The Wall, is a much lesser scandal, in comparition with everything that Dany did. Hmm... where to start? First - she's a heir in line for succession of Iron Throne, only because her brother Viserys named her as his heir. And how did she repaid him for that? - She took part in his murder. She's a kinslayer.

Second - she killed many noble people in Essos, only because they were doing what was absolutely normal and traditional for those lands and nations. So Lords of Westeros won't choose her, because they wouldn't want her to change their laws and customs, and force upon their realm her views. She may be a breaker of chains, but for them she's just a barbarian queen. And furthermore a girl. And there was never a female ruler of 7K.

People may not know much about Jon, but what they know about Dany is a purely negative information, furthermore all of it is actually true. She's such a bad, thoughtless and unorganised ruler, that even freed by her slaves, are asking her to let them go back to slavery. Also even though she came to their lands, and ruined their social structure, and was unable to stop a partisan civil war between ex-slaves and Sons of Harpy, when she will be bored by Pyramid of Meereen, she will chase after a new shiny thing - this time Iron Throne of King's Landing.

Also by the time when she will finally arrive to Westeros, people of 7K, will be already aware of threat by the Others. And about resurection of Jon Snow. And Bran the 3ER. So people will be aware that their future saviour, the Prince that was promised, should be a warrior, because he will be a swordsman wielding Lightbringer sword. So Dany is not The Chosen One.

Also who would people likely choose - daughter of Mad King, who killed her own brother, or son of noble and loved by everyone Prince Rhaegar, who was also raised by one of the most respected people in 7K, Eddard Stark?

Edited by Megorova

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Megorova said:

Though there is a democracy present in Westeros (elections of NW's Lord Commander, elections of High Septon, King's elections by Great Council, Ironborn's gathering where they choose their new King), and also there were precedents when people rebelled against dragonlords. And dragons are not immortal, neither invincible - even dragon of Aegon's wife was killed in Dorne.

Dany isn’t looking to be “chosen” she’s planning on conquering Westeros just like she did with the slave cities, there will be no Great Council because she won’t set one up. Also she’s not going to bend just because some random guy up North decided he’s the unknown son of her brother, especially when Aegon’s in the picture seeing as he wants to be co rulers with her through marriage. 

Westeros has been destroyed by war because Varys needed a weak and broken country for Aegon to attack easily. They’re in no position to fight off three dragons, besides the Baratheon dynasty is in shambles which means there’s no king for anyone to fight under even if they wanted to. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could be that Aerys didn't disinherited Rhaegar's children.

After re-reading info about Great Council, I think that maybe Rhaegar's children were overstepped because Rhaenys was a girl, and two others were too little. Which doesn't mean that they were permanently removed from succession line.

There were precedents in history when after king's death, instead of his son, as next king was crowned younger brother of a previous king (prince's uncle). Though after death of this king (uncle), even though he had his own kids, including boys, after him was crowned his nephew, son of first king. Or another example when instead of first prince, who was an infant at time when previous king died, was crowned his cousin. And after that cousin's death, crown went back to first prince.

I don't remember who exactly those historical figures were, though I think that uncle and nephew from first example were from Britain, and cousins from second example were kings from France or Spain.

So after Viserys' death next in line is Aegon Martell, and after him Jon. Though I'm sure that either Aegon is fake, or he will die in next book, and unlike Jon, he won't be resurected. There's no need to have two princes in the story. And considering that Young Griff appeared only recently, while Jon was one of main characters sinse first book, it would be a huge waste, if Aegon will live while Jon will die and stay dead.

P.S.

King Henry IV, then his younger brother King Richard III, and after him his nephew King Henry VII (son of Henry IV).

Edit: Edward IV - Richard III - Henry VII

Henry VII was son of Edward IV, not Henry IV.

King Henry I, then his nephew Stephen of Blois, then Henry II who was son of Empress Matilda, older daughter of Henry I. When Henry I died, Henry II was less than 2 years old, so the crown passed to cousin of his mother, Stephen.

Edited by Megorova

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Megorova said:

Though I'm sure that either Aegon is fake, or he will die in next book, and unlike Jon, he won't be resurected. There's no need to have two princes in the story. And considering that Young Griff appeared only recently, while Jon was one of main characters sinse first book, it would be a huge waste, if Aegon will live while Jon will die and stay dead.

We have to remember that George is known for breaking tropes, not following them. Jon's status as a main character gives him no precedence to outlive or outshine a newer character. Aegon being introduced into the story, just to die off in the next book, seems like it was pointless to even bring him into it and results to not much more than a minor inconvenience to the other characters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ser Maverick said:

We have to remember that George is known for breaking tropes, not following them. Jon's status as a main character gives him no precedence to outlive or outshine a newer character. Aegon being introduced into the story, just to die off in the next book, seems like it was pointless to even bring him into it and results to not much more than a minor inconvenience to the other characters.

Aegon won't die in TWOW. He is the mummer's dragon that Dany has to slay and Dany won't be in Westeros proper until A Dream of Spring (unless he rearranges a few chapters as he is wont to do). So, yeah, it would be pointless to kill Aegon to quickly. He will stick around for a bit and do stuff, stuff, and more stuff--- until Autnie Firestarter comes in to town.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Megorova said:

King Henry IV, then his younger brother King Richard III, and after him his nephew King Henry VII (son of Henry IV).

Do you mean Edward IV? Henry VII wasn't his son. Henry IV was Henry Bolingbroke, the son of John of Gaunt, who was generations before Edward/Richard and Henry Tudor.

Robert couldn’t annul his marriage to Cersei the same way Rhaegar couldn’t annul his marriage to Elia. 

He could, if the author decides he could. George makes the rules here.

Edited by maudisdottir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, maudisdottir said:

Do you mean Edward IV? Henry VII wasn't his son. Henry IV was Henry Bolingbroke, the son of John of Gaunt, who was generations before Edward/Richard and Henry Tudor.

He could, if the author decides he could. George makes the rules here.

Yes, and this can't be said enough. The author has already put the most obscure precedents in place for anything to happen should he decide it needs to happen. Real world history be damned, this is GRRM's world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Ser Maverick said:

We have to remember that George is known for breaking tropes, not following them. Jon's status as a main character gives him no precedence to outlive or outshine a newer character. Aegon being introduced into the story, just to die off in the next book, seems like it was pointless to even bring him into it and results to not much more than a minor inconvenience to the other characters.

That's exactly what his purpose is.

The main war in ASOIAF is a war against Others. But until that war will begin, characters from lower part of Westeros, has to be doing something. So while main story is slowly unraveling at The Wall, Dany is kept busy in Meereen; and Lannisters will be occupied with invasion by fake Aegon and his people, and uprising of Sparrows; and other inhabitants of Westeros will be dealing with confrontation between Stannis and Boltons, raids by Euron and his pirates, etc. And when all those secondary plot lines will finally end, the Others will be knocking at the gates of Castle Black. So whoever will win political Games of Thrones, will fight alongside Jon against the Others.

14 minutes ago, maudisdottir said:

Do you mean Edward IV?

Yes, Edward IV. Fixed that. Thanks.

Edited by Megorova

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Megorova said:

Could be that Aerys didn't disinherited Rhaegar's children.

After re-reading info about Great Council, I think that maybe Rhaegar's children were overstepped because Rhaenys was a girl, and two others were too little. Which doesn't mean that they were permanently removed from succession line.

There were precedents in history when after king's death, instead of his son, as next king was crowned younger brother of a previous king (prince's uncle). Though after death of this king (uncle), even though he had his own kids, including boys, after him was crowned his nephew, son of first king. Or another example when instead of first prince, who was an infant at time when previous king died, was crowned his cousin. And after that cousin's death, crown went back to first prince.

I don't remember who exactly those historical figures were, though I think that uncle and nephew from first example were from Britain, and cousins from second example were kings from France or Spain.

So after Viserys' death next in line is Aegon Martell, and after him Jon. Though I'm sure that either Aegon is fake, or he will die in next book, and unlike Jon, he won't be resurected. There's no need to have two princes in the story. And considering that Young Griff appeared only recently, while Jon was one of main characters sinse first book, it would be a huge waste, if Aegon will live while Jon will die and stay dead.

P.S.

King Henry IV, then his younger brother King Richard III, and after him his nephew King Henry VII (son of Henry IV).

Edit: Edward IV - Richard III - Henry VII

Henry VII was son of Edward IV, not Henry IV.

King Henry I, then his nephew Stephen of Blois, then Henry II who was son of Empress Matilda, older daughter of Henry I. When Henry I died, Henry II was less than 2 years old, so the crown passed to cousin of his mother, Stephen.

Rhaegar's family was permanently disinherited and lost their place in the line of succession when Prince Viserys became King Viserys III.   King Aerys II saw the Starks as his enemies.  He would close off any chances of Lyanna's child from ever putting its butt on the throne.  There is no way Aerys would have left any loop holes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Megorova said:

That's exactly what his purpose is.

The main war in ASOIAF is a war against Others. But until that war will begin, characters from lower part of Westeros, has to be doing something. So while main story is slowly unraveling at The Wall, Dany is kept busy in Meereen; and Lannisters will be occupied with invasion by fake Aegon and his people, and uprising of Sparrows; and other inhabitants of Westeros will be dealing with confrontation between Stannis and Boltons, raids by Euron and his pirates, etc. And when all those secondary plot lines will finally end, the Others will be knocking at the gates of Castle Black. So whoever will win political Games of Thrones, will fight alongside Jon against the Others.

Yes, Edward IV. Fixed that. Thanks.

We don't know that the war with the Others is the main conflict in the story.  I don't think it is. 

6 hours ago, Ser Maverick said:

We have to remember that George is known for breaking tropes, not following them. Jon's status as a main character gives him no precedence to outlive or outshine a newer character. Aegon being introduced into the story, just to die off in the next book, seems like it was pointless to even bring him into it and results to not much more than a minor inconvenience to the other characters.

The way to break trope is to keep Jon dead.  Otherwise it will be like Gandalf coming back to life.  I will feel cheated if George brings Jon back to life. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"line of succession" is all about who has the right to inherit the throne according to the established laws of the land.  Aegon conquered small, independent kingdoms and made them one.  He established the Targaryens as the rulers of his new kingdom.  This is important because it means that only those who descended from him have the right to rule the kingdom that he built.  All rebellion against the Targaryen's chosen heir is treason, therefore illegal.  The kingdom belongs to Aegon and his heirs.

Robert won his rebellion but he had to cite his Targaryen ancestry to make his rule acceptable.  My argument is that it was still illegal and Robert was not legally the king.  Yes he has Targaryen blood but King Aerys chose his son Prince Viserys to be his heir.  The term "king's law" proves that the king can make laws, change laws, etc.  For example, only the king can remove the legal status of bastardry because the king is the law maker.  Robert did not change the law.  He used the law to support his right to sit on the iron throne.  It's really easy to see why he didn't.  The very law that protected the Targaryens' right to rule also protected all of the ruling houses and guaranteed their right to rule their lands by virtue of their blood.  And what blood is more noble than that of a Targaryen.  Robert did not support his right to rule by claiming the Baratheons are now the legal rulers because that would weaken every other lord's and lady's right to rule over their peasants and lands.  Every house has a cadet or offshoot relatives that could threaten their right to their lands. 

Robert may have Targaryen blood but he was a Baratheon.  Amount and purity of blood are important considerations because the heir normally is very closely related by blood to the current ruler, which is usually a parent.  Viserys is much closer by blood to Aerys than Robert. 

What I am getting at is this.  Viserys was legally the king of Westeros even though he did not have possession of his property.  Robert's rule was illegal because (1) Aerys chose Viserys, (2) Robert is not a Targaryen, (3) Robert failed to eliminate Viserys and Daenerys, (4) Viserys never surrendered and never bent his knee.  The Baratheons never attained the legal right to rule the kingdom.  Right of conquest does not apply and does not have any legal support.  Aegon conquered the lands before there was a seven kingdoms.  He built the seven kingdoms and then he made the laws.  According to these new laws, any rebellion against his chosen heirs is illegal and even if the rebels win they still cannot claim right of conquest.  King Viserys-the third of his name and his sister heir, Princess Daenerys, can correctly view the Baratheons as an occupying force that are illegally camped on their lands and they were looking for assistance in order to evict the Baratheons from Targaryen lands. 

King Aerys had the right and the legal authority to pass the crown to Viserys and he did just that.  He disinherited Rhaegar's line and they are no longer in the line of succession.  Queen Rhaella officially crowned Viserys on Dragonstone and now the line of succession is Viserys and then Daenerys. 

 

 

Edited by Satoshi Takeda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/14/2017 at 6:48 AM, The Sunland Lord said:

King of the North though. 

Only if the wildlings can take down the families that currently rule the north.  Jon is not going much support outside of the wildlings.  Plus, they're the only ones who don't care about him being a bastard. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Proving one's identity is the first thing any potential supporter will ask of anyone wanting to claim the kingdom.  It's not something that can taken lightly.  Your claim is no good unless you can prove your identity.  This is the reason why Viserys was the best candidate to reclaim the throne.  He is known by many and he can easily prove his identity.  FAegon cannot prove his identity.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, maudisdottir said:

He could, if the author decides he could. George makes the rules here.

Thing is George prides himself in realism, making Jon suddenly legitimate is too easy for such a complicated series. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Wolf's Bane said:

FAegon cannot prove his identity.  

Not 100% no, but he still has or can have many things backing his claim. The former Hand of the King Jon Con, who spent a great deal of time with Rhaegar, claims that he's Rhaegar son. Arianne, Elia's niece, can proclaim him her rightful long lost cousin. Lastly, if the faith flocks to (f)Aegon and anoints him their king with oils and a crown he'll have that going for him. Then add he has a real army that actually crossed the narrow sea to fight for him, he has a lot more going for him then Viserys ever did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Bowen Marsh said:

The way to break trope is to keep Jon dead.  Otherwise it will be like Gandalf coming back to life.  I will feel cheated if George brings Jon back to life. 

Judging by your username, you may be a bit biased on the matter.

I'd somewhat agree, although I trust that George wouldn't have done it unless there was some massive way it impacts the story. At the same time, I struggle to picture Jon's story having ended like that. Since reading ADwD, I just assumed that Jon actually survives his wounds, but I think George has recently confirmed that he dies, so what do I know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Wolf's Bane said:

Only if the wildlings can take down the families that currently rule the north.  Jon is not going much support outside of the wildlings.  Plus, they're the only ones who don't care about him being a bastard. 

When all is said and done, I don't think anyone will care whether he is a bastard or not. 

I'd think that people will especially fall in line when he is resurrected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Widow's Watch said:

When all is said and done, I don't think anyone will care whether he is a bastard or not. 

Yes they will because the Manderlys know Rickon's alive and Littlefinger's arranging a marriage to Harry for Sansa, the North isn't going to bend the knee to a Snow when two Starks are still alive and kicking. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now