A King in Hiding: Adding It All Up

[Cheshire Rat]

I have absolutely nothing to add, I'm just not that observant, but I just wanted to say that I LOVE this thread! It's stuff like this that makes me so glad that I found this forum (which I found oddly by asking google if R+L=J).

[Winterfellian]

This is a little far fetched, but I stumbled upon this quote during a Tyrion reread:

Gods and wonders always appear to attend the birth of kings

Given Jon's current situation is very possible he will have a rebirth of sorts in the upcoming novel. If we take into account the following from the Theon gift chapter:

That Bran or BR are intervening so Theon is executed in front of a weirwood tree

Is possible that the closest things to Gods in Jon's own religion will have a hand in his rebirth or will even be present in a way thorugh the trees. Personally I always felt that the grove of weirwood tress north of the Wall still has a part to play.

Also, we already have a Giant, who is considered a wonder by many people south of the Wall, at the Wall. Not to mention other wargs.

[Fire Eater]

Ned's dream about the ToJ:

Across his white-enameled helm, the black bat of his House spread its wings.

The bat could be a metaphor for Jon. The bat emerges from the cave after the sun sets. Jon emerges from the womb after the sun has set for the Targaryens.

[Hurm]

Ned's dream about the ToJ:

Across his white-enameled helm, the black bat of his House spread its wings.

The bat could be a metaphor for Jon. The bat emerges from the cave at dusk, the darkest stage of twilight after the sun sets. Jon emerges from the womb when the sun has set for the Targaryens.

Hour of the bat?

[Florina Laufeyson]

Personally I always felt that the grove of weirwood tress north of the Wall still has a part to play.

Pot shrapnel incoming....

Perhaps Jon will be placed at that grove. That grove where he took his vows. Perhaps he will be "burned" there, only to rise again....

[Fire Eater]

In AGoT, Tyrion is reading and thinking about dragons and Aegon I Targaryen who had two wives, and finds Jon coming up to him, the son of Targaryen who had two wives.

[Evil Jay]

Technically legitimized bastards come before trueborn children. My thinking is that Robb would have thought, when he wrote the will, that Bran and Rickon were dead. So why bother including them? Rickon is also a small child while Jon is an adult with leadership and warfare experience.

This is incorrect. Legitized bastards by custom and law come after all trueborn children. We don't have perfect clarity on how Robb's will is worded. I think this will prove interesting with Davos seeking Rickon...

On the note of the original post, I find it very interesting. I think you may be on to something there, as I personally lean towards Jon being a Targ.

[Fetch me a block]

If Robb explicitly named Jon his heir, then Jon is his heir.

Not if he's a Targaryen (which I sincerely hope he isn't)

[The guy from the Vale]

Why? Even if he's almost certainly a Targaryen, Jon is just as much a Stark, even more so in his self-identification. If legitimate, he's in line to inherit Winterfell at some point anyway, no matter that his father was a Targaryen.

And if Robb legitimized Jon and named him heir, Jon is Robb's heir as long as his bannerman accept him as such, which seems to be pretty much the case.

[David Selig]

And if Robb legitimized Jon and named him heir, Jon is Robb's heir as long as his bannerman accept him as such, which seems to be pretty much the case.

Really? Why then in the year or so since Robb died none of them has come to the Wall to seek Jon out?

[Budj]

That's like asking why the KG at the ToJ didn't ride into KL with Jon held above their heads proclaiming him King.

It would have been the death of whatever regency they were trying to install in the North. Timing needed to be right.

[The guy from the Vale]

Really? Why then in the year or so since Robb died none of them has come to the Wall to seek Jon out?

Alys Karstark? The Mountain Clan leaders? Lyanna Mormont's "one King in the North, whose name is STARK!"? A number of bells ringing right now?

Also, what Budj said.

[Winterfellian]

Really? Why then in the year or so since Robb died none of them has come to the Wall to seek Jon out?

The fact that the will hasn't gone public and still somewhere in the Neck is a good reason don't you think so? Besides the northern conspiracy theory offers great evidence in this regard as pointed above by theguyfromthevale

[Greenfyre]

Why? Even if he's almost certainly a Targaryen, Jon is just as much a Stark, even more so in his self-identification. If legitimate, he's in line to inherit Winterfell at some point anyway, no matter that his father was a Targaryen.

Well, that would certainly defy all Westerosian tradition, which is based on male inheritance.

If Jon is descended through Lyanna (which I certainly believe is the case, although Rhaegar is not his father), Ned's male children Bran and Rickon would unquestionably inherit before him.

Now, if Robb named him heir, things get a bit murkier... but Robb would only have done so under the premise that Jon was his half-brother. Which, if Lyanna were Jon's mother, would be false; Jon would only be his cousin. Dicey situations like this are what English civil wars were all about.

The idea that the North's aristocracy are secretly lined up behind Jon as liege lord, ready to serve when the time is right, is ludicrous, though. To whatever extent they're familiar with Jon, they're also familiar with the fact that he is a sworn brother of the Night's Watch.

As far as all the northern nobles would know, the odds of Jon being released from that vow are zero. I doubt a single person reading this can name a single precedent, going back eight thousand years, in which a Lord Commander of the Watch was released from his vow to serve at the Wall for any reason.

[Cinder Stark]

He wouldn't be robbing his cousins/brothers of anything. Inheriting a position as a Lord and being crowned as a King are two very different things. Mormont and Jon have that exact conversation in aCoK about how the two aren't really the same. Even if Rickon was around to claim Winterfell, it'd be tantamount to suicide to allow him to do so. Rickon's only six, has no experience or education about being a Lord, and he can't lead his men in any meaningful way. He'd be Tommen all over again and it wouldn't be the Starks leading the North, it'd be the North leading the Starks. More to the point, Jon accepting the position of King in the North/King of Winter is one of the best things he can do for the sake of the realm. It puts him in place to truly rally a force to beat back the Others with and, as King, he could definitely give Rickon a Lordship somewhere. That's what the Stark kings of old did with the Greystarks and Karstarks, so it's not out of the question.

This plus King Jon could reunite the realm, his parentage could bring in the other surviving houses from the south. It's a win/win, for the Starks, realm, wildlings, for everyone really.

[Cinder Stark]

Not if he's a Targaryen (which I sincerely hope he isn't)

That wouldn't matter, Jon would still be heir if Robb named him heir. Remember cat begging Robb to name a cousin, anybody but Jon......

[The guy from the Vale]

Well, that would certainly defy all Westerosian tradition, which is based on male inheritance.

If Jon is descended through Lyanna (which I certainly believe is the case, although Rhaegar is not his father), Ned's male children Bran and Rickon would unquestionably inherit before him.

Now, if Robb named him heir, things get a bit murkier... but Robb would only have done so under the premise that Jon was his half-brother. Which, if Lyanna were Jon's mother, would be false; Jon would only be his cousin. Dicey situations like this are what English civil wars were all about.

The idea that the North's aristocracy are secretly lined up behind Jon as liege lord, ready to serve when the time is right, is ludicrous, though. To whatever extent they're familiar with Jon, they're also familiar with the fact that he is a sworn brother of the Night's Watch.

As far as all the northern nobles would know, the odds of Jon being released from that vow are zero. I doubt a single person reading this can name a single precedent, going back eight thousand years, in which a Lord Commander of the Watch was released from his vow to serve at the Wall for any reason.

But Westerosi inheritance laws are male-preference cognatic, not agnatic (with the exception of the Targaryens). Daughters inherit before brothers, and sisters inherit before uncles. It's also possible to carry a claim through a female line. Gatehouse Amy has a claim to Darry through her mother, not her father. So the Stark line of inheritance at the start of AGoT (before Robb wrote his will, assuming Jon is the legitimate son of Lyanna) would be as follows:

1. Rickard Stark

1.1 Brandon Stark

1.2 Eddard Stark

1.2.1 Robb Stark

1.2.2 Bran Stark

1.2.3 Rickon Stark

1.2.4 Sansa Stark

1.2.5 Arya Stark

1.3 Benjen Stark¹

1.4 Lyanna Stark

1.4.1 Jon Targaryen²

2. Nestor Royce

2.1 Albar Royce

2.2 Myranda Royce

¹Swore the Night's Watch Oath, so technically out of succession unless freed from his vows.

²Legitimacy unknown, swears the NW Oath over the course of AGoT.

[FittleLinger]

:agree:

This.

To add to that, if Robb named Jon as his heir, than Jon is his heir. The will (most likely) doesn't say, "I, King Robb Stark, declare Jon Snow a trueborn Stark and son of Winterfell", but "I, King Robb Stark, declare Jon Snow my royal heir should I father no children".

In the same fashion he could name his stableboy for instance. Of course, this would be an extremely ludicrious idea, it will start all sorts of succession wars, and is very stupid as a whole, but still - that's the King's word and it's legitimate law. So Jon is the heir de jure.

One could make the argument that if Jon's parentage is revealed, he will be in fact Jon Targaryen and the technicality of naming him Snow or Stark in the will could be exploited. That's generally true, but he would need the support of the bannermen to start with. He would need that whatever name he bears and however the will is worded, so it doesn't make any real difference.

[Nuncle Kraken]

That's not how succession works. You can't just arbitrarily pick some random person to succeed you, write it in your will, and then expect it to happen. The very definition of "king" intrinsically implies DIVINE RIGHT to rule (by European medieval standards). That's why bloodlines are important, why bastards are considered a "watered" down, and thus ultimately useless; because they were born of sin, and obviously God does not intend for those born out of sin to hold any sort of divine right to a throne.

The religious aspect of succession cannot be ignored. The only way to truly legitimize a successor is for the church to recognize you as such. A monarch in medieval Europe could not effectively control the state without the support and recognition of the church (in most cases, the Catholic church). Social mechanisms for control add to the stratification of the status quo and ultimately is what keeps the "common folk" in line. You see this quite a lot in ASOIF, Cersei has to make some serious concessions to get the High Septim to recognize Joffrey.

Power resides where people believe it resides. If the North views Robb's will and decide Ned's bastard is the King in the North, he'll be King in the North. The old Gods don't seem as picky as all that to me. Maybe the North decides that even a bastard Stark is better blood than a Bolton.

[indignant mushroom]

Martin is a fan of English succession wars, as we already know.

Personally I place Stark children before Jon in the line of succession, even with Robb's will.

If Sansa, Bran, or Rickon show up they are immediately placed ahead of Jon regardless because they are legitimate children of Ned and Cat Stark.

It's implied that Jon is legitimized, but since it's likely that he isn't Ned's son that is up for debate. You can't legitimize Jon if he wasn't a bastard in the first place.