Noble Lothar Frey

Jon is not in the line of succession

192 posts in this topic

8 hours ago, maudisdottir said:

Targaryens have their own DNA testing, it's called dragons. It doesn't matter whether someone digs up a piece of paper confirming an annulment and/or a wedding - if the dragons recognise him as a Targ, there won't be any doubt who he is.

Nettles rode a dragon and no one offered her the throne. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Pikachu101 said:

The characters can’t prove Jon’s parentage, if R+L=J is true then it will be for the readers. Also OP’s right, Jon’s a bastard so has no right to the throne. 

Well, since Martin has said Jon will learn who his parents were it's safe to say at least one character will know for sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Ralphis Baratheon said:

You'v finally solved it. Now this topic will never need to be discussed again. Now I can sleep at night knowing this is settled. Food taste better, air seems cleaner, I'v been set free.:bowdown:

The Seven bless you for this! Now, let's discuss Sa ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even though I've recently (as per Order of the Green Hand) come to enjoy the thought of N+A=J more than R+L=J for a number of reasons, I still don't see why D&D would've diverged so majorly from the actual plot of the books. Especially considering that GRRM apparently confirmed their guess of Jon's parentage. I realize that they have diverged on other plot elements, but that can be attributed to the fact that they had to cut down on a few things and essentially hardwire the story to give a meaningful ending. However, Jon's parentage is a trivially easy thing to portray and shouldn't be affected by this in my opinion.

It's really a huge hurdle for me to actually consider N+A=J feasible. Isn't it more reasonable that Ned and Ashara might have had a stillborn child, a proof of their love, which Ned had to give up for Cat? I could be wrong, actually, I'd love to be wrong.

On the topic of his claim on the throne. I don't care, because I don't want to see him as KOT7K.

Edited by nihilsciens

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, 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. 

 

 

1 Agree, until we got text-on-page in hand everything is speculation.

2 If Elia was barren due to earlier problems it might change matters though, royal succsession and all.

3 Consider Aerys dying in a time with no major rebellions: would the realm favor its dragon prince or fathers-son Viserys? Rhaegars legit heirs comes before Viserys and Daenarys. Still though, the heir would have to prove ancestry to claim his place which is nigh impossible. Dragonriding isnt an absolute in the matter. In DoD Rhaenyras sons by Laenor Velaryon where dragonriders and openly mocked as bastards.

4 Your watch end when you die.

5 He has proven a great leader, though as all his family he has been a bit naive.

6 Being the heir is not really a problem, but proving it certainly is.

 

Im not sure they'd become bastards. Pretty sure you cant 'make' someone a bastard in retrospect, unless paternity is proven or admitted to be fraudulent. All agree they were born on the right side of the blanket.

For example queen Elizabeth the Virgin Queen's ascent: her father had first married and had his first daughter, then changed religion of England in order to anull his marriage, rendering frist daughter a bastard. Then he marries Elizabeths mother, they have her and he gets disapointed it wasnt a boy and beheads her, then he marries again fathering a son.

When the king dies Elizabeths brother ascends the throne and dies shortly and very young so without heirs the throne goes to her declared bastard older sister. Which means if you slap it on someone at a later point, it wont stick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Noble Lothar Frey said:

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.

Appealing to authority. Great start. Of course, RLJ isn't a proven theory because the parentage of Jon Snow hasn't been revealed yet. It will eventually and maybe it'll turn out to be something completely different. Moreover, a huge problem with Preston and TOotGH is that their arguments rely very heavily in messing around with the established timeline in order to back up their even flimsier theories, and I say that as someone watches and enjoys a lot of their other content. Subbed to both and will always give them both a watch.

On a personal level, I'm invested in who Jon's parents are because... it is a 20+-year-old mystery. After I read AGoT, I came to the idea of RLJ myself, without the aid of the internet or other fans laying out evidence for me. So, I guess I'll be disappointed if I'm wrong but I'll get a kick out of it if I'm right. ^_^

15 hours ago, Noble Lothar Frey said:

An annulment with his wife is not likely because Rhaegar + Elia was consummated and they have their children to prove it.

Divorce is a thing, too. Just because it is rare doesn't mean it couldn't have happened.

15 hours ago, 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. 

 

Technically, all the Targaryens have been deposed and disinherited following the regime change after Robert's Rebellion, so this is a moot point. Daenerys or Aegon aren't going to get the throne handed to them -- they will only be able to win it back through the right of conquest and support from the noble houses of Westeros. Their names get them through the door but won't get them far without those.

Besides, I doubt the majority of people in KL would have paid much heed to Aerys's disinheriting Rhaegar had the Mad King died before his eldest son. If the Great Council was called and they had to choose between the twenty-three-year-old Rhaegar and the eight-year-old Viserys... yep, they were probably still going to pick Rhaegar.

Quote

Viserys became King Viserys III when his mother, Queen Rhaella, crowned him on Dragonstone.  This removed Aegon and Jon from the line of succession.

 

Rhaegar was already dead by this point, and Aegon died around the same time as Aerys, so this doesn't mean anything much in the greater scheme of things.

15 hours ago, 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.

"And now his watch has ended..." because as you yourself point out:

15 hours ago, Noble Lothar Frey said:

He's dead.

So, why does anything else you've really matter? He can't inherit anything, legitimate or not, if you are certain he is dead or, at best, going to be inside Ghost for the rest of the series.

If he's dead, he is also freed from his Night's Watch vows because they are until death. That is why man Jon-Resurrection theories cite it as the possible loophole in the vows that will be Jon's "get out of jail free" card.

15 hours ago, Noble Lothar Frey said:

got himself executed for treason

He was assassinated, not executed.

15 hours ago, Noble Lothar Frey said:

Jon does not look like a Targaryen.  He looks the opposite. 

 

You do presumably know how genetics work, right? You have two parents. Mother and father. Perhaps Lyanna's DNA was dominant over Rhaegar's. Problem solved.

15 hours ago, Noble Lothar Frey said:

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. 

 

I guess poor Aegon's a bastard, then. Oh well, guess it doesn't matter since no one could ever prove he's even the real Aegon, anyway. :P

Final thoughts: I don't care all that much if Jon is in the line of succession or not. For me, this whole rush to the throne for all these potential Targaryen heirs feels it will come to little in the end. The Second Dance of the Dragons will only hurt the people more. This notion of "Good Prince Aegon" rising from the dead to heal the fractured kingdom that Varys has cooked up is just as fantasy as the notion that good ol' Khaleesi is going to come to Westeros with her dragons, burn all the evil Lannisters and make the world a better place because "birthright". Aegon or Daenerys could be the best ruler in the world but it will only take their heirs being entitled despots to undo any good work they achieve. The point is that feudalism is a bad system and picking your king or queen based on who their parents were isn't one that can benefit the majority. The prejudice and stereotype surrounding bastards in this world are a part of that, too. 

Adding Jon to that Targaryen restoration fray doesn't feel like it would add much to his character, especially as he is one of the few characters who has actually been frontline for the most serious threat of the Others bringing the Winter to end all Winters. So, having him decide he wants to claim his "birthright" seems out of place. Especially for a character who all his life was constantly reminded he had no birthright and thus had to find his own place. So, even if you are 100% right, it doesn't hurt Jon's character for me because he has always seemed far removed from the race for King anyway.

Plus, he's dead so none of this matters. :rolleyes:

Edited by Faera

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea of a set Targaryen succession is completely absurd. They were overthrown almost twenty years ago, and as of now no Targaryen would be in the succession of Tommen, Stannis, or any of the other rulers in Westeros. Succession, for now, just does not enter into the equation.

As far as anyone knows Jon is a bastard, and if he is going to be in any succession any time soon it is most likely to be because Robb legitimized him and made him his heir. If Jon does become king of Westeros, which I don't see happening, it isn't likely to be because he is actively pressing a claim on his own behalf to be the heir of Rhaegar and Aerys.

We can only speculate who a great council would have chosen had Aerys and Rhaegar died during the war, and a victorious House Targaryen been left a choice between Aegon, Jon, Viserys, Rhaenys, and Daenerys. Or what Rhaegar's own preferred succession would have looked like had Aerys died during the war and Rhaegar lived to succeed him. I'm guessing it would have been Aegon either way.

But now, the only Targaryen with provenance is Daenerys, who would be behind a living Aegon and a legitimate Jon no matter how one slices it. Aegon will probably become king via conquest regardless of his true origins, and I imagine he will actually be welcomed by a large portion of Westeros. Jon might in time gather a lot of followers by leadership and accomplishments.

And let's not forget that the current dynasty is itself descended from a black eyed black haired bastard that Aegon was responsible for making one of the great lords of Westeros in Orys Baratheon. We don't even know if Aegon bothered to legitimize Orys.
 

Edited by Bael's Bastard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Bael's Bastard said:

The idea of a set Targaryen succession is completely absurd. They were overthrown almost twenty years ago, and as of now no Targaryen would be in the succession of Tommen, Stannis, or any of the other rulers in Westeros. Succession, for now, just does not enter into the equation.

There is certainly a succession for House Targaryen around till this day. King Viserys III Targaryen may have lived in exile, but he was a crowned king, and he had named an heir - his little sister, Daenerys Stormborn. And she also has a succession to settle - who is going to be the King of the Andals, the Rhoyar, and the First Men (in exile) after her death, who is going to inherit Meereen and any other holdings she might acquire during the wars to come.

That isn't the question at hand, but it is the actual question of 'the Targaryen succession'. And any Targaryen relations of Queen Daenerys - in Westeros or elsewhere - actually might get interested in claiming her holdings should she die prematurely. Especially if those holdings grow into a vast empire. It doesn't really matter whether that empire is built in Essos or Westeros or on both those continents.

56 minutes ago, Bael's Bastard said:

As far as anyone knows Jon is a bastard, and if he is going to be in any succession any time soon it is most likely to be because Robb legitimized him and made him his heir. If Jon does become king of Westeros, which I don't see happening, it isn't likely to be because he is actively pressing a claim on his own behalf to be the heir of Rhaegar and Aerys.

Jon isn't on any 'Targaryen line of succession' while nobody has any reason to believe he may be Rhaegar's son. And if people start believing or contemplating that idea that fact alone isn't going to tell them or us where exactly the man would fit in. Especially not since we don't know how many (legitimized) Targaryens will be around by that point.

Daenerys could have children of her own. She could legitimize some Targaryen bastards (Tyrion, say, if he becomes a dragonrider). She could name Brown Ben Plumm her heir on the basis of his Targaryen blood (and the fact that he, too, became a dragonrider, if that's what's going to happen).

Vice versa, Prince Aegon in Westeros could have children of his own who might become his heirs.

Jon Snow's place in all of that would be completely unclear.

But, of course, if Jon ends up on the Iron Throne it will be because of his Targaryen blood and his descent from Rhaegar and Aerys II. That is what gives him a claim to the throne, nothing else.

56 minutes ago, Bael's Bastard said:

We can only speculate who a great council would have chosen had Aerys and Rhaegar died during the war, and a victorious House Targaryen been left a choice between Aegon, Jon, Viserys, Rhaenys, and Daenerys. Or what Rhaegar's own preferred succession would have looked like had Aerys died during the war and Rhaegar lived to succeed him. I'm guessing it would have been Aegon either way.

That is not very likely. The two Great Councils favored the oldest claimant and the one who proximity favors in relation to the throne - the rationale usually being that the older the king the shorter the regency would be. Viserys III was the son of a king, and the oldest male Targaryen alive. Aegon and Jon and the girls were all much younger.

56 minutes ago, Bael's Bastard said:

But now, the only Targaryen with provenance is Daenerys, who would be behind a living Aegon and a legitimate Jon no matter how one slices it.

Not really. Aegon is believed to be dead - he may be the real deal (or not) but people don't have to believe that. Considering that nobody will ever be able to provide conclusive proof nobody - especially not Daenerys - is forced to buy his story. And all she needs to challenge his claim is the official history that Prince Aegon died during the Sack of King's Landing.

Vice versa, Jon Snow first has to establish that he actually is Rhaegar's son - and that the marriage of his parents (if it took place) was valid. People could challenge both those claims.

56 minutes ago, Bael's Bastard said:

Aegon will probably become king via conquest regardless of his true origins, and I imagine he will actually be welcomed by a large portion of Westeros.

He won't have to conquer Westeros. He'll win some battles and then people will buy his story and do him homage as their king. Conquest is something different. Conquest means you have to subdue a country without having any (or at least not a good) pretext/claim to rule it.

56 minutes ago, Bael's Bastard said:

Jon might in time gather a lot of followers by leadership and accomplishments.

He could set himself up as the ruler of the North that way. But he couldn't possibly take the Iron Throne that way. At least not unless the author gives him hundreds of pages for a grand progress of the Realm during which he can introduce himself to the people and show them why he is such a great guy.

56 minutes ago, Bael's Bastard said:

And let's not forget that the current dynasty is itself descended from a black eyed black haired bastard that Aegon was responsible for making one of the great lords of Westeros in Orys Baratheon. We don't even know if Aegon bothered to legitimize Orys.

If he had legitimized him, we would know that. But why should Aegon the Conqueror legitimize anyone? He was the king. He could make a peasant a great lord with nothing but a word.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, so the op already did an awesome job on why Jon is not in the line of succession and he's right.   Jon should not be in the line of succession at all for the reasons listed by Lothar Frey.

I already talked about the topic of Jon's bastard status in this topic.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bael's Bastard said:

The idea of a set Targaryen succession is completely absurd. They were overthrown almost twenty years ago, and as of now no Targaryen would be in the succession of Tommen, Stannis, or any of the other rulers in Westeros. Succession, for now, just does not enter into the equation.

As far as anyone knows Jon is a bastard, and if he is going to be in any succession any time soon it is most likely to be because Robb legitimized him and made him his heir. If Jon does become king of Westeros, which I don't see happening, it isn't likely to be because he is actively pressing a claim on his own behalf to be the heir of Rhaegar and Aerys.

Robb had no right to change someone's status.  He can't remove Jon's bastard status.  Even if we extend our generosity to Robb and give him king status, that will hold no effect in the south.  At best, Robb was only a king in the north and even that is being extremely generous to him.  Robb failed to win his war for independence.  He was not the king.  Robb never had the right to remove Jon's bastard status.

We can only speculate who a great council would have chosen had Aerys and Rhaegar died during the war, and a victorious House Targaryen been left a choice between Aegon, Jon, Viserys, Rhaenys, and Daenerys. Or what Rhaegar's own preferred succession would have looked like had Aerys died during the war and Rhaegar lived to succeed him. I'm guessing it would have been Aegon either way.

What Rhaegar wanted, preferred, loved, or wished are not important because he was bypassed in favor of Viserys.  Only the will of Aerys counts. He chose Viserys.

But now, the only Targaryen with provenance is Daenerys, who would be behind a living Aegon and a legitimate Jon no matter how one slices it. Aegon will probably become king via conquest regardless of his true origins, and I imagine he will actually be welcomed by a large portion of Westeros. Jon might in time gather a lot of followers by leadership and accomplishments.

Lothar correctly pointed out.  Even under the most extreme of cases there is no way that both Aegon and Jon could be both legitimate.  Only one can be legit.  Daenerys comes before those two either way you look at it because she can  prove her identity.  The other two cannot, not ever, prove their identity. 

And let's not forget that the current dynasty is itself descended from a black eyed black haired bastard that Aegon was responsible for making one of the great lords of Westeros in Orys Baratheon. We don't even know if Aegon bothered to legitimize Orys.

No, the current occupants of the throne are usurpers.  They are dependent on their claimed Targaryen heritage to justify their hereditary right of ruling.  The monarchy transferred directly from Aerys to Viserys and then onto Daenerys.  The Targaryen monarchy was never broken.  Westeros belongs to Dany.
 

 

Edited by Damsel in Distress

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Technically, anyone with Targ blood is in the line of succession and can press a claim, even bastards, but it's meaningless unless the claimant has sufficient military support. The idea that sullen, friendless Jon could rally enough support, or that anyone will buy that that Ned's bastard - who looks nothing like a Targ - is a legit Targ heir, or that people will just accept the validity of a second Rhaegar taking another wife, just feels contrived to me.

3 hours ago, Sigella said:

2 If Elia was barren due to earlier problems it might change matters though, royal succsession and all.

I would think it would be exceeding difficult to press for divorce or annulment over Elia not being able to produce more heirs, seeing as Rhaegar was not the King, and never was. The actual King had 3 male heirs, and could potentially have had more.

3 hours ago, Sigella said:

3 Consider Aerys dying in a time with no major rebellions: would the realm favor its dragon prince or fathers-son Viserys? Rhaegars legit heirs comes before Viserys and Daenarys. Still though, the heir would have to prove ancestry to claim his place which is nigh impossible. Dragonriding isnt an absolute in the matter. In DoD Rhaenyras sons by Laenor Velaryon 

Just because Rhaegar would have inherited before Viserys under normal circumstances, doesn't mean his children would too, regardless of context. In this case, Rhaegar died before Aerys, so Viserys was formally crowned. Btw, that crowning makes Viserys' claim a great deal stronger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In this particular story, the identity of the successor to anything, whether it be the Targaryen lineage, the Iron throne, or anything else, depends on: where you stand; who you like; what rules you accept; and what facts you believe.  At this point, there is no universally accepted "rightful successor" to much of anything important.  On to specifics:

R+L=J:  Jon is Rhaegar and Lyanna's son.  Every re-read I have done makes me more convinced of this.  No other solution makes any sense, especially considering it is a work of fiction, and entirely George's creation.  If it were real life, I would consider other candidates, such as the Kingsguard members, but it isn't, so I don't.

Marriage:  If there was any marriage, there is no proof of it, nor, after nearly 20 years, is there likely to be any.  While it is possible that a document could be discovered (in the Citadel archives, perhaps?), that's doubtful, and its provenance would be questionable.  Even if they were married, it would be polygamous.  This would make it, at best, of questionable validity, as polygamy is not generally accepted, even for the Targaryens.  Those who wanted to accept it would, those who didn't, wouldn't.

Night's watch:  Jon's membership in the NW makes him ineligible for crowns, etc.  If he took one, it would be because he considered it necessary to carrying out the NIght's Watch's mission against the Others.  The most likely scenario for taking permanent secular power would likely involve the dissolving of the NW, probably because its mission would be no longer necessary.

Essentially, whoever takes the crown will do so either by force of arms, or receiving overwhelming political support.  In either case, the eventual winning claimant will legitimize and bolster his (or her) claim by citing whatever plausible connection they can make to either Targaryen or Baratheon lineage.  .  In other words, the "rightful" successor will be whoever wins.  It's all in dispute until that time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, 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. 

 

 

Well for starters Jon isn't in the line of succession because he is not a descendant of Tommen Baratheon the current King of Westeros. But barring that

1. No it isn't proven. I personally find much more evidence that leads me to believe it's true but it could be wrong. Whether it is or isn't makes not difference in regards to Jon being in the line of succession because as a Targaryen he is not in Tommen's line, as a bastard of any sort he is not in the succession, as a Stark he is not in the line of succession. 

2. Operating under the assumption that R+L=J could place Jon in the line of succession in a Targaryen Dynasty. Polygamy is frowned upon by the High Septon & he may refuse to bless the crown of the said King but there are ways around it as shown with the Targs. We don't really know what the conditions are for an annulment are so that option is still absolutely on the table. Another option would be divorce. 

3. Aerys removing Rhaegar from the line really doesn't mean too much & certainly doesn't negate Jon being in the line if the right conditions are met. That leaves only Daenerys as the Targ heir. There is precedent for skipping over, not only the person that the last king named as heir, but also a female for a male. 

4. As a general rule, yes joining the NW means you take no lands & hold no titles but again we know this can be reversed. 

5. Jon Snow was the Lord Commander if the Night's Watch & therefore there was not a higher officer that could rightfully say his acts were treasonous, let alone give the orders to execute him. Jon Snow was assassinated by a group of mutineers. If he is dead & remains dead obviously this removes him from any line of succession. If he is dead & is resurrected his watch has ended. If he is alive & stays alive he could still be let free of his vows. So none of this (except Jon being dead & staying dead) ensures he is not in the line. 

6. LOL! What difference does that make? 

Yes if Rhaegar married Lyanna & had Jon legitimately that makes Aegon a bastard (I think? I honestly don't think we have enough knowledge on situations like these to say Aegon would be a bastard but for the sake of this argument I'll agree) & then Jon is still in the Targ line of succession. 

Sorry, but I think the only thing you posted that means 100% positively that Jon is not the Targ heir is him being dead & staying dead. Which if you believe that I'm not sure why the rest of the post was necessary. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Damsel in Distress said:

Robb had no right to change someone's status.  He can't remove Jon's bastard status.  Even if we extend our generosity to Robb and give him king status, that will hold no effect in the south.  At best, Robb was only a king in the north and even that is being extremely generous to him.  Robb failed to win his war for independence.  He was not the king.  Robb never had the right to remove Jon's bastard status.

You are wrong. Robb *was* the king - not for us, not for North or South, but for his followers. For those Northmen who swore allegiance to him as their King in the North. As far as these people are concerned, Robb was king. Therefore, in their eyes, Robb did have the right to change someone's bastard status. This is evidenced by Catelyn Stark's dismay when Robb told her of his intention to legitimize Jon and get him out of the Night's Watch.     

Robb is dead, his war ended. But many of his followers are still alive. The question is what they'll choose to do, and what Jon chooses to do. Jon intended to march south when Bowen Marsh stabbed him. Let's assume that he recovers, and will eventually march on Winterfell, ousting the Boltons (if Stannis does not beat him to it).

Most people in the North have no idea that Rickon and Brandon Stark are still alive. They hate the the incumbent on the Iron Throne, and the idea of being ruled by the Boltons. If they hear that Robb Stark's heir Jon is marching to take back the North ... they might very well decide to join him. King Stannis (who is as much king as Robb was) offered Jon legitimization, and Winterfell. Jon refused him. He might not refuse Robb, and them.

The question, then, is how Westerosi nobility would deal with it.

Stannis won't be happy but he might accept it if Jon bends the knee. He needs all allies he can get. He needs strong allies. A legitimization by Robb Stark will carry more weight in the North than one by him.

It might even prevent unrest among Northern Lords when Rickon Stark eventually returns. Robb wanted to name Jon his heir to disinherit Sansa, but he also intended to make sure that no child (not even his own) would ever become King in the North - because the North needs a strong, grown-up  ruler.  

The Lannisters and Tyrells will not accept Jon as King in the North, nor as Lord of Winterfell. But they are increasingly under pressure from Jon Connington and Aegon Targaryen (real or not doesn't matter, Aegon just needs to keep winning).

Neither Aegon nor Daenerys will support Stannis' claim to the Iron Throne. But they have no particular axe to grind with Jon as heir to House Stark. Both might try to win Jon over to their side - and that would lend Jon additional legitimacy.

Other Houses will pick their sides in this Game of Thrones, and accept or reject Jon's claims accordingly.

If, at some later date, the world finds out that Jon is Rhaegar's son, or some such, some of these alliances might dramatically shift or even break. But by then, it will be too late. Once given, the legitimation cannot be taken back.

Jon would probably take the opportunity to name Rickon heir to Winterfell, and restore succession to Ned Stark's sons.
At that time, he might finally even be powerful enough to make a bid for the Iron Throne. Even though he is not in the Baratheon line of succession. I don't think any Baratheons will be left by that time.

 

Edited by Tini

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What we're really talking about is the legality of someone's claim.  Anybody can make a claim but whether that claim is supported by the laws of their land is the question.  You need to have a legal claim in order to put yourself in the line of succession. 

Is Jon legally in the line of succession?  No. For many, many reasons.   Is Aegon legally in the line of succession?  Only if he can prove that he is who he says he is and only if Aerys did not disinherit Rhaegar's line.  Is Daenerys legally in the line of succession?  Yes.  I could argue that she already inherited the kingdom from King Viserys, the beggar king.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/14/2017 at 0:47 AM, Barbrey Dustin said:

One more thing that I should comment on.  The last paragraph.  Rhaegar doesn't have the authority to grant himself an annulment and he doesn't have the authority to legitimize a bastard even if he was still alive when the child was born.  Rhaegar was never a king.  The kingship went directly from Aerys to Viserys and now to Daenerys.  Aerys to Viserys to Daenerys is the true line of succession.

Rhaegar's family was disinherited.  Even his legit children lost their claims. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He might be Ned and Ashara's kid, but for Jon to sit on the Iron Throne Ned twists the story so a Stark by father would rule the 7 Kingdoms. How is this possible?

Lyanna's and Rhaegar's kid is stillborn, Ned's and Ashara's kid-Jon is presented in Dorne as a bastard of Ned and some serving girl, probably for Ashara's honor. Ashara commits suicide. She can never confirm Jon is hers. Ned, long before his death, feeds someone who needs to be fed with info that Jon is Lyanna's and Rhaegar's kid, which he can claim now, with these two and Ashara dead and no one left to know the true story but him.

Knowing that Jon is safer on the Wall from an eventual war (which actually happened after he supported Stannis' claim), he knows that Viserys and the Targaryen girl Daenerys (who he wants alive and openly opposed Robert and the council on her assassination) somehow one day manage to come to power, that info is fed to them and his Targaryen ancestry is confirmed publicly in court, which helps Jon to be proclaimed a King and sits on the Iron Throne when he becomes of age. Night's watch is an obsolete idea after the Others' destroying the wall and Westeros needs a new defending concept, so this is no longer a problem for Jon.

Bran Stark, knows of his father's major plan and never speaks against it and supports it in order to have his brother on the Iron Throne. Him with his tons of valuable info can do next to whatever he wants with it and will become very powerful once he goes to King's Landing to live by his brother's (publicly now cousin) side and keeps Jon from all kinds of trouble during his long, long reign as a King.

 

 

Edited by The Sunland Lord

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

Technically, anyone with Targ blood is in the line of succession and can press a claim, even bastards, but it's meaningless unless the claimant has sufficient military support. The idea that sullen, friendless Jon could rally enough support, or that anyone will buy that that Ned's bastard - who looks nothing like a Targ - is a legit Targ heir, or that people will just accept the validity of a second Rhaegar taking another wife, just feels contrived to me.

I would think it would be exceeding difficult to press for divorce or annulment over Elia not being able to produce more heirs, seeing as Rhaegar was not the King, and never was. The actual King had 3 male heirs, and could potentially have had more.

Just because Rhaegar would have inherited before Viserys under normal circumstances, doesn't mean his children would too, regardless of context. In this case, Rhaegar died before Aerys, so Viserys was formally crowned. Btw, that crowning makes Viserys' claim a great deal stronger.

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.

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Sigella said:

Rhaenyra's two oldest sons were mocked as bastards in spite of being dragonriders in tPatQ.

Yes but it was only their Velaryon heritage that was in doubt. Nobody questioned that they were the sons of Rhaenyra Targaryen.

As for the Targaryen succession, I don't think it's going to matter. Maybe Aegon will have the people's support because he's the "son" of Rhaegar; until Dany comes along with her ice-zombie-killing dragons and saves everyone, then she'll have their support; until Jon comes along with his flaming sword to do something or other heroic, and you get the picture. I don't think either Jon or Dany will end up on the Iron Throne, because in the end Dany will discover that it's not important, and Jon never wanted it in the first place. That, or they die.

Edited by maudisdottir

Share this post


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

Yes but it was only their Velaryon heritage that was in doubt. Nobody questioned that they were the sons of Rhaenyra Targaryen.

As for the Targaryen succession, I don't think it's going to matter. Maybe Aegon will have the people's support because he's the "son" of Rhaegar; until Dany comes along with her ice-zombie-killing dragons and saves everyone, then she'll have their support; until Jon comes along with his flaming sword to do something or other heroic, and you get the picture. I don't think either Jon or Dany will end up on the Iron Throne, because in the end Dany will discover that it's not important, and Jon never wanted it in the first place. That, or they die.

No, maternity is rarely an issue. :D

My point was that being a dragonrider doesnt prove anything, really.

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