A little question about succession

[LordQorgyle]

It is not assumption according to the books we can't say that Sansa was desinherited, that is no assumption, is the truth, not to mention that since Robb lost the war and the North and there is no king in the North that probably makes his testament invalid.

[Slaver's Dread]

Jon would always be last in line under normal circumstances of him having his status as a bastard lifted. Robb's plan is to declare him his heir which would jump him ahead of his sisters in the line of succession. There is no mention of Bran and Rickon because the world believes them dead. With Robb's will Jon would legally inherit Winterfell ahead of the other Stark claimants, without it he would still have to get to the back of the line unless he won Winterfell back by conquest. Regardless of what Stannis says The North Remembers.

The only ways he could rule the realm would be:

1. Marry the ruling queen.

2. Win the throne by conquest

3. Become the heir to a Targ conqueror if his paternity is discovered.

Jon will always be a bastard if he went by his Targaryen blood. There is no one alive that witnessed a wedding between Rhaegar and Lyanna if it took place.

On a side note, Dany will always have a claim to the Iron Throne. The only reason Robert was king is because he was Aerys' cousin. The entirety of Westeros already believed that Baratheons were just dark haired Targaryens since the conquest. The expression"king's blood" has run all through the books I think it's fair to infer from that. Also, they don't call it the war of liberation, it's still Robert's Rebellion almost 20 years later. In closing, the Targaryens can never lose their blood rite to the throne because that same Targaryen blood is the reason why some characters want the throne now. It's all moot anyway while a bastard sits the Iron Throne.

Almost as bad as a godless man sitting the Seastone Chair. *wink wink nod nod*

[SayGen]

Blood and 'right' isn't enough

no legal mumbo jumbo stopped Robert B from taking the throne.

Thrones are won, not entitled.

[bb1180]

If he's legitimized by Stannis, then he has all the same rights of inheritance as a son of Eddard Stark would normally have. Being the oldest living Stark sibling, yes, he would inherit ahead of the others. Of course, this is predicated upon his bannermen also recognizing the authority of Stannis as their king.

As far as the Targaryen part of the equation goes, 'legitimization' of a bastard is not a generalized thing. It applies to a specific set of circumstances. If Stannis decrees that Jon is a legitimate son of Ned Stark, it says nothing of his Targaryen heritage. As for Aegon and Dany, any trueborn sons of Rhaegar would be higher in the line of succession (or rather, have better claims, now that the Targs have been deposed) as sons of the heir to Aerys. So if R+L=J, and there was a marriage as well, then Aegon and Jon would come before Dany. But if Jon is a Targaryen bastard, he could potentially claim the throne, but is not actually in the line of succession. Any of that make sense?

The strange thing is that we could potentially end up with a bizarre scenario where Stannis legitimizes Jon with approval of the bannermen, PLUS we also find out that he's a trueborn Targaryen. Very small chance of that happening, I would think, because its too odd. Then again, if you wanted to go total crackpot, one could argue that Jon could be the 'Child of Three' mentioned in the HotU, since legally, he would have a true father (Rhaegar), a legal father through legitimization (Ned) and a mother (Lyanna). You might even be able to come up with an equally crackpot manner in which he fulfills the idea of a dragon with three heads out of it. Not that I believe ANY of it, just that if both situations were to occur, it opens up some bizarre implications and crackpot possibilities.

[Gerg Sknab]

It is not assumption according to the books we can't say that Sansa was desinherited, that is no assumption, is the truth, not to mention that since Robb lost the war and the North and there is no king in the North that probably makes his testament invalid.

You have your read, I have mine, leave it at that.

[LordQorgyle]

If he's legitimized by Stannis, then he has all the same rights of inheritance as a son of Eddard Stark would normally have. Being the oldest living Stark sibling, yes, he would inherit ahead of the others. Of course, this is predicated upon his bannermen also recognizing the authority of Stannis as their king.

As far as the Targaryen part of the equation goes, 'legitimization' of a bastard is not a generalized thing. It applies to a specific set of circumstances. If Stannis decrees that Jon is a legitimate son of Ned Stark, it says nothing of his Targaryen heritage. As for Aegon and Dany, any trueborn sons of Rhaegar would be higher in the line of succession (or rather, have better claims, now that the Targs have been deposed) as sons of the heir to Aerys. So if R+L=J, and there was a marriage as well, then Aegon and Jon would come before Dany. But if Jon is a Targaryen bastard, he could potentially claim the throne, but is not actually in the line of succession. Any of that make sense?

The strange thing is that we could potentially end up with a bizarre scenario where Stannis legitimizes Jon with approval of the bannermen, PLUS we also find out that he's a trueborn Targaryen. Very small chance of that happening, I would think, because its too odd. Then again, if you wanted to go total crackpot, one could argue that Jon could be the 'Child of Three' mentioned in the HotU, since legally, he would have a true father (Rhaegar), a legal father through legitimization (Ned) and a mother (Lyanna). You might even be able to come up with an equally crackpot manner in which he fulfills the idea of a dragon with three heads out of it. Not that I believe ANY of it, just that if both situations were to occur, it opens up some bizarre implications and crackpot possibilities.

Roose Bolton says that a legitimate son of himself and Fat Walda would come before Ramsay in the line of sucession, that's why Ramsay would kill him, so why would Jon come before Bran and Rickon?

[Slaver's Dread]

Blood and 'right' isn't enough

no legal mumbo jumbo stopped Robert B from taking the throne.

Thrones are won, not entitled.

Are we reading the same books?

Thrones are won AND entitled. Aegon and his sisters built a throne and bequeathed it to their descendants, then 100+ years later a younger half-brother became involved in a conspiracy to usurp his half-sister's throne. The realm bled and after the false king died the throne went back to who it was supposed to go to from the beginning, Raenyra's eldest surviving son. Then there was this whole Blackfyre thing that never ended well for house Blackfyre. No matter how many times they tried to take the realm by conquest the people who inherited the throne smashed their armies one by one. Now, we all know how Robert's Rebellion went, but remember, there is a reason Robert wants Dany dead in GoT. As long as any true born Targaryen claimant remains alive his throne will always be imperiled should those self same Targaryens decide to cross the Narrow Sea to slay the usurper/kinslayer Robert Baratheon who killed his cousin brave Rhaegar, the Prince of Dragonstone, heir to the Iron Throne.

See what I did there? That's what Robert was most afraid of. All the men who still called him usurper behind his back. Don't get me wrong, any Targ that wants the throne will have to fight for it, but it's not like no one in Westeros will fight for a Targ cause when they see the Dragon banners unfurl.

[bb1180]

Roose Bolton says that a legitimate son of himself and Fat Walda would come before Ramsay in the line of sucession, that's why Ramsay would kill him, so why would Jon come before Bran and Rickon?

That may be, I can't remember. Could you post the chapter where that appears so I can read it over and see context of it?

My recollection is that Ramsay was paranoid about it (what is he not paranoid about) and that Ramsay would kill him out of paranoid delusional fear that a Roose/Fat Walda son would inherit, not that he actually would.

I would expect a legitimized child to have the same rights as a trueborn child, otherwise, there's no real point in legitimization.

[LordQorgyle]

I don't have the books with me but is in the chapter Roose talks with Theon about Ramsay in ADWD i think

[WhiteOwl18]

We know that Jon Snow is older than Sansa, Brandon, Arya and Rickon Stark. So if lets say King Stannis decide to make him a Stark, would he be entitled to the Lord of Winterfell title ahead of them?

Also lets say R+L = J then Stannis would be legalizing a Targeryan rather than a Stark. Would Jon Targeryan have more right to the iron throne than Danny and Aegon?

As for him as a Stark, I'm actually not sure. Do legitimized bastards fall at the end of the line, or is it the age that matters? In the first case, then Jon would be the last in line. In the second case, he would come before anyone else.

As a Targaryen, Jon doesn't need to be legitimized. He's already legitimate. Whether he can (or would want) to prove it is a different matter. If Aegon is real (and I really doubt that he is), then Jon would come after him. If he's not real, then Jon is first in line. Either way, he comes before Dany.

[Slaver's Dread]

As for him as a Stark, I'm actually not sure. Do legitimized bastards fall at the end of the line, or is it the age that matters? In the first case, then Jon would be the last in line. In the second case, he would come before anyone else.

As a Targaryen, Jon doesn't need to be legitimized. He's already legitimate. Whether he can (or would want) to prove it is a different matter. If Aegon is real (and I really doubt that he is), then Jon would come after him. If he's not real, then Jon is first in line. Either way, he comes before Dany.

The only way Jon can come before Dany would be if Aegon won the throne and made Jon his heir. There is no one alive that witnessed a marriage between Lyanna and Rhaegar, so if his paternity got out he would still be bastard born, thus not even in the line of succession.

[Ferocious Veldt Roarer]

“My lord has a new wife to give him sons.”

“And won’t my bastard love that? Lady Walda is a Frey, and she has a fertile feel to her. I have become oddly fond of my fat little wife. The two before her never made a sound in bed, but this one squeals and shudders. I find that quite endearing. If she pops out sons the way she pops in tarts, the Dreadfort will soon be overrun with Boltons. Ramsay will kill them all, of course. That’s for the best. I will not live long enough to see new sons to manhood, and boy lords are the bane of any House. Walda will grieve to see them die, though.”

It might be interpreted as "trueborn do come before legitimized bastards", and it might be interpreted as "it isn't clear, and Ramsay will kill them just because better safe than sorry".

[Ferocious Veldt Roarer]

The only way Jon can come before Dany would be if Aegon won the throne and made Jon his heir. There is no one alive that witnessed a marriage between Lyanna and Rhaegar, so if his paternity got out he would still be bastard born, thus not even in the line of succession.

Wow, that's a bold statement. Are you completely sure about that?

[devilish]

Yes and no, legally he does come before Rickon and Arya but the ultimate question is; who will support him over these three?

Jon Targaryen won't have more rights over Aegon because Aegon's older than him. Besides the Targaryens have no claim, both Dany and YG are taking back the throne through conquest because they lost their legal right in Robert's Rebellion. Also as far as Dany's concerned Stannis is a usurper so why would she recognise his right to legitimise bastards?

He won't though.

Well why not? Jon Stark is as much of Eddard's son as the rest. He's also a seasoned fighter, who kept the free folk at bay and has their respect. That could easily be translated in an army boost at a time when the North lack fighting bodies. He's also at the right age to marry. Danny Targaryen, Arianne Martell, Shireen Baratheon or even Margaery Tyrell (half sister Arya can make sure that Margaery hits the treble) would all prove great match ups to Jon Stark. If I am a Stark bannerman I'd certainly prefer him to a crippled boy, a whinging girl or a little boy.

The True North (Free folk, the North and the nights watch) aren't just a remarkable force but would also bring something new to Westeros warfare which may well act as an advantage for them. Mammoths, Giants and Wargs may not be dragons but they'll certainly add novelty to war which would play in the North's advantage. No Knight can withstand a Mammoth charge while Wargs would be able to infiltrate anywhere (through birds, dogs etc) or unseat a nobleman at war. The latter might as well prove the only way to counter Dany's dragons.

If the Starks are able to work together than they may well end up building the independent Kingdom Robb dreamt about. Sansa could bring the Vale, Jon the North and the free folk, Bran the children of the forest and their powerful magic, Arya can kill anybody once she mastered the faceless men tricks and Rickon can bring the Manderly's and the Skaggs. With so much confusion going on (Tywin's death, Cersei and Margaery trials etc) the True North would find little opposition to win the North over and reach the riverlands were they can rescue Edmure. After that they would be back into business.

[devilish]

Roose Bolton says that a legitimate son of himself and Fat Walda would come before Ramsay in the line of sucession, that's why Ramsay would kill him, so why would Jon come before Bran and Rickon?

Could it be the case that Roose has the final say whom to be next in line of succession? Lets face it, Roose would have no interest to put Ramsey Bolton as his heir especially since the latter might as well killed his own brother

[bb1180]

It might be interpreted as "trueborn do come before legitimized bastards", and it might be interpreted as "it isn't clear, and Ramsay will kill them just because better safe than sorry".

Yep. I just read over that passage myself, in Reek's 3rd ADWD chapter, chapter 32 overall.

I'm not going to rule out that legitimized bastards may head to the back of the line, but my impression remains the latter. Roose believes Ramsay will kill them all out of paranoia that Roose might one day favor his trueborn sons and find some way to pull the rug out from under Ramsay's legitimization. I don't think it implies that legitimized bastards head to the back of the line.

[bb1180]

Wow, that's a bold statement. Are you completely sure about that?

There might even be a way around it, even if it is true. A document bearing the seals of those involved attesting to the marriage would seemingly solve that problem. Who might have something like that? Howland Reed.

I'm not saying he does, but rather that its an example of how it may not be necessary to have living witnesses.

[Slaver's Dread]

There might even be a way around it, even if it is true. A document bearing the seals of those involved attesting to the marriage would seemingly solve that problem. Who might have something like that? Howland Reed.

I'm not saying he does, but rather that its an example of how it may not be necessary to have living witnesses.

That is something I missed. Which starts me off on a whole tangent about if Dance 2.0 will mirror the original....

Edit- Then again, Jon said the words. IMO it would be OOC for him to want to take the throne with other claimants around. I mean, it's not like he had an example of someone who let the rites of succession pass over them because they had sworn vows or something like that...

[Nittanian]

Could it be the case that Roose has the final say whom to be next in line of succession? Lets face it, Roose would have no interest to put Ramsey Bolton as his heir especially since the latter might as well killed his own brother

It's possible plausible. From So Spake Martin:

A man's eldest son was his heir. After that the next eldest son. Then the next, etc. Daughters were not considered while there was a living son, except in Dorne, where females had equal right of inheritance according to age.

After the sons, most would say that the eldest daughter is next in line. But there might be an argument from the dead man's brothers, say. Does a male sibling or a female child take precedence? Each side has a "claim."

What if there are no childen, only grandchildren and great grandchildren. Is precedence or proximity the more important principle? Do bastards have any rights? What about bastards who have been legitimized, do they go in at the end after the trueborn kids, or according to birth order? What about widows? And what about the will of the deceased? Can a lord disinherit one son, and name a younger son as heir? Or even a bastard?

There are no clear cut answers, either in Westeros or in real medieval history. Things were often decided on a case by case basis. A case might set a precedent for later cases... but as often as not, the precedents conflicted as much as the claims.

[WhiteOwl18]

The only way Jon can come before Dany would be if Aegon won the throne and made Jon his heir. There is no one alive that witnessed a marriage between Lyanna and Rhaegar, so if his paternity got out he would still be bastard born, thus not even in the line of succession.

Which is why I said IF he can prove who he is. And if GRRM wants it to be proved, he'll find a way to do it. And IF that happens, he'll come ahead of Dany.