**ADWD Spoilers** Assuming R+L=J, Jon did not renounce the Iron Throne by taking the Black.

[Caspoi]

Daen Targaryen@ There is nothing saying that there is a prophesy stating "there must be another" (or that your interpretation is correct) but that this was merely something Rhaegar states as he try to complete the "Trinity" (Three heads of the dragon).

[The Mother of The Others]

oh, if he springs himself from nightswatch duty on a technicality it won't be very chill. His nickname would then be something like: Jon "What a guy!" Snow. It wouldn't garner respect, similar to how the lawyer-ish methods of Littlefinger only piss people off. So yes Jon might have the option to sneak out of his vows by claiming death, but at the same time he won't because he's Jon. He won't leave the rest of the guys in the lurch like that. Responsibility still weighs on him and keeps him from skipping town. Cuz that's a dick move and he's not 100% a dick. So the only way this technicality would come into play is if the rest of the men sieze upon it as a way to PUSH him out of the watch, like at a family reunion when you fight with your family over who's going to pick up the check at the restaurant. "No guys, I'm one of you first and foremost, I need to stay." --> "No, Jon, you need to be king, because that's where you can serve us best by sending more dudes and better dudes to join the watch. You'll always be one of us, but you can't do it here anymore." That kind of thing reads a lot better than Jon using it as a get out of jail card to do whatever he wants vs. Ramsay, because then he's really just sneaking like a sneak.

[King Viserys Targaryen IV]

Does it really matter?

Jon will get Robb's will and it will release him from the Night's Watch, and after being "fired" as Lord Commander Jon will probably be ok with accepting Robb's wishes.

[Crippledtank]

It's noted in TWOIAF that the kings guard vows are heavily based of the NW vows.

Now everyone favourite human and gracious king Joffrey has set a precedent (and stannis tried to use this) that people can be released from these vows (at this stage only KG have been released)

So while Jon has essentially revoked any right for a crown (same as aemon) he is still fair game IMO.

Once Jon learns of robs will (and he will) I think Jon will release himself once the other theat is dealt with. As far as law goes Jon is the king in the north and the 7k (assuming R+L=J)

So the question is what would happen if say Robert baratheon got drunk one day and swore himself into the KG? Really that's what we're looking at, basically the referee that has no superior except honor, pride and all that, has stripped away his power but at the same time holds it all?.

Now for Jon to release himself would be a political nightmare and potentially destroy the nw future so maybe that's where dany comes in.

Is Jon king atm? NO

Does he have a claim? Yes

Will/should he revoke his vows for a crown? If he needs to

[Crippledtank]

Also it could be as simple as

Jon snow took the black

Jon targaryen didn't

[RumHam]

Relevant SSM:

Tigers14: another question, can NW vows be annulled if a person had no idea who he really was when he took them?

GeoRR: who had no idea who he was?

Tigers14: jon

GeoRR: Jon knows who he is. He may not know who his mother is, but that's not the same thing. There are plenty of orphans and bastards in the Watch who don't know who their parents are.

Tigers14: yes. but if jon is the legitimate son of rhaegar and lyanna , he is the king of westeros.

GeoRR: well, you know I am not going to get into any of that

GeoRR: I think I've said enough for tonight.

http://www.westeros.org/Citadel/SSM/Entry/Minisa_Tully_and_Sansa/

[King Viserys Targaryen IV]

Relevant SSM:

http://www.westeros.org/Citadel/SSM/Entry/Minisa_Tully_and_Sansa/

LOL

GRRM basically said "Holy shit.. they are on to me! I am out of here!"

[cgf]

If R+L=J...Jon is still a bastard or, at best, the result of a polygamist marriage if we assume that Rhaegar's kidnapping was actually just him following the wildling tradition.

So he has no claim to the thrown regardless of his vows other than the right of conquest.

[Laughing Storm Reborn]

The person asking on that SSM had no idea when to stop... not only that he/she says if R+L=J is true (even legitimate), Jon is the King of Westeros...

I guess Martin should erase the story back to the Trident, and restart from there...

[Julia H.]

The OP's question can be debated from a purely theoretical viewpoint, but I doubt that anyone in Westeros will look at it that way, least of all Jon. If he becomes king, it will be because he is convinced that it's necessary in order to fulfil the most important part of his vow: the protection of the realm. As Jaime says, vows can be conflicting, but I'm sure Jon will know his priorities.

His father would never have approved. I am the sword that guards the realm of men, Jon reminded himself, and in the end, that must be worth more than one man's honor. (ADwD)

He will leave the NW and break the rest of his vows if he must, but then he won't deny the facts. He will not look for excuses to get out of the NW. Even back in AGoT:

Jon was done with denials. He was who he was; Jon Snow, bastard and oathbreaker, motherless, friendless, and damned.

He will not break his vows to seek a crown, but he may have to choose between different parts of his vows. He has vowed to protect the realm, and that must be worth more than simply staying on the Wall or sticking with the NW, that must be worth more than one man's honour.

The people of the realm: If enough people think that they need Jon as their king, the vow will be overlooked (although his enemies will remember it forever).

But it is also possible that Jon will be king, the "true king" insofar as he will do all the duties of a king in an emergency situation, and he will protect the realm, and the people will accept him as their leader, but he will not formally wear a crown or call himself a king.

Speaking of technicalities though, I find it interesting that while the vow says "I shall wear no crowns", the symbol of ultimate power in Westeros is currently not a crown but a throne. The king is whoever sits the IT. Of course, the IT only started with the Targaryens, and the vow is much older.

[King Viserys Targaryen IV]

If R+L=J...Jon is still a bastard or, at best, the result of a polygamist marriage if we assume that Rhaegar's kidnapping was actually just him following the wildling tradition.

So he has no claim to the thrown regardless of his vows other than the right of conquest.

It has nothing to do with Wildlings,, they could have been easily married before the Old Gods in front of a Weir tree

[autarkh]

Some responses (I'll respond to the newer posts later):

Laughing Storm Reborn made the point that the Targaryan dynasty's right to rulership was superseded by Robert's rebellion and by the other houses subsequently swearing fealty to the Baratheon dynasty. I think this is correct. But it just changes the strength of Jon's claim against other potential claimants, such as Shireen; it does not affect whether he relinquished whatever claim he has by virtue of being Rhaegar's son (and in light of whether or not Rhaegar secretly married Lyanna).

Also, I would agree with Caspoi that Jon is not King even if he is Rhaegar's legitimate son. To be King you must be coronated, and there's no dispute that Jon hasn't been. I respond to Caspoi’s other point below.

At the outset, I was focused on a fairly narrow question: whether Jon's claim to the Iron Throne survived his taking the Black.

I was not addressing the practical issues of whether Jon: (1) actually wants to rule; (2) can conclusively establish his identity (I just assumed this for purposes of the discussion); (3) would command sufficient loyalty from his vassals if he could establish himself and did want to rule; or (4) could militarily overpower any other claimants. Likewise, I wasn’t opining on whether I personally think that Jon should claim the Iron Throne (although the Seven Kingdoms could certainly do a lot worse) or GRRM would invoke my legal theory to seat him there without breaking his vows.

It’s worth clarifying again that there are at least two separate questions here:

First, does the language “I shall wear no crowns” evidence an objective intent to relinquish a pre-existing but unknown claim to the Iron Throne? As noted, I think it probably does, and assume that it does the sake of the discussion. A non-trivial counter-argument exists, though.

Second, and more importantly, do Ned’s lies about Jon’s parentage (which Benjen may have been aware of) render Jon’s consent to take the Black defective, thereby releasing Jon from his vows if he so choses?

Adam de Felden’s objection touches on the key point I was trying to get at. I agree that the legitimacy of Jon’s claim—in the sense Adam de Felden defined it—is what’s at issue. In fact, I would go further than that. If Jon’s vow: (1) encompasses an unknown and unknowable claim to the Iron Throne existing at the time Jon took the vow, and (2) is not invalidated by the fact that the vow was induced by fraudulent representations and omissions by Ned and (possibly) Benjen, Jon has completely relinquished his claim. The vow would preclude him from assuming the Iron Throne except by force.

On the other hand, if the lies defeat Jon's consent to take the Black, then it appears that Jon's vows are voidable at his option. Thus, if Jon elects to annul the vow, he could not have relinquished any claim he may have to the Iron Throne. (Once again, I’m not addressing the various practical issues listed above).

=====

Finally, The Twinslayer, contends that the Black is not a contract but an oath, based on the fact that breaking the oath through desertion subjects the oathbreaker to the death penalty (the most severe criminal sanction), whereas criminal sanctions are not ordinarily available for mere breaches of contract.

This argument assumes that an oath cannot also be, or comprise part of, a contract. It also assumes that criminal sanctions cannot be imposed for breaches of a contract by external laws regulating the making or performance of the contract; or alternatively, by subjecting the contracting party to the jurisdiction of an entity with the authority to impose such sanctions. Both assumptions are unwarranted and mistaken. The Twinslayer's argument also seems to forget that the Night’s Watch is a quasi-governmental military order. It exists with authority from the Iron Throne—even if it is not directly controlled by the King. Thus, we're not dealing with a purely private contract here.

By way of example, when recruits enlist in the U.S. armed forces, they are required to sign an enlistment contract and take an oath, which together subject them to a separate body of law—the Uniform Code of Military Justice (“UCMJ”). Violations of the obligations created by the enlistment contract (for example, committing to serve for a specified number of years but then deserting) can also entail violations of the oath (e.g., abandoning one’s post in violation of an order from a commanding officer). To this very day, desertion from the U.S. armed forces in times of war is subject to the death penalty under the UCMJ.

So, if the death penalty can be imposed for conduct that independently constitutes a breach of contract and/or oath even in our enlightened times, then there’s nothing particularly strange, in a feudal world, about a standing royal decree or custom that deserters from the Watch are to be executed. Moreover, here, the vow itself specifies the recruit’s temporal commitment (“until my death … for all the nights to come”) and subordinates him to the authority of the Night’s Watch (“I shall live and die at my post ... I pledge my life and honor to the Night's Watch”). There’s no question that these represent contractual obligations of the recruit, since they are recognized as legal duties. See Restament (Second) of Contracts §1, titled “Contract Defined,” (“A contract is a promise or a set of promises for the breach of which the law gives a remedy, or the performance of which the law in some way recognizes as a duty.”).

[lancerman]

Assuming the conflict with the Others comes to a definitive conclusion, it's highly doubtful that there will even be a Night's Watch. There entire purpose for existence would have ended.

[autarkh]

Also it could be as simple as

Jon snow took the black

Jon targaryen didn't

This is my basic point, put differently. Jon took the Black based on a mistaken belief, induced by fraud, that his identity is other than what it actually is. Thus, he may not be bound by the vow. It's not a technicality. He never gave his fully-informed consent.

[The Tower of Almond Joy]

According to Emergency Awesome, in his video on Maester Aemon, he said that Aemon was asked to become king after he was already a member of the NW but he refused. So I guess it is possible to leave. But his case was different than Jons.

[autarkh]

Relevant SSM:

http://www.westeros.org/Citadel/SSM/Entry/Minisa_Tully_and_Sansa/

This is an interesting exchange, and highlights a key distinction:

Jon not knowing who his mother is would not—by itself—invalidate his vow because, as GRRM points out, Jon knows that he doesn’t know his maternal lineage, and accepts that fact when he takes the Black. Thus, arguably, Jon bears the risk of that mistake. See Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 154 b. (“A party bears the risk of a mistake when … he is aware, at the time the contract is made, that he has only limited knowledge with respect to the facts to which the mistake relates but treats his limited knowledge as sufficient) (Emphasis added.).

On the other hand, Jon is quite certain that Ned is his father. Not only has Ned has said it explicitly; he has actively concealed or failed to share information with Jon that would contradict those false statements—even when Jon has directly asked questions about his mother. Truthful, non-evasive answers to these questions would probably have revealed that Ned wasn’t Jon’s real father, or prompted followup questions that almost certainly would have. But instead, Ned lied to Jon. Repeatedly. On top of that, Ned was extremely successful fooling everyone else as well. Jon’s false paternal lineage is widely-known and accepted. Jon is the “Bastard of Winterfell,” after all. And so, there’s no question that Jon’s belief in being Ned's son is reasonable. He doesn’t even have an inkling that he doesn’t know who his real father is. Thus, Jon can’t possibly bear the risk of being mistaken about this basic fact.

Because Jon takes his paternal lineage as a given, and because he knows Ned has been married to Catelyn throughout the relevant time period, Jon is justified in believing that he’s Ned’s bastard—no matter who his mother is. Even if Ned had revealed Lyanna as Jon’s true mother (but had somehow managed to convince Jon that he was still his father), Jon would still be Ned Stark’s bastard. And an incestuous bastard at that. So, Jon not knowing that his real mother is Lyanna doesn’t prevent Jon from knowing “who he is” in the same fundamental sense as does being falsely led to believe that Ned—rather than Rhaegar—is his real father.

Yet, if Jon doesn’t even know who he is because he was lied to his whole life and forced to endure the scorn of being a bastard—a textually-supported motivation for him joining the Watch—how can his decision to take the Black possibly be founded in meaningful and intelligent consent to be bound?

[Caspoi]

autarkh@ Well, theoretically speaking he would not loose his claim but he would still loose the ability to press it "legaly". All members of the Nights Watch swear that they will not take up the kingship so it a somewhat moot point.

[autarkh]

autarkh@ Well, theoretically speaking he would not loose his claim but he would still loose the ability to press it "legaly". All members of the Nights Watch swear that they will not take up the kingship so it a somewhat moot point.

If the vow is effective at renouncing an unknown claim that existed at the time Jon took the vow, Jon would have potentially lost his claim irrevocably. Like I said, I assume this is what the Black purports to do.

Independent of this potential waiver, as you point out, if the vow is constitutes an ongoing promise not to press any claim (regardless of how the claim arises) it would preclude Jon from legally pressing his claim without breaching his promise.

That said, the issue isn't moot, because the mistake of fact (discussed extensively above) potentially renders Jon's consent in taking the vow defective. If so, the vow itself is voidable from the outset at Jon's option. So, if he chooses to annul the vow, he would owe no obligation not to press his claim. Accordingly, there would be no breach of promise from asserting his claim. Likewise, he could not have waived his claim even if the language of the vow is effective at waiving any claim, because the vow would be annulled.

[lancerman]

I really don't see a big deal with the vows. It's not like Jon is as rigid as Ned with oaths. He already attempted to run from the watch to join Robb, he broke his oath to sleep with a wilding, he was willing to bring the entire watch into a political war with the Boltons. If someone said, "oh man, you didn't know you were a king when you took the oath, the realm needs you, I release you of your vows", I don't think Jon would care much if it's a technicality or not.

[lancerman]

If the vow is effective at renouncing a unknown claim that existed at the time Jon took the vow, Jon would have potentially lost his claim irrevocably. Like I said, I assume this is what the Black purports to do.

Independent of the waiver, as you point out, if the vow is constitutes an ongoing promise not to press any claim (regardless of how the claim arises) it would potentially preclude him from legally pressing his claim without breaching his promise.

That said, the issue isn't moot, because the mistake of fact (discussed extensively above) potentially renders the consent in taking the vow defective. If so, the vow itself is voidable at Jon's option. So, if he chooses to annul the vow, he would owe no obligation not to press his claim. Accordingly, there would be no breach of promise from asserting his claim. Likewise, he would not have waived his claim even if the language of the vow is effective at waiving any claim, because the vow would be annulled.

It's probably worth noting that if Jon does have a claim to the kingship, he can probably just press that claim anyways, and make the rules as he goes along. By decree of his claim to the throne he declares that the revelation of his new claim dissolved his oath to the Watch, since he consented under the false pretenses of his identity.

If someone calls him on it he can just pull the old, "I'm king this is my ruling, get over it".

King's have released others from vows. Why can't they release themselves from them?