Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Nezza86

Who is the True Targaryen Heir?

Recommended Posts

Of the remaining Targaryens who comes out as the rightful heir? I have a feeling that the identity of the natural targaryen heir will be important to the end of the story. Since the series seems to play around on the line of succession and laws of inheritance, and i think that someone must give up their life to ignite lightbringer, it seems inevitable that the true targaryen heir will become Nissa Nissa.

Of Targaryen blood We have Dany and Aegon. Jon is likely a Targ though thats still unconfirmed. Also, Tyrion could be counted although thats even less confirmed than Jon and much debated. I havent counted bloodraven nor other characters that are theorised to be Targaryens as they wouldnt fall in the line of succession.

The natural sucession to the throne after Aerys is the eldest son Rhaegar. After Rhaegar is his eldest son, Aegon. As it stands Aegon should become king but we've been told from the beginning (or when Viserys is killed) that Dany sees the throne as hers. I've read some theories that Elia and Rhaegar may have split up officially given that she could only give him two children and he knew he needed three. Is it possible then that Jon would be the rightful heir somehow? I guess this requires a legitimised marriage to Lyanna and some declaration that Jon would be the heir, who would that declaration be made to?

Or if Dany was half Targaryen and half Dayne i.e Ashara is her mother, then would Dornish law mean that she could be the rightful heir. And if thats not the case then what on earth was the point in that Arianne chapter were she was going to make Myrcella the queen? I found that plotline pretty confusing and ridiculous. Why would anyone in Kings Landing give a damn if Arianne started telling people that Myrcella was Queen? Dornish law doesnt apply to the rest of westeros.

And just to mix it up further could Tyrion end up as the rightful heir should everyone else die and he end up as the last Targaryen? Of course then he likely wouldnt be Nissa Nissa but he'd be a great choice as King. Maybe thats just wishful thinking though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heir to what? They have lost both the Throne and Dragonstone therefore what is left?

In any case since everything points to Jon being Rhaegar’s trueborn son he is the Head of the House. But I am not sure who comes next since the Targs have made a rule, or at least that is the only rule we have so far for them, and they had ruled out the women and their descendants as the heirs. Hence it would seem like after Jon is FAegon if he is a Blackfyre and or a Brightflame  and BloodRaven.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

After Rhaegar's death, Aerys made Viserys his heir. Viserys's heir is Dany. Therefore, Dany is the true Targaryan heir, whichever way you're looking at it.
Of course, if Aegon convinces people he's Rhaegar's son before Dany comes back to Westeros, it will weaken her claim. But she's technically the rightful Targaren ruler.

Jon is a bastard and shouldn't even be in the line of succession. Rhaegar had no authority to make a second marriage, and he had absolutely no reason to name Jon his heir.
Even worse for Tyrion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

Heir to what? They have lost both the Throne and Dragonstone therefore what is left?

 

In any case since everything points to Jon being Rhaegar’s trueborn son he is the Head of the House. But I am not sure who comes next since the Targs have made a rule, or at least that is the only rule we have so far for them, and they had ruled out the women and their descendants as the heirs. Hence it would seem like after Jon is FAegon if he is a Blackfyre and or a Brightflame  and BloodRaven.

 

where is everything which points to he is trueborn? you mean the show? sorry this is a place for book. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree dany is the legal heir. 

Aerys named Viserys as his heir when Aegon was alive. Therefore Rhaegar's line was already skipped. Not to mention Jon Snow is a bastard out of wedlock. 

38 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

 

After Rhaegar's death, Aerys made Viserys his heir. Viserys's heir is Dany. Therefore, Dany is the true Targaryan heir, whichever way you're looking at it.
Of course, if Aegon convinces people he's Rhaegar's son before Dany comes back to Westeros, it will weaken her claim. But she's technically the rightful Targaren ruler.

Jon is a bastard and shouldn't even be in the line of succession. Rhaegar had no authority to make a second marriage, and he had absolutely no reason to name Jon his heir.
Even worse for Tyrion.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, purple-eyes said:

where is everything which points to he is trueborn? you mean the show? sorry this is a place for book. 

There are literally more than 163 threads about this topic. This isn't the place to start yet another one. So in my opinion based on the text proofs it is obvious that Jon is Rhaegar's trueborn son.

41 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

After Rhaegar's death, Aerys made Viserys his heir. 

That is told only in the same book where it is also told that Elia killed her children. If you believe the one there is no reason why you should not believe the other too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

There are literally more than 163 threads about this topic. This isn't the place to start yet another one. So in my opinion based on the text proofs it is obvious that Jon is Rhaegar's trueborn son.

I've been on a few of those 163 topics and none of them have ever come to the definite conclusion that Jon is Rhaegar's trueborn son. Quite the contrary, this remains a source of intense debates whenever it's brought up.

The heart of the matter is that this is the conclusion that a handful of people have come to without much textual support. And every single time the subject is brought up again the textual evidence is lacking.

Perhaps in the next book we'll get new information. But at this point saying that "everything points to Jon being the Rhaegar's trueborn son" is wrong. There's really little to suggest that Jon could be trueborn.

6 minutes ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

That is told only in the same book where it is also told that Elia killed her children. If you believe the one there is no reason why you should not believe the other too.

That's not what the book says, and your argument is a logical fallacy.

To say that Jon is the legitimate heir you need to i) dismiss/ignore text that basically says that Dany is, ii) go through the intellectual gymnastics of imagining a secret polygamous marriage and iii) argue that there is proof of such a secret polygamous marriage that is convincing enough (for the Westerosi).

I think it's an interesting theory, but I find it incredibly annoying when people start talking about it as fact. At this point in time, according to the text, Dany is the legitimate Targaryen ruler. There are several theories that suggest this may not be the case, but absolutely none of them can, or should, be presented as fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Rippounet said:

I've been on a few of those 163 topics and none of them have ever come to the definite conclusion that Jon is Rhaegar's trueborn son. Quite the contrary, this remains a source of intense debates whenever it's brought up.

The heart of the matter is that this is the conclusion that a handful of people have come to without much textual support. And every single time the subject is brought up again the textual evidence is lacking.

Perhaps in the next book we'll get new information. But at this point saying that "everything points to Jon being the Rhaegar's trueborn son" is wrong. There's really little to suggest that Jon could be trueborn.

I don't think that this is the right thread to start it all over again. 

2 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

That's not what the book says, and your argument is a logical fallacy.

The books say that there is a possibility that Elia killed her children. So if you believe that Aerys disinherited Rhaegar, something that has no text proof from ASOIAF, there is no reason why Elia hadn't killed her children either.

3 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

To say that Jon is the legitimate heir you need to i) dismiss/ignore text that basically says that Dany is,

So you believe everything that is told in the text? 

4 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

ii) go through the intellectual gymnastics of imagining a secret polygamous marriage

We have no proof that polygamy was ever illegal unlike incest which was illegal.

5 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

iii) argue that there is proof of such a secret polygamous marriage that is convincing enough (for the Westerosi).

Who the eff said anything about convincing the Westerosi?

5 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

according to the text, Dany is the legitimate Targaryen ruler

According to the WOIAF Dany cannot inherit.

You cannot say that you agree with the text about Aerys disinheriting Rhaegar and then you don't agree. If you believe whatever it is in the text Aerys disinherited Rhaegar, Elia killed her children and Dany cannot inherit hence either Jon as a bastard inherits or the Targaryen line dies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The text did not say that Aerys disinherited Rhaegar. The text said that upon Rhaegar's death Aerys named Viserys the heir. As King he is allowed to do that especially when we are talking about skipping over an infant. And no there is there is no text that says that Dany cannot inherit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

I don't think that this is the right thread to start it all over again.

Why not though? The thread title invites it. I agree it's a bore though, and I merely reminded everyone that the idea that Jon is trueborn is only a theory. My point was that the burden of proof rests on anyone making that claim.

Fallacies aside, your sound arguments so far are that:
i) Yandel's words on the matter should be dismissed because he isn't always reliable. That's a debatable position because Yandel provides a wealth of information on a number of subjects and there's no reason to think he would be unreliable on this particular one.
ii) Polygamy has never been declared illegal. Another debatable position since after Aegon the Conqueror polygamy was always rare and controversial, even for Targaryens. Unless, once again, you want to dismiss Yandel on account of his unreliability. But then you'd still have to explain why so few Targaryen kings did not have more than one wife if it was seen as legal/normal/ok.

But most importantly you've yet to provide any evidence that the marriage actually happened. And I'm genuinely curious what evidence you propose. There's one argument I'm very familiar with. But because you said "everything points" to this, I would assume you have more than one. So by all means, please provide your evidence so the OP can make up their mind about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

I don't think that this is the right thread to start it all over again. 

The books say that there is a possibility that Elia killed her children. So if you believe that Aerys disinherited Rhaegar, something that has no text proof from ASOIAF, there is no reason why Elia hadn't killed her children either.

So you believe everything that is told in the text? 

We have no proof that polygamy was ever illegal unlike incest which was illegal.

Who the eff said anything about convincing the Westerosi?

According to the WOIAF Dany cannot inherit.

You cannot say that you agree with the text about Aerys disinheriting Rhaegar and then you don't agree. If you believe whatever it is in the text Aerys disinherited Rhaegar, Elia killed her children and Dany cannot inherit hence either Jon as a bastard inherits or the Targaryen line dies.

You should reread the World book (if you ever read it carefully). Maester privided several possible explanations on how Elia and children died. such as they were killed by mad king or Elia killed them due to fear. Nobody knew what really happened. These are just guesses of dofferent people. Author made it very clear. 

quote: " It is not known who murdered Princess Rhaenys in her bed, or smashed the infant Prince Aegon's head against a wall. Some whisper it was done at Aerys's own command when he learned that Lord Lannister had taken up Robert's cause, while others suggest that Elia did it herself for fear of what would happen to her children in the hands of her dead husband's enemies." 

However, for the Viserys, maester was describing a fact: "He sent his pregnant queen, Rhaella, and his younger son and new heir, Viserys, away to Dragonstone". in another word, These things happened and they recorded it. They did not say: it was whispered by some that Aerys sent his queen and new heir Viseys to DS". 

Hope you can see the difference between facts and guesses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, purple-eyes said:

Hope you can see the difference between facts and guesses.

Since it isn't in ASOIAF it isn't a fact. No one in ASOIAF has ever said that Aerys named Viserys his heir. Even if it was the part of women not inheriting is a fact too.

9 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Why not though?

Honestly? Because is so effing boring. I prefer spending my time watching silly funny videos on youtube rather than discussing for the umpteenth time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Jon's Queen Consort said:

Honestly? Because is so effing boring. I prefer spending my time watching silly funny videos on youtube rather than discussing for the umpteenth time.

Fair enough. But I will argue that the reason you don't want to discuss it is because it's almost impossible to make a convincing case without spending a significant amount of time and effort on it. Because saying "everything points to it" was wrong in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've seen no textual evidence that Jon is true born yet. We only have evidence that he could be Rhaegar's son. Not saying it's not possible & not saying there aren't things that could plausibly lead to that theory, I'm just not seeing where everything points to it. 

From what we know or at least what we can be reasonably certain about & considering precedent, the true Targ heir would be Aegon assuming he is who he says he is. It could be Dany as Viserys' heir but we know that women get skipped for the throne so even though I'm a fan I'm not going to say her. I'm also not including Jon bc at worst he's Rhaegar's bastard so he's not in line but even if he is somehow trueborn he would still be behind Aegon as the younger brother.

Where things get interesting though is if Aegon is proven to be Blackftre as I believe he is and Jon is Rhaegar's bastard and they skip over Dany bc she's a woman then the heir would from the people we know to exist would ironically probably be Stannis. 

But if we go to the people who might exist but we don't know, we could go Aerion's line. Technically Maegor should have been king after Maekar. One could argue that he was illegally usurped or at the very least unfairly passed over (even though it was an understandable decision). So if he has any sons or grandsons out there one could argue that they are the true heir in front of Dany, Aegon or whoever else. I'm not pressing this as an actual theory (it kinda goes into the Brightflame theory but that's not really what I'm getting at. I'm not trying to say Varys is the heir lol.) I just like to think about that line and the implications they could present if there's a son or grandson out very well aware of who is and how he could've been king and is pissed about it. I guess Varys could technically be that son or grandson but he doesn't fit with what I have in my head. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Fair enough. But I will argue that the reason you don't want to discuss it is because it's almost impossible to make a convincing case without spending a significant amount of time and effort on it. Because saying "everything points to it" was wrong in the first place.

Or maybe because I have had the same discussion so many times that I can do it with my eyes closed but it will lead to nothing new since we have no new material.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As the only living trueborn Targaryen Daenerys is the heir and the head of the house Targaryen. I don't think Jon is a trueborn son as Rhaegar's second marriage is not likely to be recognized. 

There is no chance of Tyrion becoming a trueborn Targaryen as he was not born from Aerys and Rhaella. 

If Dany was born from Ashara she still becomes a bastard making her claim same as Jon. 

I don't think Aegon is real.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Legality is not what it used to be, neither death B)

If Middle Age is a reference, if there wasn't a son of age, the legal heir is that whom most nobles consider fit to be the legal heir. It normally coincides with the interests of the said nobles. B)B)

That stated, the factual heir IMO is Aegon, son of Rhaegar. Let's see why. He clearly comes before Jon, but Dany could argue this. My best guess is they'll find a compromise.

Jon is more wildling than southron, he doesn't belong to KL. Sansa, instead, belongs to KL since the very moment she yielded Lady, She'll marry Aegon and will gladly handle the task of rebuilding WF to whomever Stark , or half-Stark who agrees to it. I don't think she'll name Theon as regent, anyway.

Daenerys is no queen, she's a khaleesi. Period. Or shall I explain better? She won't like Westeros and won't stomach Jon. She will go back to the Sea of Grass asap, to ride about with a brawny khal who gives her what she needs. You know, I think some characters are inspired from well known songs: You can't always get what you want, but if you try, sometimes, you just might find you get what you need. That's Dany.

After hiding so long in sodding Asshai, poor Aegon must be so pissed off as to agree with all but anything he must, sitting the IT, marrying Sansa, naming LF as Hand...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, El Guapo said:

The text did not say that Aerys disinherited Rhaegar. The text said that upon Rhaegar's death Aerys named Viserys the heir. As King he is allowed to do that especially when we are talking about skipping over an infant. And no there is there is no text that says that Dany cannot inherit.

The text tells us three times that Aerys was pushed to disinherit Rhaegar, but as of yet, we have never seen any legal document that shows he actually went through with it.

The World of Ice and Fire - The Targaryen Kings: Aerys II

When Prince Rhaegar and his new wife chose to take up residence on Dragonstone instead of the Red Keep, rumors flew thick and fast across the Seven Kingdoms. Some claimed that the crown prince was planning to depose his father and seize the Iron Throne for himself, whilst others said that King Aerys meant to disinherit Rhaegar and name Viserys heir in his place. Nor did the birth of King Aerys's first grandchild, a girl named Rhaenys, born on Dragonstone in 280 AC, do aught to reconcile father and son. When Prince Rhaegar returned to the Red Keep to present his daughter to his own mother and father, Queen Rhaella embraced the babe warmly, but King Aerys refused to touch or hold the child and complained that she "smells Dornish."
  • Aerys meant to, nothing in this excerpt says that he actually did.
  • And this is all based on rumors, as the line before tells.
  • Now, if a maester pops up with a magical document that no one has ever seen or talked about before, well :dunno:, that will be another 351 threads to figure out of it is real or not.

The World of Ice and Fire - The Fall of the Dragons: The Year of the False Spring

To Grand Maester Pycelle and Lord Owen Merryweather, the King's Hand, fell the unenviable task of keeping peace between these factions, even as their rivalry grew ever more venomous. In a letter to the Citadel, Pycelle wrote that the divisions within the Red Keep reminded him uncomfortably of the situation before the Dance of the Dragons a century before, when the enmity between Queen Alicent and Princess Rhaenyra had split the realm in two, to grievous cost. A similarly bloody conflict might await the Seven Kingdoms once again, he warned, unless some accord could be reached that would satisfy both Prince Rhaegar's supporters and the king's.
Had any whiff of proof come into their hands to show that Prince Rhaegar was conspiring against his father, King Aerys's loyalists would most certainly have used it to bring about the prince's downfall. Indeed, certain of the king's men had even gone so far as to suggest that Aerys should disinherit his "disloyal" son, and name his younger brother heir to the Iron Throne in his stead. Prince Viserys was but seven years of age, and his eventual ascension would certainly mean a regency, wherein they themselves would rule as regents.
  • Again, this information is based on rumors with no real document presented in the story so far.
  • This excerpt tells us that Aerys' men looked for conspiratory proof against Rhaegar, but apparently they never found it.
  • Again we see Aerys' men suggest to Aerys that he disinherit Rhaegar. This all points to the issue that Aerys' men were the ones making him "mad", or at least feeding into it, because when you look at the bigger picture, they have something to gain from this.
  • Also, the empahsis quotes around the word "disloyal" are from the World book and not my own interpretation.

The World of Ice and Fire - The Fall of the Dragons: The End

Birds flew and couriers raced to bear word of the victory at the Ruby Ford. When the news reached the Red Keep, it was said that Aerys cursed the Dornish, certain that Lewyn had betrayed Rhaegar. He sent his pregnant queen, Rhaella, and his younger son and new heir, Viserys, away to Dragonstone, but Princess Elia was forced to remain in King's Landing with Rhaegar's children as a hostage against Dorne. Having burned his previous Hand, Lord Chelsted, alive for bad counsel during the war, Aerys now appointed another to the position: the alchemist Rossart—a man of low birth, with little to recommend him but his flames and trickery.
  • Again, "it was said," is more of rumor because that is second or third hand information, and this was all written down after Robert's Rebellion.
3 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Why not though? The thread title invites it. I agree it's a bore though, and I merely reminded everyone that the idea that Jon is trueborn is only a theory. My point was that the burden of proof rests on anyone making that claim.

Fallacies aside, your sound arguments so far are that:
i) Yandel's words on the matter should be dismissed because he isn't always reliable. That's a debatable position because Yandel provides a wealth of information on a number of subjects and there's no reason to think he would be unreliable on this particular one.
ii) Polygamy has never been declared illegal. Another debatable position since after Aegon the Conqueror polygamy was always rare and controversial, even for Targaryens. Unless, once again, you want to dismiss Yandel on account of his unreliability. But then you'd still have to explain why so few Targaryen kings did not have more than one wife if it was seen as legal/normal/ok.

But most importantly you've yet to provide any evidence that the marriage actually happened. And I'm genuinely curious what evidence you propose. There's one argument I'm very familiar with. But because you said "everything points" to this, I would assume you have more than one. So by all means, please provide your evidence so the OP can make up their mind about it.

For some reason I cannot break up your post to reply to each section more clearly. Damn forum!

True. The birth of Jon is still a major mystery in the story, but we do know that he is of high value and therefore he should not be discounted. And George has said he is the ice in ice and fire.

Yandel should not be trusted for anything that has to do with anything that effects the Lannisters first, and then Robert to a degree. Cersei's children are still being paraded around as Baratheon's, and therefore Yandel has to be selective with his words. I am sure Gyldayn's words were chosen carefully as well.

How do we know this? Well, the authors told us so:

As a result, Garcia explained, for fear of angering the Lannisters, Yandel cut out from his original draft all but the bare minimum of material on Eddard Stark, Stannis Baratheon, and several other figures: http://www.westeros.org/Citadel/SSM/Entry/12432

"In particular, Yandel starts to get quite careful when he writes about events in which various important, influential, powerful, and (most of all) still living people had a role. He has an interest in keeping his head on his neck. Ned and Stannis practically disappear from the account of the rebellion because Yandel has cut out his original account of the rebellion after Robert's death, Eddard's execution for treason, and Stannis and Renly proclaiming for the throne, and hastily did a revised and more politically acceptable one."
3 hours ago, purple-eyes said:

You should reread the World book (if you ever read it carefully). Maester privided several possible explanations on how Elia and children died. such as they were killed by mad king or Elia killed them due to fear. Nobody knew what really happened. These are just guesses of dofferent people. Author made it very clear.

See above that the Yandel was afraid of losing his head and so he had to make everyone against a Lannister, and more precisely at this time Cersei, out to be worse than they were. This book was continued in the reign of King Tommen, and this is also the same time when Cersei is sending people to Qyburn's dungeon for looking at her wrong.

This is the same guy who makes this statement in the World book:

The World of Ice and Fire - The Glorious Reign

Since the fall of House Targaryen, the realm has prospered greatly. Robert, the First of His Name, took charge of a fractured Westeros and swiftly healed it of the many ills inflicted by the Mad King and his son. As his first act, the unwed king took to wife the most beautiful woman in the realm, Cersei of House Lannisterthereby granting to House Lannister all the honors that Aerys had denied it. And though all know Lord Tywin might well have become Hand again, the king, in his graciousness, gave that office to his old friend and protector, Lord Jon Arryn, instead. The wise and just Lord Arryn has indeed helped the king shepherd the realm to prosperity since.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I assume it will go to a great counsel if, after the threat of the Others diminishes, there are multiple claimants.

Rhaegar died before he became king, so I think viserys naturally became heir regardless of if rhaegar had been disinherited. Also, curious that Rhaegar would lead his fathers army if he was disinherited.

So, current (planetos) popular opinion is that Dany is the last Targ. She therefore has a leg up. But if Jon or fAegon were to be able to provide some form of viable proof of their ancestry we could be in for a contentious debate and possibly a Dance of Dragons sequel.

Varys' riddle comes to mind, how power is where it is perceived. Be it a merchant offering gold(en company), a king(queen) that has been around for years, or a religious man (who has possibly come back from death or fulfilled a prophecy). The perception of power will win the steel that grants the furniture of your choosing.

 

 

^All that, or, dragons. Dragons will decide who gets the holey hat.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, The Fattest Leech said:

          The World of Ice and Fire - The Fall of the Dragons: The End

 

Birds flew and couriers raced to bear word of the victory at the Ruby Ford. When the news reached the Red Keep, it was said that Aerys cursed the Dornish, certain that Lewyn had betrayed Rhaegar. He sent his pregnant queen, Rhaella, and his younger son and new heir, Viserys, away to Dragonstone, but Princess Elia was forced to remain in King's Landing with Rhaegar's children as a hostage against Dorne. Having burned his previous Hand, Lord Chelsted, alive for bad counsel during the war, Aerys now appointed another to the position: the alchemist Rossart—a man of low birth, with little to recommend him but his flames and trickery.
  • Again, "it was said," is more of rumor because that is second or third hand information, and this was all written down after Robert's Rebellion.

Except you missed a period. "It was said" refers to the previous sentence. Not to the part about sending Rhaella and Viserys to Dragonstone, which we know 200% to be true anyway.

 

5 minutes ago, The Fattest Leech said:

Yandel should not be trusted for anything that has to do with anything that effects the Lannisters first, and then Robert to a degree.

But Aerys naming Viserys his heir after Rhaegar's death doesn't affect the Lannisters or Robert in any way. Viserys and Dany are the only known surviving Targaryens so this little piece of information makes zero difference.

It does a make a significant difference for us, the readers, who know about Jon, and about (f)Aegon as well. Which is why I believe it was included in the WOAIF. It gives Daenerys a legal means to argue that she, rather than (f)Aegon, is the legitimate heir.

I don't think any of this is important for Jon's prospects at all. Even assuming Rhaegar did marry Lyanna, being the child of a polygamous prince is pretty similar to being his bastard. To be legitimate in everyone's eyes you'd need the support of a king or queen ; except if you're the best candidate for the throne in which case your legitimacy is only a technicality anyway.
I think Jon's potential legitimacy only matters to him and to us. In terms of inheritance it's close to a moot point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×