Why would the Highlords of Westeros declare for Jon?

[Arya Stark Rules]

1. What if the fact that he is a bastard is the selling point to them? The Targs were accepted because they were outsiders to the major families of power. "Snow" represents someone "with no name," and therefore, also outside of the existing balance of power they might accept to rule over them. Further, it's not just nobles of old Houses a king must win in this; the smallfolk have been increasingly threatening to stop answering to all these lords playing the game at their expense. Without willing smallfolk, these lords have no power.

2. I think the point is, it wouldn't be proven. Looking at this from Jon's own character trajectory, it's highly improbable that he'd identity as a Targ once he knows R+L. He's Jon Snow, and has been dedicating himself to proving that bastards as as worthy as any trueborn son.

3. What if the NW became annexed as the Royal Army?

ETA: I hasten to add I'm not sold on Jon's becoming king, but depending on how one envisions the series to end (i.e. before or after rivals are neutralized, before or after Others defeat, is winter still the season?), there's a plausible case to be made for Jon.

1. Westeros sees bastards as evil so they will never chose a King based on him being a "bastard" westeros is still in the middle ages, your point seems like something that will be done in the renaiscance The targs were accepted because they had dragons not cause they were outsiders, the Andals were accepted cause they had stronger weapons than the first men, all these outsiders were stronger than the citizens of westeros so they used force to live in westeros, not cause they were outsiders.

If Jon is identifying as Jon Snow than it makes more sense that he will end the series with no lands or titles.

To the OP, no one will declare for him, simply because he has no claim to the IT, and his Targ lineage can't be proven unles maybe he mounts a dragon.

Him being declared as KotN is more plausible though, but then again Rickon comes before him

[KING-OF-WINTERFELL]

1) Better than him. He was stabbed to death by his own subordinates.

You mean by the inexperience watchmen who never saw a wildling their lives and think of them as savages? And tried to kill their major ally while they have a army on their side of the wall? Theirs no accounting for stupid. Jon had the rangers on his side, he made the right decision, less dead wildlings mean less wights. Bowen and those with him was stupid and cowards, they never openly challenge jon and had to stab him in the back. Like I said no accounting for stupid.

2) Those are only some of the powerful families in the Vale. There are other major families that weren't supporting allying with the Starks. In fact, House Grafton rules Gulltown, one of the major cities of Westeros and they weren't with Royce. Sansa has no power in the Vale. The vast majority was with the north, if heart only. The Royce's Waynwood, redforts, corbrays etc etc and they are the most powerful. E.g. one major house compared to the all the others that are for. She will if she is lady hardying.

3) I know. It still kind of sickens me's

Yes I agree with you on that. But that's only by modern standards, I could be wrong but genetically marrying you 'll aunt is akin to a cousin. Also a stark married his niece didn't he? (from the leaked family tree).

4) I don't know. I've seen show only watchers figuring it out.

Kind of true. I found out about R+L=J on the internet after the I watch the show and before I read the books and I didn't believe it until I watched the show (editing out ToJ sequence and emotional scene between ned and jon). But now I think those watchers your seen probably found out same as I did but just too proud to admit it, or unknowingly pick it up.

1) Nope. Edmure's probably the most caring Highlord I've seen in this book.

As I said before in a different post, caring is fine but does it make good leadership material? Tywin I feel was the most competent leader that exist, would you describe him as caring? Caring is a great characteristic for a person but for a leader well, would edmure be willing to practice triage, do what robb did sacrifice 2000 men and lose a battle to win a war. Would he send raider to rape, pillage and destroy crops in a war. Edmure is not hoster tully. you may want to rethink that one?

2) Only some of them are and it's not even that they're close cousins. They're very distant as Robb himself said. That's besides the fact that the real power is in the hands of Harry.

And sansa could one day be lady hardying, since ned stark fostering their has been an alliance between the Vale and the north that has been constantly been built upon. It was lysa that stopped them

[sj4iy]

^All of this.

[KING-OF-WINTERFELL]

^All of this.

Better long and formal than short and aggressive. You should have seen the spat me and lee had about agricultural productivity between the north and the vale

[Lee-Sensei]

1) Eh? I think he was a terrible LC.

2) Royce, Waynwood, Belmores, Templetons and redforts. The Corbrays weren't one of them. It's also important to note that Sansa says that the Valelords were angry that Lysa didn't support Robb rather than call her banners to avenge Jon Arryn. In Sansa's mind, the Robb is going to war to avenge his father and free his sisters. In Sansa's mind he Valelords (she doesn't say some, just the Valelords)... were angry that Lysa didn't support him. From her perspective, their is a very clear bias and GRRM himself has said that feelings in the Vale were mixed. The ones that wanted to ally with Robb didn't want him as King so far as we know (meaning that there's no reason for them to suport Jon as King). We don't know what are the major Houses of the Vale. Only the ones that wanted to ally with the Starks because we get things from Sansa's perspective and those are the ones that would matter to her.

3) If she's Lady Hardying and the Valelords find out about SR's death, Ned's daughter or no she's going out the Moon Door. Furthermore, even as Lady Hardying the power would be Harry's. Not hers.

4) Jon's not a good leader either. Edmure would be a great peacetime leader.

5) That's a myth. GRRM himself has said that feelings there were mixed. Robert Baratheon fostered there too and probably had more friends in the Vale than Ned anyways.

[Fire Eater]

I think it would be when R+L=J is revealed with Dany having nearly the entire south under her belt, and she is at WF trying to subdue the North. Jon is the rightful Targaryen heir, and Dany along with the Westerosi lords would be bound to follow Jon. There is also Robb's will naming Jon his heir to KitN. The Northmen would have no problem following Jon as he would name Rickon as the Lord of WF, and Jon himself was raised by Ned at WF and lived his whole life in the North and he has been developing good relations with the Northern lords since ADwD. Jon's father, Rhaegar, is still well-remembered amongst highborn and lowborn alike. Jon also has no enemies amongst the high lords, except Cersei, but she makes enemies of everyone. If the choice is between Jon and Cersei, than that wouldn't be very hard, especially since Cersei has shown to be predisposed against mercy towards lords who fought against her.

Jon would also be leading the fight against the Others, making him a national hero of legendary status, the prophesied savior of the realm.

Besides, all the great lords who had been alive during RR have been dying off. The only remaining ones are Doran Martell and Mace Tyrell. Doran will likely die when he hears of what happened to Quentyn, and Mace may likely get himself killed in battle with a trap Tyrion sets akin to the Field of Fire. The new generation of lords will replace their fathers, and with the remaining great lords with the exception of Willas, Edmure and possibly, the Reader, being children as Paper Weaver pointed out.

I think Jon could foster the children together, and make Willas, the Reader and Edmure, and likely Gerion, the heir after Tyrion's daughter, members of the small council keeping the heads of the Great Houses together under the same roof, and building friendships between all the Great Houses in the process. Willas and the Reader are both scholars, and could have their own little book club.

For now: Cersei, Tommen, Myrcella, Lancel, Martyn and Janei are before him. Do you believe that all of them will die?

We know that Cersei and her remaining children will die. Cersei hasn't forgotten about Lancel, either. She could also go the Macbeth route, and kill off Kevan's family to tie up any loose ends (in the mind of someone suffering from a paranoid delusion).

It is a theory. He seems like a nice guy from Tyrion’s memories. It is speculated that he might be the Corsair King that keeps popping out often. If so, he should be hardened and wisened during his life as an exile pirate king. We see a similar development in JonCon. I think Gerion will be the future Lord Lannister.

He should be hardened and wizened since he was a nobody in Essos, and without access to the gold of CR, having not a penny to his name, and without a ship, he had to build up from scratch to corsair king. He likely has close to eight years of naval combat experience, and one doesn't become a corsair king by being a coward or slow of sword. He led a daring raid on Tall Trees Town.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

We know that Cersei and her remaining children will die. Cersei hasn't forgotten about Lancel, either. She could also go the Macbeth route, and kill off Kevan's family to tie up any loose ends (in the mind of someone suffering from a paranoid delusion).

I just wrote down all those who come before Gerion in the line, I don’t believe that Cersei or her kids will take Crock. However I do hope Janei to be the next Lady.

[Jasta11]

3. What if the NW became annexed as the Royal Army?

All 300 of them? A fearsome host to be sure.

Really, except if game-changing situations occur, Jon doesn't have much chances. He's a bastard whose claim is dubious and very hard to prove at best, he has very little bargaining chips to offer to win Lords to his cause, has not proven to be an exceptional or ambitious leader, has already accepted that his place is at the Wall and nowhere else, would face opposition in the North itself if Rickon or Sansa show up, and let's not forget he has much bigger fish to fry than getting his ass on an ugly chair at the moment.

That, and it would be really cliche for the Hidden Young Prince to come back and claim his rightful throne in the end. His arc has not veered towards that direction at all, apart from the solid theories about his parents.

[sj4iy]

Better long and formal than short and aggressive. You should have seen the spat me and lee had about agricultural productivity between the north and the vale

I bet that was a sight to behold XD

But I've seen a lot of people who want to blame Jon's betrayal on Jon because he either didn't see it coming or he shouldn't have made the decisions he did. But I agree with you...his subordinates did something incredibly stupid and it's hard to blame Jon for having stupid subordinates who can't see past their own nose...and it wasn't as if he had a great selection of other people to choose from. They had the experience he needed but refused to help him because they couldn't think of the Wildlings as anything but 'savages'.

Robb's betrayal was directly caused by Robb's own actions...Robb could have prevented it by heeding to the vow he took and listening to his mother. But I don't see any way that Jon avoids his backstabbing (and frontstabbing) other than letting his subordinates have their way and kill a lot of Wildlings, or get rid of them and have them plot against him.

1) Eh? I think he was a terrible LC.

4) Jon's not a good leader either. Edmure would be a great peacetime leader.

How so? What were the absolutely terrible decisions he made that he shouldn't have?

[KING-OF-WINTERFELL]

1) Eh? I think he was a terrible LC.

You one of the few people on the forums that I have seen that have said that, he bought to enemies together against a common foe the others that doesn't count for something?

2) Royce, Waynwood, Belmores, Templetons and redforts. The Corbrays weren't one of them. It's also important to note that Sansa says that the Valelords were angry that Lysa didn't support Robb rather than call her banners to avenge Jon Arryn. In Sansa's mind, the Robb is going to war to avenge his father and free his sisters. In Sansa's mind he Valelords (she doesn't say some, just the Valelords)... were angry that Lysa didn't support him. From her perspective, their is a very clear bias and GRRM himself has said that feelings in the Vale were mixed. The ones that wanted to ally with Robb didn't want him as King so far as we know (meaning that there's no reason for them to suport Jon as King). We don't know what are the major Houses of the Vale. Only the ones that wanted to ally with the Starks because we get things from Sansa's perspective and those are the ones that would matter to her.

My original posting wasn't that if sansa wanted she could get the vale to support jon as king, its that it was option another option and most likely is to move on her claim to the north. as lady hardying don't you think the valelords or harry would want the north united with the vale under house hardying? She may support jon in exchange for surrendering the north if he becomes king, cause I think the northen lords would prefer a male stark raise targaryan that was declared robs heir over vale dominion or even a stark bastard.

3) If she's Lady Hardying and the Valelords find out about SR's death, Ned's daughter or no she's going out the Moon Door. Furthermore, even as Lady Hardying the power would be Harry's. Not hers.

SR is not dead yet. Whether she is lady hardying or lady arynn the power is her husbands or his regents yes, and they want the same thing the lannister and tyrells want to expand the dominion of their house eg annex the north. the vale and north had been enemies centuries before the conquest.

4) Jon's not a good leader either. Edmure would be a great peacetime leader.

5) That's a myth. GRRM himself has said that feelings there were mixed. Robert Baratheon fostered there too and probably had more friends in the Vale than Ned anyways.

Really is that why it is half neutral and half in favour for robb? where were the voices that said lets side with the lannisters and Roberts children. even the corbrays at the start of the RR sided with the targaryans. Ned was related to a bunch of high ranking houses, ned was the pure symbolism of honour, Robert was.......well... not.

[KING-OF-WINTERFELL]

I bet that was a sight to behold XD

But I've seen a lot of people who want to blame Jon's betrayal on Jon because he either didn't see it coming or he shouldn't have made the decisions he did. But I agree with you...his subordinates did something incredibly stupid and it's hard to blame Jon for having stupid subordinates who can't see past their own nose...and it wasn't as if he had a great selection of other people to choose from. They had the experience he needed but refused to help him because they couldn't think of the Wildlings as anything but 'savages'.

Robb's betrayal was directly caused by Robb's own actions...Robb could have prevented it by heeding to the vow he took and listening to his mother. But I don't see any way that Jon avoids his backstabbing (and frontstabbing) other than letting his subordinates have their way and kill a lot of Wildlings, or get rid of them and have them plot against him.

How so? What were the absolutely terrible decisions he made that he shouldn't have?

OH MY GOD :bowdown: Another voice reason, feels so good like a breeze of fresh air in a very humid day :bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown:

[Brav]

Doesn't it depend on 1) his military success in defeating the white walkers, saving the north and 2) Stannis getting a turn first on the IT and elevating him? I think revelations about his parentage will come later.

If the Boltons are defeated and Bran/Rickon installed in Winterfell, Jon would have to act as a kind of regent for them for a while.

[Lee-Sensei]

1) He also ended up getting killed by his own subordinates. I felt that book was meant to show how difficult it is to be a leader. For both Daenerys and Jon.

2) No. I don't think the Valelords are stupid enough to march North in the middle of Winter and I don't think the North would welcome an invading army, even if it was headed by Sansa. Her support is meaningless. The support of the Valelord is imporant as that's where the real power lies.

3) There's no proof that the Vale wants to annex the North. None. At. All.

4) Where did you get those numbers? Where did you get that half were in favor of Robb? Where did you get that the other half wanted to be neutral? GRRM himself has said that feelings were neutral, and even the "Robb supporters" were almost definitely more interested in "avenging Jon Arryn" than supporting a Stark kid they don't know.

5) We don't know who wanted to support the Baratheons. You know why? Because we're getting things from Sansa's position. Of course Sansa would only care about the ones that wanted to join her faction. She gave a biased account.

6) It's irrelevant that Ned was more honorable than Robert. Robert was more popular than Ned. That's a fact.

[Lee-Sensei]

1) He also ended up getting killed by his own subordinates. I felt that book was meant to show how difficult it is to be a leader. For both Daenerys and Jon.

2) No. I don't think the Valelords are stupid enough to march North in the middle of Winter and I don't think the North would welcome an invading army, even if it was headed by Sansa. Her support is meaningless. The support of the Valelord is imporant as that's where the real power lies.

3) There's no proof that the Vale wants to annex the North. None. At. All.

4) Where did you get those numbers? Where did you get that half were in favor of Robb? Where did you get that the other half wanted to be neutral? GRRM himself has said that feelings were neutral, and even the "Robb supporters" were almost definitely more interested in "avenging Jon Arryn" than supporting a Stark kid they don't know.

5) We don't know who wanted to support the Baratheons. You know why? Because we're getting things from Sansa's position. Of course Sansa would only care about the ones that wanted to join her faction. She gave a biased account.

6) It's irrelevant that Ned was more honorable than Robert. Robert was more popular than Ned. That's a fact.

[sj4iy]

1) He also ended up getting killed by his own subordinates. I felt that book was meant to show how difficult it is to be a leader. For both Daenerys and Jon.

Assassination is not an indicator of whether the leader is good or bad. Many good leaders have been assassinated by people who were crazy or afraid of the changes that the leader is making. By your logic, Martin Luther King, Jr. was a terrible leader because he was assassinated.

Jon was assassinated by men who didn't have the sense to understand that the Wildlings were not the real threat. If Jon is a bad leader, what are some of the terrible decisions he made that would make him a bad leader?

[Brav]

On a side issue: Dany and Jon won't come into conflict. She will have Tyrion with her and he and Jon got on well in the first book.

[KING-OF-WINTERFELL]

1) He also ended up getting killed by his own subordinates. I felt that book was meant to show how difficult it is to be a leader. For both Daenerys and Jon.

Yes, it showed jon was successful and deanerys wasn't, but they both got nothing for it (at least in this book)

2) No. I don't think the Valelords are stupid enough to march North in the middle of Winter and I don't think the North would welcome an invading army, even if it was headed by Sansa. Her support is meaningless. The support of the Valelord is imporant as that's where the real power lies.

The support depends on their interests, if harry or Robert feel its in its interests all they have to do is convince the lords to do this, offer land of those who support jon over sansa for cadet branches. Yes they are capeable of wanting to do it, for example why would nestor Royce support bealish over his own family? for a permanent lordship. self interest or course. the vale is not above others its just perceived that way. the norman to danes in our world to the andals and targaryans their its all about land and power and no one is above it.

3) There's no proof that the Vale wants to annex the North. None. At. All.

See above

4) Where did you get those numbers? Where did you get that half were in favor of Robb? Where did you get that the other half wanted to be neutral? GRRM himself has said that feelings were neutral, and even the "Robb supporters" were almost definitely more interested in "avenging Jon Arryn" than supporting a Stark kid they don't know. I specifically got the impression that if the most powerful valelords were for robb and that the vale was split .

5) We don't know who wanted to support the Baratheons. You know why? Because we're getting things from Sansa's position. Of course Sansa would only care about the ones that wanted to join her faction. She gave a biased account. Don't think if there were pro-IT tywin would have mentioned them or any other POV. or that tywin wouldn't have to rely on bealish to secure the vale. read between the lines

6) It's irrelevant that Ned was more honorable than Robert. Robert was more popular than Ned. That's a fact.

In all the Kingdoms, but the vale only? and popularity and respect are two different things. Robert may be liked by the small folk. But the nobility? the impression I got was he use to be something and now his nothing, but its better than nothing and chaos.

[KING-OF-WINTERFELL]

Assassination is not an indicator of whether the leader is good or bad. Many good leaders have been assassinated by people who were crazy or afraid of the changes that the leader is making. By your logic, Martin Luther King, Jr. was a terrible leader because he was assassinated.

Jon was assassinated by men who didn't have the sense to understand that the Wildlings were not the real threat. If Jon is a bad leader, what are some of the terrible decisions he made that would make him a bad leader?

:agree: :agree:

[little grin]

Can i add that jon never will be the rightful targ heir its ageon. I also think jon on the IF would make a bad ennding.

[butterbumps!]

1. Westeros sees bastards as evil so they will never chose a King based on him being a "bastard" westeros is still in the middle ages, your point seems like something that will be done in the renaiscance The targs were accepted because they had dragons not cause they were outsiders, the Andals were accepted cause they had stronger weapons than the first men, all these outsiders were stronger than the citizens of westeros so they used force to live in westeros, not cause they were outsiders.

If Jon is identifying as Jon Snow than it makes more sense that he will end the series with no lands or titles.

1. The fact that Jon is a bastard was as much a selling point during the NW elections as was his training. As further points:

• The "norms" have already changed quite a bit

The story is set in a moment of political crisis

It's not as though bastards haven't been seriously considered to take the throne in the past; it was force, rather than ideological issues that got in the way

Consider the literary symmetry of opening the story with the bastard everyone thought was legit sitting the throne (Joff) and ending with the trueborn everyone thinks is a bastard.

2. I'm not hellbent on Jon becoming king. But there's enough social upheaval that's been going on such that having a bastard in power at the end is not ludicrous.

All 300 of them? A fearsome host to be sure.

Really, except if game-changing situations occur, Jon doesn't have much chances. He's a bastard whose claim is dubious and very hard to prove at best, he has very little bargaining chips to offer to win Lords to his cause, has not proven to be an exceptional or ambitious leader, has already accepted that his place is at the Wall and nowhere else, would face opposition in the North itself if Rickon or Sansa show up, and let's not forget he has much bigger fish to fry than getting his ass on an ugly chair at the moment.

That, and it would be really cliche for the Hidden Young Prince to come back and claim his rightful throne in the end. His arc has not veered towards that direction at all, apart from the solid theories about his parents.

I fear you may have mistaken me. I meant that the Watch becomes part of the Royal Army. As in, no longer an independent unit able to be trampled by other organizations, but a task unit within the Royal forces. I don't necessarily think it will happen or that this is beneficial, only that it would be a situation where it would become an extension of the IT.

Also, Westeros has also changed considerably. What king after Aerys has been in power due to appropriate birth? No one's been choosing kings according to expected succession order. People follow leaders whose interests reflect their own. Whoever sits the throne probably won't be chosen due to birth, but some other quality they can offer. I really don't understand why it's such a hard sell on here. If people actually cared about proper birth, Stannis would be sitting the throne, and no one would have supported Renly.