R+L=J v.35

[Dragonfish]

I know i will be a little scatter brained here but in reference to the succession, it seems to me that the eldest living son always inherits his father's seat.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this, but nonetheless, here's a bit of a clarification on the succession.

Before the Trident, the line of succession went: Aerys--Rhaegar--Aegon--Viserys. If Rhaegar had another legitimate son, then he'd go in the line between Aegon and Viserys, because any trueborn son of the crown prince would take precedence in the succession over the crown prince's younger brother. Let's assume for a moment that such a child existed. The line of succession would then be: Aerys--Rhaegar--Aegon--Rhaegar's second son--Viserys. Now, after the Sack, with Aerys and Rhaegar and (possibly) Aegon dead, the remaining people in the line of succession would simply move up a few slots. In this case, the new line would be Aegon (if alive)--Rhaegar's second son--Viserys. If Aegon is dead, then Rhaegar's second son would move up to the first position in the line, with Viserys right behind him. Viserys would not get to jump ahead of anyone who is still alive, even though he is the son of the previous king. The crown prince's entire line of male heirs must be exhausted before Viserys gets the chance to inherit (female heirs don't come into it until there are no male heirs, at least for House Targaryen).

I hope all of that made sense, though looking it over now, I'm not sure it did. It totally made sense in my head, though.

[Ygrain]

Many posters have postulated that the polygamy issue has been introduced by GRRM in order to explain Jon's legitimacy. I wonder then, why Barristan tells us that the KG can also be sent to protect mistresses and bastards, if it's not to explain the KG presence at the ToJ guarding Lyanna and her unborn child?

Except, that part is rather tricky - while he does say that the protection of KG can be extended even to bastards and mistresses, he also states that this is not the real purpose of KG, which, IMHO, means confirmation that the duty to guard king takes priority over any other assigned duty, i.e. pointing at Jon's legitimacy.

[Black Wolf Smith]

I hope all of that made sense, though looking it over now, I'm not sure it did. It totally made sense in my head, though.

It looked good to me. I would have added to look at the Frey line as a longer example but other then that was it was pretty clear.

[Winds of Winter blow cold]

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this, but nonetheless, here's a bit of a clarification on the succession.

Before the Trident, the line of succession went: Aerys--Rhaegar--Aegon--Viserys. If Rhaegar had another legitimate son, then he'd go in the line between Aegon and Viserys, because any trueborn son of the crown prince would take precedence in the succession over the crown prince's younger brother. Let's assume for a moment that such a child existed. The line of succession would then be: Aerys--Rhaegar--Aegon--Rhaegar's second son--Viserys. Now, after the Sack, with Aerys and Rhaegar and (possibly) Aegon dead, the remaining people in the line of succession would simply move up a few slots. In this case, the new line would be Aegon (if alive)--Rhaegar's second son--Viserys. If Aegon is dead, then Rhaegar's second son would move up to the first position in the line, with Viserys right behind him. Viserys would not get to jump ahead of anyone who is still alive, even though he is the son of the previous king. The crown prince's entire line of male heirs must be exhausted before Viserys gets the chance to inherit (female heirs don't come into it until there are no male heirs, at least for House Targaryen).

I hope all of that made sense, though looking it over now, I'm not sure it did. It totally made sense in my head, though.

Quite correct as far as we know. Based on British succession I believe.

[Belandra Waters]

Except, that part is rather tricky - while he does say that the protection of KG can be extended even to bastards and mistresses, he also states that this is not the real purpose of KG, which, IMHO, means confirmation that the duty to guard king takes priority over any other assigned duty, i.e. pointing at Jon's legitimacy.

I agree with you that the duty to guard the king takes priority over any other assigned duty. I think that Barristan's comment could be used to explain the purpose (guarding the mistress) of the KG at the ToJ, at least until they learn of the deaths of Rhaegar, Aerys and (probably) Aegon. If they stay there and do not send at least one of their number to Viserys, the only explanation must be that they are already guarding the Targaryen heir who is, in all likelihood, Jon, but I do not dismiss the possibility that it might be Aegon (but Jon is also there!).

Do you think that it's significant that we're given that information by Barristan and is there another place in the story where GRRM has used the KG to guard mistresses and bastards? Or is he just fleshing out the details of their duties?

[Belandra Waters]

I don't think Jon will ever have anything to do with the Iron Throne or anything pertaining to Targaryen inheritance. The issue of legitimacy means that he's not only a legitimate Targaryen, but also legitimate in the Stark line as well.

Thanks for the reply, Dr Pepper! A few questions:

How does being "legitimate" make Jon's position in the Stark family any different, especially if nobody knows that he's legitimate?

I personally find the issue of legitimacy important to the story in terms of character development for other characters. For one, Jon's parentage tells us a lot about Ned. He's lied, committed treason, condemned his nephew to a life as a bastard, hurt his wife in the process. It makes him quite grey, more so than if he had only faltered on his vows in a moment of weakness. It offers an explanation for why he did not send out any of his children to be fostered nor arrange betrothals before the start of the books. But then there's a trickle down effect to consider. Everyone around him thinks he's perfectly honorable and honest, just a man who made a mistake one night in his life. His sons see him as that and seek to live up to and emulate the person they think Ned is. ,

I totally agree with you about the effect on Ned and his family because of his claiming Jon as his bastard son. But would he have acted differently if Rhaegar and Lyanna had not married? Would he have felt free to tell everyone the truth about Jon's parentage? I would think he would still want to keep this information from Robert, though, which would still mean that no one could know the truth about Jon...?

It gets Robb in trouble, especially when he decides to marry Jeyne Westerling. I think it's very likely that Robb would have reacted differently if he knew the secrets Ned kept.

Same question...how does Jon's legitimacy change Robb's actions?

It's also important in terms of plot development. I just tried to type out an explanation for this and realized it was a bit...nonsensical. One of those things that sounds better in your head. I'll try to flesh out my thoughts at another time.

:)

Finally, I think one of the minor reasons for understanding Jon's parentage all the way to his legitimacy is just because doing so offers the method in which GRRM subtly reveals the answers to mysteries in the series. It's one of the first mysteries introduced and it's not obvious at all unless you are 'looking' at what's happening and not listening to what characters are saying. Most other mysteries are revealed in this way so it's the method to figure this out is useful throughout the text.

I agree with you. I am quite certain that Jon is the son of Rhaegar and Lyanna but I'm just not completely sold on the polygamous marriage and that Jon is the heir who is being protected at the ToJ.

Please forgive me if I'm missing the boat here and misunderstanding the points you were trying to make.

[Mihai Brasoveanu]

Welcome to the boards, and no worries, ask any question you like.

The big thing is that they knew that Aerys was dead, and that Viserys was on Dragonstone. The fact that none of the KG felt the need to go to Viserys, the fact they felt they were doing their duty by staying with Lyanna and Jon, means from their point of view that Jon is the rightfull king.

Thanks for the welcome, this board is pretty much all we get for a couple of years :)

The only thing I don't get now is why would you protect a boy against his uncle or a woman against her brother?

[Old-Growth]

I don't think Jon will ever have anything to do with the Iron Throne or anything pertaining to Targaryen inheritance. The issue of legitimacy means that he's not only a legitimate Targaryen, but also legitimate in the Stark line as well. I personally find the issue of legitimacy important to the story in terms of character development for other characters. For one, Jon's parentage tells us a lot about Ned. He's lied, committed treason, condemned his nephew to a life as a bastard, hurt his wife in the process. It makes him quite grey, more so than if he had only faltered on his vows in a moment of weakness. It offers an explanation for why he did not send out any of his children to be fostered nor arrange betrothals before the start of the books. But then there's a trickle down effect to consider. Everyone around him thinks he's perfectly honorable and honest, just a man who made a mistake one night in his life. His sons see him as that and seek to live up to and emulate the person they think Ned is. It gets Robb in trouble, especially when he decides to marry Jeyne Westerling. I think it's very likely that Robb would have reacted differently if he knew the secrets Ned kept.

I remind you that Ned Stark lied and did the other things you mention to keep promises made to his sister just before she died. Keeping those promises comes before any commitment he has to Robert B. or to his wife, or so it doth seem to me. I do not think this makes him as grey a character as you say. He is in a moral dilemma, and I fail to see how the way he resolved that dilemma was so obviously wrong. He could not after all keep both sets of obligations, and his sister had the prior claim on him.

If Jon is true-born or is made legitimate by Robb's decree or later by Stannis or Daenerys, he would still be fifth in line for Winterfell behind his cousins. As for the Iron Throne, it will matter if Bloodraven and Bran---our two greenseers---have any thing to say about it, and I suspect the like for Dany. He may never actually sit the IT, but if so that will be because he dies fighting the War for the Dawn and never goes as far South as King's Landing.

[Ygrain]

Thanks for the welcome, this board is pretty much all we get for a couple of years :)

What I don't get is why would the KG choose who the king is. I thought there was only one Kingmaker :) Even in the dialogue, they mention their vow. And why would you protect a boy against his uncle or a woman against her brother?

There either is something more to that, or we're making it seem more.

But they do not choose. The laws for the line of succession are clear, and as long as Rhaegar did marry Lyanna, with the polygamous marriages of his ancestor as a precedent that was never oficially set aside, Jon is legit and his claim trumps that of Viserys.

[Mihai Brasoveanu]

But they do not choose. The laws for the line of succession are clear, and as long as Rhaegar did marry Lyanna, with the polygamous marriages of his ancestor as a precedent that was never oficially set aside, Jon is legit and his claim trumps that of Viserys.

Yes, sorry, I edited the previous text after I realised the actual line of succesion :)

[FrozenFire3]

The only thing I don't get now is why would you protect a boy against his uncle or a woman against her brother?

Allow me to quote two posts of mine (page 3 of this very thread):

"...the key here is secrecy. The KG couldn't let anyone know, not even Jon's honourable uncle. The less people knew about the infant heir the more likely he was going to survive. It's the very same concern that compelled Ned to hide the truth even from his wife, breaking her trust and tormenting his own conscience till the end..."

"...Moreover, they couldn't entrust the safety of Jon to Ned's discretion. And the discretion of hypothetical confidant(s), however trusted (Cat anyone?).Let's not forget it took Ned's selfless sacrifice and a promise on a deathbed to protect Jon's identity."

[Ygrain]

Yes, sorry, I edited the previous text after I realised the actual line of succesion :)

Never mind :-) And welcome on board!

As for why the KG fought Ned, FrozenFire3 says it almost all. As Rhaegar's son, Jon is in imminent danger from Robert and Lannisters, and only secrecy may keep him alive. Ned is Robert's close friend, honour-bound to reveal a threat to his newly established rule. He must not see Jon, and he must not find out that Lyanna was pregnant.

[Mihai Brasoveanu]

Allow me to quote two posts of mine (page 3 of this very thread):

"...the key here is secrecy. The KG couldn't let anyone know, not even Jon's honourable uncle. The less people knew about the infant heir the more likely he was going to survive. It's the very same concern that compelled Ned to hide the truth even from his wife, breaking her trust and tormenting his own conscience till the end..."

"...Moreover, they couldn't entrust the safety of Jon to Ned's discretion. And the discretion of hypothetical confidant(s), however trusted (Cat anyone?).Let's not forget it took Ned's selfless sacrifice and a promise on a deathbed to protect Jon's identity."

Spot on, except I think Cat was more of a danger for Jon as Ned's bastard than Lyanna's son :) But, most likely, if Robert ever knew, he'd probably kill the boy.

[Old-Growth]

Spot on, except I think Cat was more of a danger for Jon as Ned's bastard than Lyanna's son :) But, most likely, if Robert ever knew, he'd probably kill the boy.

The second sentence appears to conflict with the first.

[Twinslayer]

<snip>

If Jon is true-born or is made legitimate by Robb's decree or later by Stannis or Daenerys, he would still be fifth in line for Winterfell behind his cousins.

<snip>

This is very interesting. Do we know for sure that a legitimized bastard comes after trueborn sons in the succession?

I thought that if Jon was Ned's legitimized bastard he would come before Bran and Rickon in the line for Winterfell because he is older. But if Jon was Rhaegar and Lyanna's trueborn son (or if he is somehow legitimized as a son of Rhaegar) he would come after Bran and Rickon in the line for Winterfell. If this is right it could get interesting if Rickon shows up to claim Winterfell and then someone produces Robb's will. But if Jon comes after Bran and Rickon either way then this does not matter.

[Budj]

The confusion with where Jon fits in the Winterfell succession comes in whether or not it is publicly revealed that Jon is Rhaegar and Lyanna's child. If that's the case there is a lot of unknowns in how it plays out with the IT. Stannis' interactions/decision with the North is a big one here...I'd hope that he would take Storm's End and agree to fight with the North, but I doubt it. Jon's rank in the succession obviously comes after all of Ned's children in this scenario.

I could see the North getting excited about putting a Stark/Targ on the throne in the South as that would obviously be in their best interest and they do want revenge on the 'current' power in the throne. I just don't see the story panning out that way....

If the public never finds out Jon's true heritage and he is legitimized as Ned's true-born son then I think he goes ahead of the rest since Robb is dead? That or it doesn't change a thing. Any past references on if legitimized bastards get inserted into succession based on age/gender?

I guess the point I was trying to make is that it may hinge on how Jon's parentage is publicly accepted. Is it Ned and unknown woman or Rhaegar and Lyanna?

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

As to why, Apple, you think it "makes no sense" that Aegon could have been at the tower, I'd love to know your reasoning and to go along with you - if possible. I just can't rule this out yet

Well for one thing I'm about 98% sure that the kid was killed during the Sack, meaning he never would have left the capital at all and as such would never be at the Tower.

And in the 2% likelihood (which has more to do with playing devil's advocate and is not something I actually believe in, at all) that he did get out, it doesn't make any sense to send him to the middle of nowhere in Dorne when the capital is on the water and Essos is right across the way. We know that, "officially," they smuggled him into Essos, which for his safety would have been done ASAP. Sending him farther into the continent in the opposite direction doesn't make any sense at all.

I'd like to know what, anything, in the books suggests that Aegon ever could have been at the Tower. The only thing I see is the "Kingsguard were there" argument, which is incredibly flimsy given that we have argued repeatedly that they would have been there for Jon.

[Dolorous Nedd]

I'm sure this has been answered before, but how is it that Varys doesn't know about Jon being a Targ if he indeed is? Or does he know and is not revealing it for some reason?

[Winds of Winter blow cold]

Because he isn't all knowing & all seeing. Things were going down all over at the time.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

I'm sure this has been answered before, but how is it that Varys doesn't know about Jon being a Targ if he indeed is? Or does he know and is not revealing it for some reason?

He's not omniscient. He didn't know where Rhaegar was during the war, why would he know about Jon?