Loyalists and Aegon´s disinheritance

[Lost Melnibonean]

1 hour ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Well my answer to most of this post is that - unlike you, (if I recall your position correctly) - I find it narratively pointless to have this big build-up relating to Jon's identity without Martin having a mechanism in store for it to be proven to people who matter. I don't buy the idea that Martin is going to simply use this as a big F*&^ you to the trope of the secret heir, and leave Jon's valid claim un-utilized in some poignant, bittersweet twist.

I think Jon's identity is central to the story, and that it cannot fulfil its purpose without the mechanism to prove it to the world existing in Martins arsenal of yet-to-be-revealed plot developments.

The one way I could see Jon's true identity remaining relatively secret is if he decides he must save the realm from the Others. 

[Free Northman Reborn]

1 minute ago, Lost Melnibonean said:

The one way I could see Jon's true identity remaining relatively secret is if he decides he must save the realm from the Others. 

There is no need for the big secret about his identity if he just goes off to the Lands of Always Winter on a suicide mission. Then he might as well have been some random bastard of two commoners, or if the Stark connection is necessary to bring him into the Stark protagonist group, then Wylla could have been his mother.

Instead, his true identity is this big secret that has been carefully built into the series from Book 1, to the extent that this is the question Martin asked of the two hacks who made the TV series in order to decide if they were worthy of the job.

[Lost Melnibonean]

8 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

There is no need for the big secret about his identity if he just goes off to the Lands of Always Winter on a suicide mission. Then he might as well have been some random bastard of two commoners, or if the Stark connection is necessary to bring him into the Stark protagonist group, then Wylla could have been his mother.

Instead, his true identity is this big secret that has been carefully built into the series from Book 1, to the extent that this is the question Martin asked of the two hacks who made the TV series in order to decide if they were worthy of the job.

I'm talking about Jon, not Benjen. I agree that Jon will most likely sit the throne at the end (I am imagining Arnold Schwarzenegger at the end of Conan). But I could also see him giving up his claim to guard the Realms of men in the North. 

[Endymion I Targaryen]

Aegon's and Jon's identity need proof while Daenerys is undeniably a Targaryen. Viserys naming Daenerys his heir needs proof too, but it is logical since he believed that she was his only relative. 

The problem is that Aegon is at Storm's End, Jon is wounded/dead at the Wall and Daenerys is at the Dothraki Sea. The loyalists can support only Aegon (for now) so Aegon is the most legitimate heir (for now). 

I see claim by conquest having more importance now that claim by blood.

[Free Northman Reborn]

11 minutes ago, Endymion I Targaryen said:

Aegon's and Jon's identity need proof while Daenerys is undeniably a Targaryen. Viserys naming Daenerys his heir needs proof too, but it is logical since he believed that she was his only relative. 

The problem is that Aegon is at Storm's End, Jon is wounded/dead at the Wall and Daenerys is at the Dothraki Sea. The loyalists can support only Aegon (for now) so Aegon is the most legitimate heir (for now). 

I see claim by conquest having more importance now that claim by blood.

Sure. In the practical order of things it will be Aegon's claim arriving first, then Daenerys arriving in Westeros, replacing Aegon, and then Jon's identity will be the final revelation. In between Tyrion will likely be revealed as a bastard Targ, so while he won't come into the equation as a contender for the Throne, he will be suitable as one of the three heads, likely replacing the fake Aegon after Dany has killed him.

The question then really is who the main head is, versus the other supporting head. And this is where the only real point of departure is between the two main camps. Some think the main head is Dany. Others (including me) think it is Jon.

[Protagoras]

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Do you actually think you would buy the Jon Snow story as a Targaryen loyalist while you knew that Dany and Aegon were also out there?

I wouldn't. As a Targaryen loyalist I'd like my beloved royals platinum-haired and purple-eyed.

I agree. I as a book reader believes one thing. But if I was a noble in westeros I would like some hard proofs and Jon doesn´t seem to have any. Is there any? Because I would very much know how this could be proven (apart from an old man in the swamps) and especially the part where someone proves that Jon is actually trueborn and not the cause of a rape (which should be what I would believe if I heard about the Tower of Joy incident and was a noble in Westeros). 

Yet as a book reader - I could see that Daenerys believes Jons "bullshit" story and names him her hier. Then she later dies and Jon is Jon Targaryen. I certianly would not prefer such a solution, but it is possible.

[Free Northman Reborn]

2 minutes ago, Protagoras said:

I agree. I as a book reader believes one thing. But if I was a noble in westeros I would like some hard proofs and Jon doesn´t seem to have any. Is there any? Because I would very much know how this could be proven (apart from an old man in the swamps) and especially the part where someone proves that Jon is actually trueborn and not the cause of a rape (which should be what I would believe if I heard about the Tower of Joy incident and was a noble in Westeros). 

Yet as a book reader - I could see that Daenerys believes Jons "bullshit" story and names him her hier. Then she later dies and Jon is Jon Targaryen. I certianly would not prefer such a solution, but it is possible.

Mainly an old man behind an old DOS based computer in Santa Fe.

[Protagoras]

8 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Sure. In the practical order of things it will be Aegon's claim arriving first, then Daenerys arriving in Westeros, replacing Aegon, and then Jon's identity will be the final revelation. In between Tyrion will likely be revealed as a bastard Targ, so while he won't come into the equation as a contender for the Throne, he will be suitable as one of the three heads, likely replacing the fake Aegon after Dany has killed him.

The question then really is who the main head is, versus the other supporting head. And this is where the only real point of departure is between the two main camps. Some think the main head is Dany. Others (including me) think it is Jon.

Ok, can you in that case explain to me how Jon gets the throne without using a blessing from Daenerys?

Because I can´t see how Jon could get the throne in his own right without getting legetimized by Daenerys first.

And if she gives him such a legitimization, she is clearly the main head - you have to acknowlege someone who legitimize you as their regent or the legitimization would be null and void (same reason Daemon Blackfyre cannot take his claim from Daena, but must use the claim from Aegon IV). 

[Protagoras]

15 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Mainly an old man behind an old DOS based computer in Santa Fe.

Certainly, but I am interested in how that old man does it. Something more than "Nature will always find a way". GRRM doesnt usullally make shit up from thin air. How will he motivate all this?

[Red Man Racey]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Aerys' entire line attainted as part of the outcome of Robert's Rebellion? If this is the case then there is no "legal" line of succession for the Targaryen claimants. The Iron Throne will be claimed by right of conquest regardless of genealogy. Furthermore, when the Westerosi Targaryen loyalists are deciding which dragon to back, I think they'll pick based on power and presence - which claimant has the best shot at winning and which claimant is actually there for them to back. I don't see the disinheritance of Rhaegar figuring into the equation much, if at all.

[Free Northman Reborn]

1 minute ago, Protagoras said:

Ok, can you in that case explain to me how Jon gets the throne without using a blessing from Daenerys?

Because I can´t see how Jon could get the throne in his own right without getting legetimized by Daenerys first.

And if she gives him such a legitimization, she is clearly the main head - you have to acknowlege someone who legitimize you as their regent or the legitimization would be null and void (same reason Daemon Blackfyre claiom take his claim from Daena, but must use the claim from Aegon IV). 

I very much am open to the route of Dany legitimizing him. But that doesn't make her the main head any more than John the Baptist was the main figure in the founding of the Christian faith. She could anoint the Prince who was Promised without being the Prince who was Promised herself. Her purpose in destiny might even have been to lay the groundwork for his arrival, for all we know.

We don't know how the story is going to go.

[Free Northman Reborn]

17 minutes ago, Protagoras said:

Certainly, but I am interested in how that old man does it. Something more than "Nature will always find a way". GRRM doesnt usullally make shit up from thin air. How will he motivate all this?

I must admit that I am not that confident that he doesn't just make shit up from thin air. Examples of plot developments that I found a bit ham fisted include, but are not limited to, Wex's whole Skagos plot arc, The Tattered Prince suddenly pushing the "I want Pentos plotline", Euron blowing some Horn and suddenly having the entire Ironborn nation behind him, the whole Raven in the pot story that got Jon elected Lord Commander, Mormont giving his family Valyrian sword to Jon instead of leaving it for his descendants, the Maggy the Frog justification for Cersei going bat shit crazy, and the list would go on if I spent a few more minutes thinking back on the series.

So I would not feel that a brilliantly motivated justification for Jon being recognized as  heir to the Throne is absolutely mandatory in this story.

[Ferocious Veldt Roarer]

16 minutes ago, Red Man Racey said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Aerys' entire line attainted as part of the outcome of Robert's Rebellion? If this is the case then there is no "legal" line of succession for the Targaryen claimants. The Iron Throne will be claimed by right of conquest regardless of genealogy.

That's very binary approach to the laws, such as they were, in Westeros, built on an axiom that it should be impossible for two different people, or for two different dynasties, to simultaneously have valid legal claims to the same throne. That binary understanding, however, is not shared by the series' own creator.

The "right of conquest", for example, is overrated. Consider the North after the Red Wedding: beaten, bloodied, defeated, the Starks destroyed, yet the absolutely ruthless sons-of-bitches Tywin Lannister and Roose Bolton do not even entertain the thought of taking over the rule of the land without some sort of legal fig leaf, coming in the shape of Ned Stark's own daughter (Sansa and Arya, respectively). A simple decree made by the side who happens to be winning at a particular moment does not wipe out old claims.

[Lord Varys]

1 minute ago, Protagoras said:

I agree. I as a book reader believes one thing. But if I was a noble in westeros I would like some hard proofs and Jon doesn´t seem to have any. Is there any? Because I would very much know how this could be proven (apart from an old man in the swamps) and especially the part where someone proves that Jon is actually trueborn and not the cause of a rape (which should be what I would believe if I heard about the Tower of Joy incident and was a noble in Westeros). 

Yet as a book reader - I could see that Daenerys believes Jons "bullshit" story and names him her hier. Then she later dies and Jon is Jon Targaryen. I certianly would not prefer such a solution, but it is possible.

With the dead-and-resurrection thing for Jon in the making I see a much greater chance that he is going to bite the dust in the process of the story than Dany. He is already ideally positioned to become the hero who is sort of consumed to his task to save the world, etc. Unlike Daenerys (who has the prospect of retaking her father's throne) Jon lives for his mission and does not expect to do anything else than save the realms of men from the Others. So that could very well be his final fate.

I think pretty much everybody should find a smoking wounds or burning blood zombie to be a particularly great king to rebuild the Realm. The idea that the Jesus-like resurrection is going to be allowed to live a mundane life to become some kind of Jaehaerys I king would be very strange. The only setting where something like that sort of worked was Babylon 5. But even there Sheridan didn't have a normal life after his resurrection. Even Frodo had to go into the West and he didn't even die in the process of the story.

But then, he could be the father of Dany's child or something of that sort.

I think the chances are pretty high that these two will hook up in some fashion. That's what the whole Jon-Tyrion bromance was all about in AGoT.

If you think about it a believable scenario in which anybody in Dany's camp will actually believe the Jon Snow story is very difficult to imagine. If there is an outside incentive - like, say, Jon having really good information about the Others - or some sort of romantic link between them then an alliance/hookup would make sense.

But even then the idea that anybody would believe the story of the wise old man from the swamps doesn't make much sense. In no setting something like that would be convenient from a realpolitik perspective. Even if Rhaegar's marriage to Lyanna was public knowledge (as I think it was) the fact that the child Eddard Stark raised as his bastard was actually a child from that union cannot really be proven unless you want to believe it.

And I've enormous difficulties imagining a situation in which a majority of the lords or people of Westeros want to believe such a story.

4 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

I very much am open to the route of Dany legitimizing him. But that doesn't make her the main head any more than John the Baptist was the main figure in the founding of the Christian faith. She could anoint the Prince who was Promised without being the Prince who was Promised herself. Her purpose in destiny might even have been to lay the groundwork for his arrival, for all we know.

The promised prince has nothing to do with the Iron Throne, though. Anybody can be king. If Jon is the promised prince he might very not be destined to ever sit on the throne but to sacrifice himself to save humanity.

30 minutes ago, Red Man Racey said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Aerys' entire line attainted as part of the outcome of Robert's Rebellion? If this is the case then there is no "legal" line of succession for the Targaryen claimants. The Iron Throne will be claimed by right of conquest regardless of genealogy. Furthermore, when the Westerosi Targaryen loyalists are deciding which dragon to back, I think they'll pick based on power and presence - which claimant has the best shot at winning and which claimant is actually there for them to back. I don't see the disinheritance of Rhaegar figuring into the equation much, if at all.

We are talking about Targaryen loyalists here, open or secret. For them, Robert is a traitor and usurper and a false king. None of his decrees and laws are worth anything. But they or others jumping the Targaryen band wagon later on will have to have some reason to explain/justify to themselves and others why they are now backing this Targaryen over that one. There might be a lot of pragmatism involved but some people most certainly will declare for one of them because they believe they are backing the rightful monarch.

[Jaak]

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, the question here is what people will think of legal claims, not how they enforce them.

I'd say any partisans of Aegon (or Jon Snow, if there ever will be any) will have problems ignoring Daenerys' legal claim based on Viserys because a Targaryen loyalist cannot actually (and would not) ignore the fact that Viserys III was crowned king on Dragonstone and thus had any right to anoint an heir of his own.

They can, and many would.

What do you think would Aegon son of Alicent have done if Daeron the Daring had survived Tumbleton and been crowned King on grounds that Aegon was missing, presumed dead?

[Lord Varys]

1 minute ago, Jaak said:

They can, and many would.

What do you think would Aegon son of Alicent have done if Daeron the Daring had survived Tumbleton and been crowned King on grounds that Aegon was missing, presumed dead?

Aegon II would bully his weak brother into abdicating or feed him to his dragon (or kill him in a different way).

[Lurid Jester]

5 hours ago, Jaak said:

As of the end of Dance of Dragons, Barristan is unaware of Aegon as yet.

Barristan follows what he thinks is right - otherwise he'd have rallied  to Stannis or Renly rather than go seek Viserys.

If Barristan hears of Aegon, is his duty with Daenerys or with Aegon?

Good question. He'll probably stick with Danny though.  It's much easier to believe Aegon isn't actually Aegon since Danny is the one with dragons. 

[Free Northman Reborn]

33 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

With the dead-and-resurrection thing for Jon in the making I see a much greater chance that he is going to bite the dust in the process of the story than Dany. He is already ideally positioned to become the hero who is sort of consumed to his task to save the world, etc. Unlike Daenerys (who has the prospect of retaking her father's throne) Jon lives for his mission and does not expect to do anything else than save the realms of men from the Others. So that could very well be his final fate.

I think pretty much everybody should find a smoking wounds or burning blood zombie to be a particularly great king to rebuild the Realm. The idea that the Jesus-like resurrection is going to be allowed to live a mundane life to become some kind of Jaehaerys I king would be very strange. The only setting where something like that sort of worked was Babylon 5. But even there Sheridan didn't have a normal life after his resurrection. Even Frodo had to go into the West and he didn't even die in the process of the story.

But then, he could be the father of Dany's child or something of that sort.

I think the chances are pretty high that these two will hook up in some fashion. That's what the whole Jon-Tyrion bromance was all about in AGoT.

If you think about it a believable scenario in which anybody in Dany's camp will actually believe the Jon Snow story is very difficult to imagine. If there is an outside incentive - like, say, Jon having really good information about the Others - or some sort of romantic link between them then an alliance/hookup would make sense.

But even then the idea that anybody would believe the story of the wise old man from the swamps doesn't make much sense. In no setting something like that would be convenient from a realpolitik perspective. Even if Rhaegar's marriage to Lyanna was public knowledge (as I think it was) the fact that the child Eddard Stark raised as his bastard was actually a child from that union cannot really be proven unless you want to believe it.

And I've enormous difficulties imagining a situation in which a majority of the lords or people of Westeros want to believe such a story.

The promised prince has nothing to do with the Iron Throne, though. Anybody can be king. If Jon is the promised prince he might very not be destined to ever sit on the throne but to sacrifice himself to save humanity.

We are talking about Targaryen loyalists here, open or secret. For them, Robert is a traitor and usurper and a false king. None of his decrees and laws are worth anything. But they or others jumping the Targaryen band wagon later on will have to have some reason to explain/justify to themselves and others why they are now backing this Targaryen over that one. There might be a lot of pragmatism involved but some people most certainly will declare for one of them because they believe they are backing the rightful monarch.

Inevitably this discussion goes down our previous tracks, simply because there is almost nothing left to discuss anymore. That said, the approach that "Dany's supporters" take to Jon will very much depend on the level of power that Jon commands when they meet. And as you know, I have already presented a scenario where they meet very much as equal in terms of power, with Tyrion acting as the go-between who mediates and convinces both parties to give the other a chance.

At a high level, a scenario where Jon becomes King in the North, and by extension of the Riverlands, either by being Robb's heir or because Rickon becomes the new Lord of Riverrun. And where Sansa gains power over the Vale - by perhaps having Harry's son and Littlefinger, Sweet Robin and Harry all dying off soon after.

Then Jon comes to a "meeting of the Kings of the Northern and Southron halves of Westeros with the power of three kingdoms behind him.

At the same time, we can easily envisage a scenario where Daenerys suffers a lot of damage in conquering the South. First by warring with Aegon, who is supported by the Golden Company, Dorne and all the Targ loyalists in the Reach. Then by having Euron perhaps stealing one of her Dragons and using magic in inflicting even more losses on her after or simultaneously with the Aegon-war.

And then by having Greyscale break out en masse across most of the war ravaged South. By the time these conflicts are all done, she gains the Throne, but minus a Dragon or two, and with a devastated, disease ridden realm under her, just as the Wall finally falls and corpses start rising all over the South.

At this point, meeting with the leader of a unified North, Vale and Riverlands, who understands the enemy intricately and who is backed by the power of Bran on top of it all - not to mention Arya perhaps having taken out some of Dany's key leaders to strengthen Jon's position - may well force Dany to meet Jon as an equal, rather than as a conquering Queen vs a desparate supplicant.

If the Tyrells are wiped out, the Dornish are in rebellion due to Arriane perhaps dying in support of Aegon, and the situation is dire across the realm, a lot of proof may not even be needed to back Jon's claim. Especially if the Realm is at this point sick of the recently done Dance of the Dragons between Dany and Aegon, and just want a unified kingdom to face the imminent threat of the Dead Rising all over the place.

[Lord Varys]

17 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Inevitably this discussion goes down our previous tracks, simply because there is almost nothing left to discuss anymore. That said, the approach that "Dany's supporters" take to Jon will very much depend on the level of power that Jon commands when they meet. And as you know, I have already presented a scenario where they meet very much as equal in terms of power, with Tyrion acting as the go-between who mediates and convinces both parties to give the other a chance.

At a high level, a scenario where Jon becomes King in the North, and by extension of the Riverlands, either by being Robb's heir or because Rickon becomes the new Lord of Riverrun. And where Sansa gains power over the Vale - by perhaps having Harry's son and Littlefinger, Sweet Robin and Harry all dying off soon after.

Then Jon comes to a "meeting of the Kings of the Northern and Southron halves of Westeros with the power of three kingdoms behind him.

At the same time, we can easily envisage a scenario where Daenerys suffers a lot of damage in conquering the South. First by warring with Aegon, who is supported by the Golden Company, Dorne and all the Targ loyalists in the Reach. Then by having Euron perhaps stealing one of her Dragons and using magic in inflicting even more losses on her after or simultaneously with the Aegon-war.

And then by having Greyscale break out en masse across most of the war ravaged South. By the time these conflicts are all done, she gains the Throne, but minus a Dragon or two, and with a devastated, disease ridden realm under her, just as the Wall finally falls and corpses start rising all over the South.

At this point, meeting with the leader of a unified North, Vale and Riverlands, who understands the enemy intricately and who is backed by the power of Bran on top of it all - not to mention Arya perhaps having taken out some of Dany's key leaders to strengthen Jon's position - may well force Dany to meet Jon as an equal, rather than as a conquering Queen vs a desparate supplicant.

If the Tyrells are wiped out, the Dornish are in rebellion due to Arriane perhaps dying in support of Aegon, and the situation is dire across the realm, a lot of proof may not even be needed to back Jon's claim. Especially if the Realm is at this point sick of the recently done Dance of the Dragons between Dany and Aegon, and just want a unified kingdom to face the imminent threat of the Dead Rising all over the place.

That is a different topic and scenario. Dany can a marriage alliance with 'King Jon' without giving a fig about his claims that he is Rhaegar's son or the rightful king. If he has power she can treat him the same way as she treated Hizdahr. She didn't marry that guy either because she cared about his family tree.

The question we are discussing here is the question why the hell should anybody believes the story of Jon's parentage. If Jon takes over the places you mention above this would clearly have nothing to do with his Targaryen heritage and thus this whole part of story would be sort of irrelevant, at least politically.

Your scenario makes Jon Snow a Stark, not a Targaryen and thus the entire Lyanna-Rhaegar scenario is pretty much irrelevant there. Not to mention that the Riverlands part clearly ignores the fact that the Riverlords really have no reason nor any inclination to follow some bastard who has no Tully blood.

[Free Northman Reborn]

3 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

That is a different topic and scenario. Dany can a marriage alliance with 'King Jon' without giving a fig about his claims that he is Rhaegar's son or the rightful king. If he has power she can treat him the same way as she treated Hizdahr. She didn't marry that guy either because she cared about his family tree.

The question we are discussing here is the question why the hell should anybody believes the story of Jon's parentage. If Jon takes over the places you mention above this would clearly have nothing to do with his Targaryen heritage and thus this whole part of story would be sort of irrelevant, at least politically.

Your scenario makes Jon Snow a Stark, not a Targaryen and thus the entire Lyanna-Rhaegar scenario is pretty much irrelevant there. Not to mention that the Riverlands part clearly ignores the fact that the Riverlords really have no reason nor any inclination to follow some bastard who has no Tully blood.

You misunderstand.

It is relevant because you say that powerful lords won't believe Jon's identity, and thus oppose him. I'm saying that the ones in charge of the North, Vale and Riverlands will believe him, because Howland Reed and something left in the crypts will carry weight with them. Not to mention if Bran reveals something magically.

And that the Southorn lords then won't have to be convinced, because only Dany has to be convinced. And there has been enough supernatural shit in her storyline to have a magical event, or a revelation by Barristan that corroborates some of the story, or Quaithe or something similar convince her.

As for Jon being a Stark. That will only be the case up to that point, after which he will become half of the Targ dynasty. The other half being Dany. Bran might well become the Lord of Winterfell at that point, with Rickon ruling in Riverrun as his heir (Bran and Rickon  being Hosters legitimate heirs after Edmure dies). And Bran/Rickon in turn will follow Jon.