What if Jon's parentage actually loses him his kingship?

[The Mountain That Flies]

4 hours ago, SevasTra82 said:

Quick question...do we know for a *fact* that Greenseers need to merge with the Weirwoods?  It seems everyone is jumping to the conclusion that Bran will wind up like Bloodraven, but that very well may not be the case.  Bloodraven may have merged with the tree simply to prolong his life.  

Bloodraven certainly seems to be pushing Bran in that direction, and logic would state that merging with the weirwood gives a greenseer greater control over their power. Obviously anything could happen, but with his current mentor pushing him in that direction and clear incentive to do so it's fair to count it as a strong possibility.

There is always the chance Bran rejects Bloodraven and the Children's ways and makes a run for it, but I don't see that as likely. Having him plugged into the weir-net gives GRRM a lot of flexibility on how he builds the rest of Bran's narrative, and having the character fleeing something again would be repetitive.

[King Viserys Targaryen IV]

18 hours ago, FuzzyJAM said:

Well I'm not really sure what the legality of a bastard legitimised on false premises might be.  How can Jon be the legitimised son of Ned when he's not Ned's son, and maybe not even a bastard?  How's that going to work out?  And what of an heir named based on a false belief?  Ned certainly thought it was a grey area with Joffrey.  

And you really can't see Northerners getting a little peeved that their king is actually the son of Rhaegar and Lyanna, the two who caused Robert's Rebellion more than any other by their selfish actions, and caused the deaths of countless of their brothers?  Maybe him being genetically half Stark would still be enough to command loyalty, but his actual parentage is certainly not going to help him in the North, of that there can be no doubt.  

A King can legitimize anyone he wants, whether it is true or not. And it would be Ned's false pretenses not Jon's. You know Ned, the guy that every one in the North absolutely adores.

 

[FuzzyJAM]

23 minutes ago, King Viserys Targaryen IV said:

A King can legitimize anyone he wants, whether it is true or not. And it would be Ned's false pretenses not Jon's. You know Ned, the guy that every one in the North absolutely adores.

What makes you think a king can make someone the legitimate son of someone he's not actually the son of?  I find that hard to believe.  

People do indeed love Ned, but will they love his nephew quite so much when they realise he's either (a) the son of a betrayer (their perspective) and the crown prince they fought a war against or (b) the result of rape by that crown prince?  You can't see that little revelation causing some problems?  

[Tijgy]

5 hours ago, SevasTra82 said:

Quick question...do we know for a *fact* that Greenseers need to merge with the Weirwoods?  It seems everyone is jumping to the conclusion that Bran will wind up like Bloodraven, but that very well may not be the case.  Bloodraven may have merged with the tree simply to prolong his life.  

It is said literally in the text that BR does that to prolong his life. Actually a total merger of Bran with the weirwood would actually mean that he would become a part of the entire "godhood" and Bran would actually not longer be an entity. This is actually now happening to Bloodraven but he lingers so he would able to teach Bran. So an entire merger with the trees is not that good for Bran the person. 

You can the time he is at his most powerful as a greenseer, is when he is seeing those visions through the hearttree of Winterfell. This happens not when he sits on his "throne" but when he is going to sleep on his bed. This does not mean he should merge into the tree to have his powers. 

You can of course wonder if he ever would able to get out the cave but that is an other question.

[King Viserys Targaryen IV]

12 minutes ago, FuzzyJAM said:

What makes you think a king can make someone the legitimate son of someone he's not actually the son of?  I find that hard to believe.  

People do indeed love Ned, but will they love his nephew quite so much when they realise he's either (a) the son of a betrayer (their perspective) and the crown prince they fought a war against or (b) the result of rape by that crown prince?  You can't see that little revelation causing some problems?  

Because if a House has no son they can have their daughter's husband take the House name despite him not being born of their House. That is not much different.

All Robb's will has to say is that Jon is now a Stark, it does not even have to mention Ned or who Jon's parents are and it will be good enough for the North.

[TeamWhiteWalkerz]

I still don't understand why anyone has to know that Jon isn't Ned's son. Jon/Bran/Howland can just not tell anyone.

[King Viserys Targaryen IV]

4 minutes ago, TeamWhiteWalkerz said:

I still don't understand why anyone has to know that Jon isn't Ned's son. Jon/Bran/Howland can just not tell anyone.

When Jon jumps up on a Dragon it going to start people asking questions

[Melisandre's White Pubes]

27 minutes ago, King Viserys Targaryen IV said:

When Jon jumps up on a Dragon it going to start people asking questions

Which leads to my new favorite theory, N+R=J (Rhaegar was actually a woman raised as a prince).

[FuzzyJAM]

29 minutes ago, King Viserys Targaryen IV said:

Because if a House has no son they can have their daughter's husband take the House name despite him not being born of their House. That is not much different.

All Robb's will has to say is that Jon is now a Stark, it does not even have to mention Ned or who Jon's parents are and it will be good enough for the North.

If Robb said "I legitimise Jon Snow as the trueborn son of Ned Stark" or something, that's going to be a problem because I'm pretty sure even a king can't make someone the son of someone he's not the son of.  It seems pretty likely Ned would be mentioned to me, but even if Ned isn't mentioned, things are still pretty shaky.  What's the rules on someone being legitimised because he's thought to be the son of someone he's not?  Of course, there isn't a clear answer to any of this - that's the whole point, it results in questions, it's complicated.  At the very least, Jon's actual parentage will harm his standing in the North in relation to Robb's will, even if it won't ultimately end it.  If he's to rally the North, his parentage is something he'll have to overcome or hide.  Which I think is neat.  

28 minutes ago, TeamWhiteWalkerz said:

I still don't understand why anyone has to know that Jon isn't Ned's son. Jon/Bran/Howland can just not tell anyone.

Of course.

This is just a potential scenario to speculate about.

[dornishdame]

16 hours ago, WhitewolfStark said:

There are those who theorize that Rhaegar married Lyanna in secret. The only problem is that there are no witnesses to this, and in one of the cited inspirations to GRRM's book series (he cites Maurice Druon's book series Les Rois Maudits--The Accursed Kings--as an influence) there is a plot where a couple have a secret marriage, but since the pastor who performed it died and there were no other witnesses, the two say that they're married when the girl gets pregnant, but no one accepts the marriage as legitimate in any way. The girl's mother & brothers treat her as though she got pregnant out of wedlock, and as far as the rest of the world is concerned the marriage that occurred never took place, with the girl being sent to give birth to her bastard-not-a-bastard in secret--who later gets involved in a baby swap with the infant King of France and is poisoned to death in the infant King of France's place.

I'm not familiar with the book series you mention, but it did make me think of the Bishop Stillington factor. Stillington rose to the position of Bishop of Bath and Wells during the reign of Edward IV, and is believed by some sources to be the origin of the Eleanor Talbot marriage story that broke during the reign of Richard III (the story essentially states that prior to his secret marriage to Elizabeth Woodville, Edward underwent a similarly secret ceremony to the widow Eleanor Talbot, Lady Butler - and as such, Edward's children with Elizabeth were illegitimate).  It also recalled the marriage of Lady Catherine Grey to Edward Seymour; the couple wed in secret and did not disclose the marriage until Lady Catherine's pregnancy was obvious. It was not until after the birth of their second child that the man who married them was located, and their children declared legitimate. The problem is, however, that as far as the Old Gods are concerned, although a couple swears their vows in front of a heart tree, there is no priest or priestess present (at least, that is how it appears from the wedding of Ramsay and fArya, the only Old Gods wedding we have seen). So, to prove to Westeros that Rhaegar and Lyanna were married, we require either a living witness to the ceremony or for the marriage to have taken place in a Sept rather than a heart tree (and for the Septon who conducted the ceremony to come forward). Without the Westerosi equivalent of Stillington, it seems unlikely wider Westerosi society would accept that a marriage ceremony had taken place. 

If there was a marriage and if there is a living witness, it would likely be one of the group of companions Rhaegar apparently traveled to the Riverlands with. The problem is, we don't know who was included in that group. 

3 hours ago, TeamWhiteWalkerz said:

I still don't understand why anyone has to know that Jon isn't Ned's son. Jon/Bran/Howland can just not tell anyone.

Last we heard of them, Galbart Glover and Maege Mormont were heading for Greywater Watch with details of Robb's will. As Robb left Queen Jeyne behind at Riverrun, I cannot see them doing anything without information on whether or not Robb left an heir. Given their location - Greywater Watch, Howland is in a position to give them information that Robb did not possess. Clearly in the absence of an heir of his own, he wished Jon to follow him as KitN. But he did that under the assumption that Ned was Jon's father. Howland is in a position to make a correction to that assumption. They may take the view, as Aemon did, that Jon is a son of Winterfell and of the Starks. They may not. We do not know what promises Howland made to Eddard regarding Jon's parentage and what he had witnessed at the Tower of Joy. Nor do we know what Howland will do next. But, in some ways it is the honorable thing to do - making sure those concerned (in this case Maege and Galbart)  possess all of the relevant information. 

Personally, since Dance particularly, I have always associated Jon with one section of the Night's Watch vow - 

the shield that guards the realms of men

I think that only if Jon is convinced that he can uphold this particular vow would he consider leaving the Night's Watch. Of course, after the Ides of Marsh he may not have a choice in the matter. But I think he can accept the legitimization, dispose of the Boltons and rally and unite the North to deal with their true enemy.  That said, I think he would always stand aside for a true-born child of Eddard Stark. 

[King Viserys Targaryen IV]

3 hours ago, FuzzyJAM said:

If Robb said "I legitimise Jon Snow as the trueborn son of Ned Stark" or something, that's going to be a problem because I'm pretty sure even a king can't make someone the son of someone he's not the son of.  It seems pretty likely Ned would be mentioned to me, but even if Ned isn't mentioned, things are still pretty shaky.  What's the rules on someone being legitimised because he's thought to be the son of someone he's not?  Of course, there isn't a clear answer to any of this - that's the whole point, it results in questions, it's complicated.  At the very least, Jon's actual parentage will harm his standing in the North in relation to Robb's will, even if it won't ultimately end it.  If he's to rally the North, his parentage is something he'll have to overcome or hide.  Which I think is neat.  

 

It is all about a King's followers, if he has enough support he could legitimize a dog if he wanted too.

I do not see the Northern Lords having a problem with Ned choosing to call Jon his son under the circumstances, Robb naming Jon his hier or Jon being the legitimate son of Lyanna.

[Yuki_no_JonI]

19 hours ago, FuzzyJAM said:

What makes you think a king can make someone the legitimate son of someone he's not actually the son of?  I find that hard to believe.  

People do indeed love Ned, but will they love his nephew quite so much when they realise he's either (a) the son of a betrayer (their perspective) and the crown prince they fought a war against or (b) the result of rape by that crown prince?  You can't see that little revelation causing some problems?  

the romans. It was common procedure in ancient Rome to adopt a "son" who was not the biological son, but got all the rights of a roman citizen. he could even be a slave who saved his master or showed grate bravery and that is much more than just a bastard son

[Paxter Redwyne]

2 hours ago, Yuki_no_JonI said:

the romans. It was common procedure in ancient Rome to adopt a "son" who was not the biological son, but got all the rights of a roman citizen. he could even be a slave who saved his master or showed grate bravery and that is much more than just a bastard son

Roman Empire was more democracy than feudal society. This is bad example.

[The_Quiet_Wolf]

I think this would help Jon cope with taking power if it is offered to him in the future. The big thing holding Jon back is his belief that he is tainted by his bastard birth. If he could be proved to be legitimate, despite the fact that this may reveal that Ned was not his actual father, he could rest easy knowing that his birth can no longer be called into question and any of his children would have a name other than Snow.

[The Ice Wolf of Loki]

If he's not Ned's son he would be Lyanna's and thus still a Stark and everyone knows Ned raised him. I very much doubt the Northerners involved in a GNC will care, if anything it could make his claim even better as he is could be a legitimate Stark cousin rather than a bastard. With the boys and Arya believed dead and Sansa attainted Jon as Lyanna's legitimate child would be Robb's apparent legitimate heir will or not.

[Illyrio Mo'Parties]

It's all up to the Northern lords in that situation, and what are their options?

1. A King in the North who can also lay claim to the Iron Throne

2. Stannis

3. Tommen via Roose Bolton

 

It's a no-brainer to me. Note that they needn't pursue that claim to the Iron Throne for it to be valuable to the North, because they could use it to leverage their independence:

"Alright Lannisters, the last surviving Targaryen will abdicate the Iron Throne and confirm Tommen in it in exchange for peace between our separate kingdoms."

[Winter's Cold]

Marrying Arya if Rickon dies would be the ideal resolution. Arya unlike Sansa would be able to prove her Stark identity through her direwolf. She'd also be more palatable to the northerners due to her typical Stark look. Sansa would either still be married to Tyrion and if not him she'll likely be married to Harry. 

[MaybeINeverSawACamel]

12 minutes ago, Winter's Cold said:

Marrying Arya if Rickon dies would be the ideal resolution. Arya unlike Sansa would be able to prove her Stark identity through her direwolf. She'd also be more palatable to the northerners due to her typical Stark look. Sansa would either still be married to Tyrion and if not him she'll likely be married to Harry. 

Seconded. 

[The Arthur Smith]

Jon would still be a bastard nonetheless and yes, he would lose his kingship. But since he died, his watch ended along with his sin as a bastard, so it's safe to say that Jon is allow for his kingship as he's free from his bastard status. So really, even if Rhaegar and Lyanna marry doesn't make a difference or matter now that Jon is free from his watch. And i hope this theory about Rhaegar and Lyanna were married isn't true.

 

[Princess of Dragonflies]

As I read this I think about the Mormont's. The women say the father of the children are bears, which I took to mean that it didn't matter who the father was, the child was a Mormont and now the Mormont name carries on through the women. Perhaps, that could work for Jon in some aspect, regardless of which Stark was his parent, he's still a Stark. So I think it only works for him.