Who is the True Targaryen Heir?

[Free Northman Reborn]

21 minutes ago, The Twinslayer said:

The arguments for Jon's legitimacy are all very weak and based more on wishful thinking than anything else.  Since you are familiar with the toj argument I won't repeat it here other than to say that it depends on the premise that there can be no explanation for the KG presence at the toj if they are not protecting a trueborn king.  That theory was never very strong, but it really fell apart when The Princess and the Queen showed the last two KGs (Fell and Thorne) being ordered to leave King Aegon II in the care of a nameless bastard knight while the KGs went to go do something else.  

The starting point for the supposed "other clues" is usually the scene in ACOK where Mormont tells Jon the story about Aemon turning down the iron throne.  Mormont says that Robb is now a king, and the raven says "King."  The argument was that the raven was looking at Jon when it said "King" and that that means that Jon is the rightful king of Westeros because he is a legitimate son of Rhaegar and therefore came before Viserys and Dany in the Targaryen succession.  Of course, the argument falls apart when it is pointed out the raven was actually looking at Mormont when it said "King."  Or when it is pointed out that the world book makes clear that Viserys was the heir to the Iron Throne after Rhaegar died.  

This led to a scramble to find an "earlier clue."  So one was found, in AGOT:  "Kings are a rare sight in the north."  Robert snorted.  "More likely they were hiding under the snow.  Snow, Ned!"

That led to the theory that Jon was a "king" who was "hiding under the name Snow."  Of course, that one fell apart, too, when it was pointed out that the discussion was actually about common people hiding from kings.  For that, you just need the full context: 

"Robert snorted.  'Bogs and forests and fields, and scarcely a decent inn north of the Neck.  I've never seen such a vast emptiness.  Where are all your people?'

'Likely they were too shy to come out,' Ned jested.  He could feel the chill coming up the stairs, a cold breath from deep within the earth.  'Kings are a rare sight in the north.'

Robert snorted.  'More likely, they were hiding under the snow.  Snow, Ned!'"

So the "they" who may have been hiding under the snow were Ned's "people" who might have been too shy to come out into the presence of King Robert.  Not kings who are hiding under fake names.

There are some more examples, but you get the picture.

Wrong picture though.

The clues to Jon being the true King are far more extensive than the paltry two examples you listed. Someone with more patience will no doubt love to refer you to the appropriate thread. Just off the top of my head I can refer you to Varamyr's Prologue in Dance where he talks about forcibly taking Ghost from Jon, saying that Ghost would offer him a second life fit for a King.

Not to forget the scene in the very first book, when Jon is not allowed to participate in the sparring with Joffrey in the Winterfell yard, because "bastards are not allowed to practice swords with young princes". The irony being that Joffrey is in fact the bastard, and Jon in fact the prince.

There are of course many more clues, but for that you just need to be referred to one of the multitude of threads where they have all been discussed in great detail.

[The Twinslayer]

4 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Wrong picture though.

 

The clues to Jon being the true King are far more extensive than the paltry two examples you listed. Someone with more patience will no doubt love to refer you to the appropriate thread. Just off the top of my head I can refer you to Varamyr's Prologue in Dance where he talks about forcibly taking Ghost from Jon, saying that Ghost would offer him a second life fit for a King.

Not to forget the scene in the very first book, when Jon is not allowed to participate in the sparring with Joffrey in the Winterfell yard, because "bastards are not allowed to practice swords with young princes". The irony being that Joffrey is in fact the bastard, and Jon in fact the prince.

There are of course many more clues, but for that you just need to be referred to one of the multitude of threads where they have all been discussed in great detail.

I am aware of those threads and find all of them to be extremely weak. 

Just to pick up on the two additional examples you give:  by the time of Varamyr's prologue, Jon has been named Robb's heir as King in the North.  It has nothing to do with the Iron Throne.

And the quote you reference from AGOT, again, needs context.  Bran (soon to be Prince Bran) and Tommen (a bastard prince) are fighting in the yard at Winterfell.  That is what that quote is about.  And, it is about princes.  It is not about a king.  So how does it support a theory that Jon was born a king?

As I said, there are a lot of examples, but none of them work.  

[Rippounet]

@The Twinslayer THANKS.
Ok, that's rather weak.
The crow bit I remembered but never managed to took seriously. There have been several theories around the "predictive" value of that crow's words (including the fact that it was warged by BR I believe) but I remember most of it being debunked through thorough analysis.
The Robert quote is more troubling (in my eyes) and I'd genuinely forgotten about it (though I'd read it at some point too), because it might fit with GRRM's modus operandi and could be linked to Mel's well-known quote about seeing only "Snow" when asking the fires to show AA. So... I dunno, it could be something.

The problem of both quotes however is that while they both could arguably hint at Jon becoming king (King in the North and/or King on the IT), it's a stretch -to say the least- to say they hint at him being trueborn.
Which is my main bone of contention with the discussion here. I have to admit there is a chance that Jon will become king in the end, and that there is in fact some textual support for this. I just don't see how such quotes show him being the "true Targaryen heir" (as per the OP). Imho one underlying theme of the series is that birth does not matter, and that some of the most important and heroic characters are in fact "cripples, bastards, and broken things" (to quote Tyrion). And Jon's character arc, in my eyes, is precisely about how one can become a hero in spite of his relatively low birth/status. So because I don't see as much thematic value in a "Return of the King" scenario (à-la-LOTR) I tend to be more skeptical of the idea that he must be trueborn to take the/a throne.
I think that's the underlying fallacy behind this theory: believing that because there is textual support for the idea that Jon will be king, then it follows that he must be a trueborne prince and his parents must have been married. When in fact, the two are far less connected than some say.
In fact I subscribe to @Lord Varys's argument that on its own, a claim by Jon has no chance of success, unless the seven kingdoms are in such a state that the merit of the claimant would become far more important than his birth. Making Jon's possible legitimacy a moot point.

@Free Northman Reborn Ah yes, the "bastards and young princes" bit is a much better quote. This one I could see as an actual clue.
 

[Free Northman Reborn]

44 minutes ago, The Twinslayer said:

I am aware of those threads and find all of them to be extremely weak. 

Just to pick up on the two additional examples you give:  by the time of Varamyr's prologue, Jon has been named Robb's heir as King in the North.  It has nothing to do with the Iron Throne.

And the quote you reference from AGOT, again, needs context.  Bran (soon to be Prince Bran) and Tommen (a bastard prince) are fighting in the yard at Winterfell.  That is what that quote is about.  And, it is about princes.  It is not about a king.  So how does it support a theory that Jon was born a king?

As I said, there are a lot of examples, but none of them work.  

"but none of them work"

Well thanks for settling that for all the readership.

The reality is, the above is getting a bit desperate. The bastards not being allowed to damage young princes with swords quote is utterly damning to your argument. To suggest it is referring to Bran and Tommen is grasping at straws. The context was a comparison between Jon and Joffrey. That much is obvious.

The Raven saying "King" is clear too. Jeor Mormont has no connection to being King. Jon, though, clearly does. To dismiss it because the Raven happens to be looking at Mormont, or at a piece of corn or at the window or wherever at that moment, is again, quite ridiculous. There is only one potential king in the room at that moment.

The irony is that to defend your position, you have to explain away SO MANY clues. And what makes it worse is that Martin presents those clues in the very same way that he presents the clues about Jon's lineage. Such as the ironic exchange between Jon and Tycho Nestoris, about "if only a dragon were present to warm the room up", when we now know that Jon is in fact a dragon.

So, we know Jon is a dragon. That is beyond dispute. So clearly that clue is obviously a true one. Why then are you so desperate to dismiss the many more clues, presented in exactly the same way by George, that Jon is also King?

Simply because it is a theory that you don't want to be true. There is no dismissing the clues. They are clearly there, and placed there deliberately by the author.

EDIT

Here is the full Raven scene:

"King," croaked the raven. The bird flapped across the solar to land on Mormont's shoulder. "King," it said again, strutting back and forth. "He likes that word," Jon said, smiling. "An easy word to say. An easy word to like." "King," the bird said again. "I think he means for you to have a crown, my lord." "The realm has three kings already, and that's two too many for my liking." Mormont stroked the raven under the beak with a finger, but all the while his eyes never left Jon Snow. It made him feel odd.

Reading that again, it is so obviously focused on Jon. And that last sentence makes one wonder what Jeor Mormont truly knows, from the days of Robert's Rebellion. Maybe he has put two and two together.

[Lord Varys]

I'm not overly opposed to my own idea that Rhaegar and Lyanna actually married publicly, that leading to their disappearance, the executions of the Starks, and the war - however, I'm not as naive (or set in their ways) as @Ygrain and @MtnLion whose gospel basically the idea is that Jon Snow was born the true King of Westeros (the exploitation of the concept of the Kingsguard is especially unpleasant in that regard).

And I think that nobody in Westeros would actually care or give a shit about 'Jon's claim' unless it somehow benefited them and their agenda. This is a real and ugly world. Could very well be that the situation changes that people end up caring about Jon's claim, but I expect those to be Daenerys and Tyrion, and there not be any sort of conflict there.

Rhaegar and Lyanna actually marrying does not make that marriage legitimate in the eyes of the Westerosi public, and Jon claiming he is a son of that union (which he will never be able to prove) is not going to convince people who don't want to be convinced. Stannis could convince pretty much no one that Cersei's children aren't Robert's, and he was actually the brother of a king and a great lord in his own right. Jon Snow is just a bastard.

And even if ended up ruling the North by the point this whole thing comes up the North is done as a political power. It set itself apart from the other kingdoms with this whole secessionist thing Robb started and it is very unlikely that they will be able to convince the lords in the South that their 'Targaryen pretender' with Starkish looks is the better alternative to their own Targaryen pretenders, be they Aegon or Daenerys.

That would be as if the Skagosi or the crannogmen dictate the North who the new Lord of Winterfell should be.

The best clue for Jon being actually Rhaegar's trueborn son comes from the talk about the comic adaptation from AGoT where they kept a line of dialogue between Tyrion and Jon which is supposed to have relevance in ADoS. If I remember correctly that was about their talk about bastards and Jon claiming that Tyrion was 'his father's trueborn son of Lannister'. That might not actually be true, either, as many of us have begin to suspect. Now, things could turn out to be reserved - Jon is actually born a legitimate prince of sort who was raised as the bastard of a great lord while Tyrion is a royal bastard raised as the trueborn son of a great lord.

One should not forget that there is also a lot symbolism foreshadowing that Tyrion will one day be king, most notably him standing as tall as a king at Winterfell, and later on Aemon referring to him as a great man, etc. We don't know how things turn out but if Jon and Tyrion are two of the dragon heads then both of them might end up as Dany's consorts and could thus be king consorts (if Dany grants them such titles) even if they all survive the series. Hizdahr also was granted such a title - but Prince Daemon was not while Rhaenyra sat the Iron Throne.

[Free Northman Reborn]

9 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

I'm not overly opposed to my own idea that Rhaegar and Lyanna actually married publicly, that leading to their disappearance, the executions of the Starks, and the war - however, I'm not as naive (or set in their ways) as @Ygrain and @MtnLion whose gospel basically the idea is that Jon Snow was born the true King of Westeros (the exploitation of the concept of the Kingsguard is especially unpleasant in that regard).

And I think that nobody in Westeros would actually care or give a shit about 'Jon's claim' unless it somehow benefited them and their agenda. This is a real and ugly world. Could very well be that the situation changes that people end up caring about Jon's claim, but I expect those to be Daenerys and Tyrion, and there not be any sort of conflict there.

Rhaegar and Lyanna actually marrying does not make that marriage legitimate in the eyes of the Westerosi public, and Jon claiming he is a son of that union (which he will never be able to prove) is not going to convince people who don't want to be convinced. Stannis could convince pretty much no one that Cersei's children aren't Robert's, and he was actually the brother of a king and a great lord in his own right. Jon Snow is just a bastard.

And even if ended up ruling the North by the point this whole thing comes up the North is done as a political power. It set itself apart from the other kingdoms with this whole secessionist thing Robb started and it is very unlikely that they will be able to convince the lords in the South that their 'Targaryen pretender' with Starkish looks is the better alternative to their own Targaryen pretenders, be they Aegon or Daenerys.

That would be as if the Skagosi or the crannogmen dictate the North who the new Lord of Winterfell should be.

The best clue for Jon being actually Rhaegar's trueborn son comes from the talk about the comic adaptation from AGoT where they kept a line of dialogue between Tyrion and Jon which is supposed to have relevance in ADoS. If I remember correctly that was about their talk about bastards and Jon claiming that Tyrion was 'his father's trueborn son of Lannister'. That might not actually be true, either, as many of us have begin to suspect. Now, things could turn out to be reserved - Jon is actually born a legitimate prince of sort who was raised as the bastard of a great lord while Tyrion is a royal bastard raised as the trueborn son of a great lord.

One should not forget that there is also a lot symbolism foreshadowing that Tyrion will one day be king, most notably him standing as tall as a king at Winterfell, and later on Aemon referring to him as a great man, etc. We don't know how things turn out but if Jon and Tyrion are two of the dragon heads then both of them might end up as Dany's consorts and could thus be king consorts (if Dany grants them such titles) even if they all survive the series. Hizdahr also was granted such a title - but Prince Daemon was not while Rhaenyra sat the Iron Throne.

Lord Varys

This was a nice read. And the speculation over which bit of dialogue was retained in the comic adaptation is interesting, as it has always been. And you kind of had me pondering what you were saying, until the last paragraph where you suggest Jon and Tyrion end up banging the same girl, as her consorts, and willingly so.

I mean, come on. This is just getting silly. What next? A threesome between Dany, Jon and Tyrion?

[Rippounet]

I'm still left wondering: how? How do you get around the fact that Rhaegar already had a wife and kids? No, I don't buy the "polygamy was never illegal" argument, that'll never fly. And it's not just about convincing the Westerosi. In a sense, you have to convince 21st century readers that polygamy is ok.
And then, you have the World Book actually adding the problem that Viserys was named heir. As if there weren't plenty of problems with Jon being legitimate and proving it already.

 

[Free Northman Reborn]

14 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

I'm still left wondering: how? How do you get around the fact that Rhaegar already had a wife and kids? No, I don't buy the "polygamy was never illegal" argument, that'll never fly. And it's not just about convincing the Westerosi. In a sense, you have to convince 21st century readers that polygamy is ok.
And then, you have the World Book actually adding the problem that Viserys was named heir. As if there weren't plenty of problems with Jon being legitimate and proving it already.

 

That is a legitimate question. But Martin has a habit of introducing radically new twists to his story, and he has no problem doing so very late in the plot. The introduction of fAegon, for example, was to me a totally unnecessary diversion, and completely out of left field. Yet now we all accept his presence as old news. Same with Doran's revelation of the marriage pact between Viserys and Arriane.

One possibilty I foresee, is that Elia's children will prove to have been illegitimate, through an affair with her fellow Dornish Kingsguard, Arthur Dayne. Martin has indicated that we will learn more about Arthur Dayne in future novels. If that proves to be the case, then Rhaegar's ONLY legitimate child will be Jon.

And his prophecy that his son will be the Prince who was Promised will only be fulfilled once Jon was born.

Viserys being named heir is to me far less of an issue. The fact that males come before females in the Targaryen dynasty makes that basically irrelevant. Bringing it back to Dany winning the Throne by Conquest, not by birthright.

But as I said, Jon and Dany will never come to conflict in any case. They will join together.

[The Twinslayer]

32 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

"but none of them work"

Well thanks for settling that for all the readership.

The reality is, the above is getting a bit desperate. The bastards not being allowed to damage young princes with swords quote is utterly damning to your argument. To suggest it is referring to Bran and Tommen is grasping at straws. The context was a comparison between Jon and Joffrey. That much is obvious.

The Raven saying "King" is clear too. Jeor Mormont has no connection to being King. Jon, though, clearly does. To dismiss it because the Raven happens to be looking at Mormont, or at a piece of corn or at the window or wherever at that moment, is again, quite ridiculous. There is only one potential king in the room at that moment.

The irony is that to defend your position, you have to explain away SO MANY clues. And what makes it worse is that Martin presents those clues in the very same way that he presents the clues about Jon's lineage. Such as the ironic exchange between Jon and Tycho Nestoris, about "if only a dragon were present to warm the room up", when we now know that Jon is in fact a dragon.

So, we know Jon is a dragon. That is beyond dispute. So clearly that clue is obviously a true one. Why then are you so desperate to dismiss the many more clues, presented in exactly the same way by George, that Jon is also King?

Simply because it is a theory that you don't want to be true. There is no dismissing the clues. They are clearly there, and placed there deliberately by the author.

EDIT

Here is the full Raven scene:

"King," croaked the raven. The bird flapped across the solar to land on Mormont's shoulder. "King," it said again, strutting back and forth. "He likes that word," Jon said, smiling. "An easy word to say. An easy word to like." "King," the bird said again. "I think he means for you to have a crown, my lord." "The realm has three kings already, and that's two too many for my liking." Mormont stroked the raven under the beak with a finger, but all the while his eyes never left Jon Snow. It made him feel odd.

Reading that again, it is so obviously focused on Jon. And that last sentence makes one wonder what Jeor Mormont truly knows, from the days of Robert's Rebellion. Maybe he has put two and two together.

The bastards/princes scene has nothing at all to do with Joffrey and Robb, except that Arya goes to the window hoping to see the two of them. She is disappointed to see (bastard) Tommen fighting (future Prince) Bran instead.  That is who that scene is about.  And you still have not explained why we should infer "King" where GRRM says "Prince."

And your quote of the raven scene is incomplete.  Reading the part you quoted, the reader could be forgiven for thinking that the raven is staring at Jon while he says "King."  But if you read the full chapter you will see that "he" refers to Mormont and "it" refers to the raven.  So "all the while his (Mormont's) eyes never left Jon."  The raven is looking alternately at Mormont and the wall (strutting back and forth on Mormont's shoulder, i.e., sideways to Jon, while Mormont faces Jon).  That is why Jon thinks the raven means for Mormont to have a crown.  And finally, to the extent they are talking about any crown here with relation to Jon, it is the crown of the North, not a Targaryen crown, which Jon would take through Robb, not through Rhaegar.

But look at this the other way:  there is plenty of evidence that Jon is a bastard.

The Old Gods sent him a white wolf, while all the trueborn Starks got gray wolves.  That is because bastards generally invert their family colors (like Daemon Blackfyre), and the Stark colors have a gray wolf on a white background.  Jon gets a white wolf because he is a Stark bastard.  Mormont confirms this when he has a white wolf carved on the pommel of Longclaw and says that is more fitting than a bear for Jon.

Ned says that Lyanna is buried in the crypts because she was a Stark of Winterfell.  If she had properlymarried Rhaegar, she would be a Targaryen.  Just like Catelyn became a Stark when she married Ned (so much so that when Ned left Winterfell to be Hand, he named Catelyn the "Stark in Winterfell" in his absence).

Theon has a vision of Lyanna spattered with gore wearing her Barratheon betrothal gown (its description is identical to the one Cersei gives to Sansa when Sansa is betrothed to Joffrey).  Lyanna can't die still betrothed to Robert if she was actually married to Rhaegar.

Here's another Theon quote:  "It's not every man who has the honor of raising a king's bastard."  Theon should know, having seen Ned Stark up close.

Jon Connington is "the next best thing" to Rhaegar, according to Jaime.  The worldbook suggests that Connington was with Rhaegar when Rhaegar kidnapped Lyanna.  Connington remembers Rhaegar's wedding.  Singular.  To Elia.  If Rhaegar had a second wedding, Connington would have known about it.

Jon would not be the "rightful" Targaryen king even if he was a legitimate son of Rhaegar.  He would just be a prince.  Connington knows this.  That is why he calls Aegon "Prince" rather than "King."

Polygamy cannot work for Rhaegar because he was married to Elia in the Faith.  The Faith's wedding vows (there are seven of them) include a vow of fidelity.  We know this because Ned was married in a sept and Jon believes Ned broke his wedding vows when Jon was conceived.  Rhaegar can't take another wife while he is still married to Elia.  That is separate and apart from the fact that polygamy was almost certainly made illegal when Jaehaerys created a unified set of laws for Westeros (and that is too long to get into here). 

GRRM has gone out of his way to dispel the theories that used to be popular concerning Jon's "legitimacy."  Why else include the Thorne/Fell episode in The Princess and the Queen, or the quote from Barristan saying that Kingsguard are sometimes sent to guard mistresses and bastards?  Those serve no purpose other than to refute the theory that the Kingsguard were at the tower of joy because Rhaegar and Lyanna had a valid marriage.  And the fact that the Blackwoods honored Melissa (a mistress of Aegon IV) with a statue dispelled the old theory that Ned built a statue of Lyanna because she was married to a prince. 

GRRM likes to create messy questions over issues like legitimacy and succession rights.  What is the messiest situation you could think of?  Jon being the bastard son of Rhaegar and Lyanna, but being legitimized by King Robb Stark after Robb declared independence from the Iron Throne.  Where does that leave Jon's status?  Is he a legitimate Stark but a Targ bastard?

And why would Rhaegar bother marrying Lyanna?  Was he the first Prince of Dragonstone in history (other than perhaps Baelor the Blessed) who never took a mistress?  If so, he would have been totally out of character with his entire family and the way that GRRM writes.   

I could go on, but this is all old ground. 

[The Twinslayer]

8 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

I'm still left wondering: how? How do you get around the fact that Rhaegar already had a wife and kids? No, I don't buy the "polygamy was never illegal" argument, that'll never fly. And it's not just about convincing the Westerosi. In a sense, you have to convince 21st century readers that polygamy is ok.
And then, you have the World Book actually adding the problem that Viserys was named heir. As if there weren't plenty of problems with Jon being legitimate and proving it already.

 

Not to mention Jon.  He thinks it was dishonorable for Ned to break his vows by having a fling after marrying Catelyn.  How much worse would he feel if he thought his father had not only broken his wedding vows but also entered into a polygamous "marriage." 

[Lord Varys]

43 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Lord Varys

This was a nice read. And the speculation over which bit of dialogue was retained in the comic adaptation is interesting, as it has always been. And you kind of had me pondering what you were saying, until the last paragraph where you suggest Jon and Tyrion end up banging the same girl, as her consorts, and willingly so.

That is basically based on the original outline and the love triangle there. Back then it was between Jon, Arya, and Tyrion, and now it might be Jon, Dany, and Tyrion. Keep in mind that it was one dragon, not three, in the original outline, and thus there was no 'the dragon has three heads' back then.

And apparently even the Conqueror's polygamy was a later addition. In 'The Blood of the Dragon' Aegon I was only married to Rhaenys, not Visenya (who already existed).

It seems Dany is imagined as a sort of female version of Aegon the Conqueror with Drogon echoing Balerion, and the (final) riders of Rhaegal and Viserion fulfilling the roles of Rhaenys and Visenya. Since Dany has no brothers those men have to be her consorts, but we have reason to believe there are some other close Targaryen relations running around (Jon, Tyrion, Aegon).

Dany is thinking in a similar way, we have Jorah first suggesting that she could marry the other dragonriders, and we have herself think that 'the dragon has three heads' mean that there are two men out there she can trust completely. Those men will turn out to be Tyrion and Jon, I think.

43 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

I mean, come on. This is just getting silly. What next? A threesome between Dany, Jon and Tyrion?

Honestly, why not?

But keep in mind that the love triangle in the original outline had its downside. Jon and Arya had the hots for each other, Tyrion's love for Arya was not returned. I expect Dany to get along with Tyrion, that she grows to love him like a brother, and that they enter into a political marriage to close the lines and unite their power, but that there is not going to be any romance there on Dany's part.

As to the polygamy thing:

You people will soon enough all have read 'The Sons of the Dragon', too, but I just want to point out again that even Maegor the Cruel did not enter into a polygamous marriage with Alys Harroway. He is in the same conundrum as Henry VIII, basically (aside from not yet being king, of course). He has a barren wife (at least in his mind) and he desperately wants (legitimate) children. So he needs a new and fertile wife. Now, his wife is the niece of the High Septon, so he can't ask the Faith for an annulment (which would have been no problem in any other scenario). He takes a new wife in secret in a foreign ceremony and when he reveals it to the world he claims that he can do as he pleases as the blood of the dragon and the son of the Conqueror but also makes it clear that he is no longer married to Ceryse.

This is not so much polygamy - which basically is having multiple women at the same time - as a marriage, followed by a factual divorce (Maegor and Ceryse no longer living together) and a remarriage.

Rhaegar could never have gone with an annulment due to the fact that he actually had two children by Elia. And @Free Northman Reborn it makes no sense to assume that Aegon might be not Rhaegar's child. The man knows when he conceived the child with Elia.

28 minutes ago, The Twinslayer said:

Jon would not be the "rightful" Targaryen king even if he was a legitimate son of Rhaegar.  He would just be a prince.  Connington knows this.  That is why he calls Aegon "Prince" rather than "King."

That is an important point against that stupid idea that the Kingsguard at the tower was protecting 'the king' (and nobody ever tried to argue against that point) since it makes no sense the Kingsguard would consider an infant 'the king' who was neither acknowledged by the court as a royal prince nor proclaimed, anointed, or crowned as king if even the devoted followers of Aegon do not yet consider him their king. This makes it clear that kings in this world are made, not born.

And Aegon's gang deliberated waits with making Aegon a king until he reaches KL. He will only be King Aegon VI Targaryen when the High Septon anoints him in the Great Sept and puts the crown (of Aegon the Conqueror?) on his head.

28 minutes ago, The Twinslayer said:

Polygamy cannot work for Rhaegar because he was married to Elia in the Faith.  The Faith's wedding vows (there are seven of them) include a vow of fidelity.  We know this because Ned was married in a sept and Jon believes Ned broke his wedding vows when Jon was conceived.  Rhaegar can't take another wife while he is still married to Elia.  That is separate and apart from the fact that polygamy was almost certainly made illegal when Jaehaerys created a unified set of laws for Westeros (and that is too long to get into here). 

I'd say it was never legal. At least not for mortal men. Kings could take multiple wives, and did so in the old days of the first men (at least in the Stormlands and the Reach) but Prince Maegor's second marriage was not accepted, and his marriage were even opposed after he became king. Only the Conqueror's wives were accepted, but he only ruled as a bigamist for ten years. Rhaenys died early, and when Visenya gave birth to Maegor she was his only wife.

28 minutes ago, The Twinslayer said:

GRRM has gone out of his way to dispel the theories that used to be popular concerning Jon's "legitimacy."  Why else include the Thorne/Fell episode in The Princess and the Queen, or the quote from Barristan saying that Kingsguard are sometimes sent to guard mistresses and bastards?  Those serve no purpose other than to refute the theory that the Kingsguard were at the tower of joy because Rhaegar and Lyanna had a valid marriage.  And the fact that the Blackwoods honored Melissa (a mistress of Aegon IV) with a statue dispelled the old theory that Ned built a statue of Lyanna because she was married to a prince.

George has gone on record that the 'fever dream' cannot be taken at face value. A lot of people don't want to hear that but we the importance, especially of Selmy's comment, cannot be stressed enough in that context. And the very idea that Kingsguard would behave in such a silly way as some people thing was always actually a insult against George's skills as a writer. He would never create such characters.

28 minutes ago, The Twinslayer said:

And why would Rhaegar bother marrying Lyanna?  Was he the first Prince of Dragonstone in history (other than perhaps Baelor the Blessed) who never took a mistress?  If so, he would have been totally out of character with his entire family and the way that GRRM writes.

I like the idea of Rhaegar and Lyanna being married but honestly the idea of Jon being also a bastard, like Tyrion would be, would add a lot of symmetry. However, I still find it less likely that Ned would go so much out of his way to hide a mere Targaryen bastard. He would be of little political importance and I don't think Ned (or Lyanna) would have believed that Robert would have killed a mere bastard. Especially not Lyanna's son and Ned's nephew. If that was true then Ned would not have remained Robert's best friend.

I also have to add that I find the stressing of Bloodraven, etc. in regards to the Jon thing very problematic. I don't think the man cares who should be king. He has other things to worry about, much more important things. Now, it certainly is going to be necessary that Jon eventually learns who his real parents are if the whole thing is important for the fight against the Others. But then it will be of little to no legal relevance to anyone.

[Nezza86]

Yes but there's importance if you need real kings blood to ignite lightbringer. 

Actually the whole conqueror thing makes sense, I won't quote it cause it's too far back in this thread. But if Dany becomes the rightful queen because she conquers westeros as some sort of aegon I come again. Then that fits my theory, she would be the one to die as jons Nissa Nissa. She is the rightful queen and if they end up together and love each other then it's an even greater blood sacrifice. 

[Lion of the West]

16 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Connington wants to end the line of the usurper, not the line of House Lannister. And we will have to wait and see how many Lannisters and Lords of the West actually still care about Cersei or her children.

I was speaking about when she finally arrives. Presumably war will continue between the various factions and some dragon queen showing up with living dragons certainly is going to be a sight you don't see all that often. It certainly will be seen as a sign. It is one thing to hear rumors about Dany, and quite another to actually see the dragons. Especially if they have grown much larger by then.

I'm pretty sure he wanted to do some hurting to the Lannister as well, but maybe I am misremembering. Also Cersei would still be Lady of the Rock and so far she hasn't turned her talents of ruin on her fellow Lannister and Westermen. That will probably come but it hasn't come yet so she may still take down House Lannister with her.

I agree that Danaerys looks set-up to unify Westeros in peace but things have gone in different directions from fan expectations before, like with Stannis, but the point I wanted to make is that it isn't a magical property that makes whoever restores peace to Westeros restore it. It happens because of mundane reasons which are not unique to that specific person.

[1000th Lord Commander]

An interesting post. A lot of it comes down to what people will accept.

For example, Dany is a unquestioned Targ, of undisputed birth. However, after the Dance, female succession to the throne was considered null and void. If however, we accept that Viserys III as a undisputed, autocratic king, then he had the full right to change the laws of succession to make his sister his heir and Princess of Dragonstone. That makes Dany the Targ heir.

If people accept fAegon as the real deal, then he would possibly have the better claim. As the son of Viserys' elder brother, being born from a marriage between Rhaegar and his lawful wife, he trumps Viserys as King in exile, therefore he has the better claim.

Accepting R+L=J as true, I still don't see how Jon can make a claim to be the true Targ heir. He's still a bastard. No Targ since Maegor has practiced polygamy, and even if there was a secret marriage, there would still be objections.

If we accept fAegon as fake, Jon as a bastard, and Viserys as a legitimate king who is constrained by precedent, then there is no true Targ heir. The male line has died out, I think.

[Lord Varys]

38 minutes ago, 1000th Lord Commander said:

For example, Dany is a unquestioned Targ, of undisputed birth. However, after the Dance, female succession to the throne was considered null and void.

Actually it wasn't. There were many precedents against female inheritance, and the Dance was just one of them. A significant one, of course, but Baelor's sisters were still considered for the throne, as was later Prince Daeron's daughter Vaella.

And inheritance through the female line was actually strengthened by Robert's Rebellion. Robert was Aegon V's grandson through the female line.

But Dany qualifies as the last scion of House Targaryen. It was always clear that, if there is only a woman left, she will inherit everything. And that is the case now.

38 minutes ago, 1000th Lord Commander said:

If however, we accept that Viserys III as a undisputed, autocratic king, then he had the full right to change the laws of succession to make his sister his heir and Princess of Dragonstone. That makes Dany the Targ heir.

Viserys III didn't have to make a special proclamation there. Dany was his only heir. But you are right, he specifically named her the Princess of Dragonstone.

38 minutes ago, 1000th Lord Commander said:

If people accept fAegon as the real deal, then he would possibly have the better claim. As the son of Viserys' elder brother, being born from a marriage between Rhaegar and his lawful wife, he trumps Viserys as King in exile, therefore he has the better claim.

No, he doesn't. Viserys III was the chosen heir of Aerys II who disinherited/passed over little Aegon in favor of his own son. And after Aerys' death Viserys III was crowned on Dragonstone, explaining why he is considered a king and Aegon is to this day still only a prince.

38 minutes ago, 1000th Lord Commander said:

If we accept fAegon as fake, Jon as a bastard, and Viserys as a legitimate king who is constrained by precedent, then there is no true Targ heir. The male line has died out, I think.

Again, in such a scenario everything passes to Daenerys. Women aren't barred from the succession in any scenario. And honestly, it was as of yet only tested when it was a brother/uncle of a king against daughter/sister of a king. We don't know what would happen if it was a daughter of a king against a second or third cousin of a king. One assumes that the daughter would then prevail, especially if the king had chosen her as his heir and married her to his Hand.

Imagine Rhaegar had been a girl and Aerys would never have another child - then she most likely would have been Aerys' heir, not Robert. And if Aerys had married her to Jaime Lannister then it would have been very difficult for Robert to try to challenge that.

[KingMance]

19 hours ago, The Twinslayer said:

 

And the quote you reference from AGOT, again, needs context.  Bran (soon to be Prince Bran) and Tommen (a bastard prince) are fighting in the yard at Winterfell.  That is what that quote is about.  And, it is about princes.  It is not about a king.   

“Why aren’t you down in the yard?” Arya asked him. He gave her a half smile. “Bastards are not allowed to damage young princes,” he said. “Any bruises they take in the practice yard must come from trueborn swords.” 

Just to clear that up, that quote is definitely about Jon. Does it help the king argument? No not at all, I just couldn't let that slide. 

As far as "who's the super Targ" is concerned, it really doesn't matter. It's currently a Baratheon (Lannister) regime, so it's a moot point. If the IT even exists after winter zombies come south and fuck things up, it'll probably come down to another Great Council, as previously stated by several posters. IMO  (and no one asked, so you may stop reading now), Aegon isn't gonna survive that long, so it's probably gonna be down to Dany and Jon. Will Dany bring her dragons to Westeros and flame some WW's? Yeah probably. Has Jon been doing the most since the novels started to "fight for the living?" Absolutely yes. (Stannis has certainly played a big part in this, I won't discount that, but he wasn't an A1 day 1, and really only came for political reasons). 

So, the real question is, who's gonna have the most supporters left after all the wars? They'll probably win. Or Jon and Dany get together and everyone in this thread loses their fucking minds. 

We really need book 6. Can't wait to read it and come to this forum with a whiskey in hand to see how right or wrong these predictions turn out to be. 

[Leo of House Cartel]

@Nezza86 very interesting OP my friend.

If we assume the issue will not be raised untill ADOS, many of the political aspects surrounding inheritance may have changed drastically by the time Jon or Dany make their claims.

The OP made me think of the riddle posed by The Spider in ACOK.

“In a room sit three great men, a king, a priest, and a rich man with his gold. Between them stands a sellsword, a little man of common birth and no great mind. Each of the great ones bids him slay the other two. ‘Do it,’ says the king, ‘for I am your lawful ruler.’ ‘Do it,’ says the priest, ‘for I command you in the names of the gods.’ ‘Do it,’ says the rich man, ‘and all this gold shall be yours.’ So tell me – who lives and who dies?

Then we also have this.

“Power resides where men believe it resides. No more no less. It's a murmers trick. A shadow on the wall... yet shadows can kill.

I assume political status quo in Westeros will be in dire straights come ADOS, due to multiple battles and other more magical forces such as Whitewalkers, Dragons and general sorcery. In Winds, we have battles set for the Reach, Stormlands, North and Kings Landing, with other potential conflicts brewing in the Riverlands. The smallfolk in most of these areas have endured a chaotic few years as the power players have waged war, and with old leader figures being disposed of widely, aswell as new rulers and claiments appearing from every angle, the question of where the power truly resides becomes all the more warped.

Thus, by the time the question is posed to the smallfolk of Westeros as to who is the true Targaryen heir, will matters of primogeniture matter to people who have seen their people and countries raped and brutalised? Granted, the crofters, inkeeps and fisherfolk of The Seven Kingdoms may not hold much sway at court under the current power structure, but with revolutionary figures across Westeros proving dangerously effective at "rabble rousing" and galvanising the masses, change could certainly be in order.

The Sparrow movement has taken up residence in Kings Landing like a whirlwind, bringing great change to the system in a short time span. 

Robb Stark raised up two countries in defiance of The current regime, winning all his battles and instilling hope and pride amongst many of his subjects. While The Young Wolf sadly died, we have ample evidence that the people in The North and Riverlands still fight for change, and many still swear fealty to The King in The North/Starks. Several Lords and Ladies seem to still hold loyal to Winterfell, such as Manderly and Mormont, so again their are plenty pockets of power who seem to want change.

The Sand Snakes, in wake of The Red Vipers death, proved so effective at stirring up Dornish rage amongst the smallfolk that Prince Doran thought it wise to have them imprisoned, lest they insight battle and bloodshed.

Stannis/Mel have flocked numerous lords to their cause, through either religious or political reasons. While The Mannis may have lost at The Blackwater, enough people still cared about his cause for him to be able to head North and engage multiple opponents in battle.

The Brotherhood Without Banners have been acting as Freedom Fighters for a few years now, and have clearly won many smallfolk over to their cause, to the point where they have an impressive information network spread throughout the blood soaked Riverlands.

House Greyjoy has revolted against the Iron Throne on several occasions in the last number of years. While Balons first and second rebellions came to and end, Euron looks to have tapped into that sence of Iron Islands ambition, and has convinced his people of their own power to the point they have seemingly declared war on everyone. And again this is brought on by a large number of people wanting change.

There are too many revolutions happening across The Seven Kingdoms for the political system to remain the same, not to mention the fact that many High Lords forces are either spent or about to head off to battle.

Aegon should take Kings Landing before Dany arrives, and may have the blessing of The High Sparrow, which would probably cause his popularity to swell amongst the masses. At this point Aegon is the heir, as he is closest to The Iron Throne, however by the time Dany arrives, the power and symbolism her Dragons will hold over the common folk, high lords and Aegon VI himself cannot be underestimated. 

That two seperate claimants from the legendary Targaryen family will have soon arrived in Westeros will surely be reason for a change of belief for the smallfolk. Both Dany and Young Aegon represent something different as both conquer through force, much like Aegon The Dragon himself.

If The Others breach The Wall, and The Dragons are drawn into The Battle for The Dawn, I could certainy see many flocking to their cause, for the fire power of the dragons alone.

In The North, Jon could certainly win over the smallfolk and High Lords by helping save humanity from The Others.If The White Walkers are defeated say, halfway through ADOS, Jon may be well positioned to be crowned King In The North, King of The Rivers and King Beyond The Wall. This could certainly be sufficient support to launch his own camaign for the Iron Throne, but would he really want it? Jon has spent his entire life up North, and the Northen culture is engrained on his soul. While we don't know how his mental state may have changed should he die and be ressurected, what could their be that would spur him south anyway? He has no connections in the south other than the potential of his parentage, and has spent years surrounded by prophecy, war, magic and madmen.

So yeah, Dany is probably the true heir by rights of primogeniture, but Aegon may be King soon due to rights of Conquest. 

When the Dragons/Others arrive, and the illusion of power displayed by the politicians has been shattered, the people will see that the power truly resides with the strong. 

[BRANDON GREYSTARK]

No brainer Dany is the only Targaryen heir . Now let's look at other would be claimants .

Aegon Targaryen ; AKA Young Griff of Faegon

PROS; Look like a Targ, has Varys and Jon Connington to vouch for him .

CONS; Allegedly   killed during the sack of King's Landings , has Varys to Vouch for him . Leading the Gold Company.

Jon Snow  ; AKA Lord Snow , The Bastard

PROS ; Rhaegar kidnapped Lyanna

CONS; Looks like Eddard Stark , Eddard claimed him as his son and as far as we know there is nobody with enough clout can honestly say that Lyanna is Jon's mother and that she was married to Rhaegar . Still a bastard .

Tyrion Lannister ; The Imp

PROS ; Aerys lusted after Joanna Lannister

CONS; If there was evidence that Tyrion was Aerys's son Tywin would have found it .

[Nezza86]

2 hours ago, BRANDON GREYSTARK said:

No brainer Dany is the only Targaryen heir . Now let's look at other would be claimants .

Aegon Targaryen ; AKA Young Griff of Faegon

PROS; Look like a Targ, has Varys and Jon Connington to vouch for him .

CONS; Allegedly   killed during the sack of King's Landings , has Varys to Vouch for him . Leading the Gold Company.

Jon Snow  ; AKA Lord Snow , The Bastard

PROS ; Rhaegar kidnapped Lyanna

CONS; Looks like Eddard Stark , Eddard claimed him as his son and as far as we know there is nobody with enough clout can honestly say that Lyanna is Jon's mother and that she was married to Rhaegar . Still a bastard .

Two different religions, two different types of weddings. Does one nullify the other? Could rhaegar have set aside Elia with her blessing before "kidnapping" Lyanna. 

What if Dany is bastard born - half Ashara Dayne half Aerys? Then what if Jon has Dark sister and Aegon has blackfyre? Dark sister of course being in Lyannas tomb.

[Maxxine]

22 minutes ago, Nezza86 said:

Two different religions, two different types of weddings. Does one nullify the other? Could rhaegar have set aside Elia with her blessing before "kidnapping" Lyanna. 

What if Dany is bastard born - half Ashara Dayne half Aerys? Then what if Jon has Dark sister and Aegon has blackfyre? Dark sister of course being in Lyannas tomb.

This is a lot of what ifs. It's seems from what we know (or what we can be reasonably certain of) Jon would be bastard. We have no evidence that getting married under one religion would allow you to get legally again another religion. From what we see marriages done by the old gods are recognized by the Faith and vice versa. It's technically possible but there is no reason to believe this is the case. And why would Rhaegar be allowed to set aside Elia. We have no evidence of a marriages being put aside even if the woman is completely barren, so why would he be allowed to do so when he already has an heir. The only time, from what we've seen, is when the marriage is not consummated. Honestly, if these type of "what-ifs" come up in the story just to make Jon legitimate it would be cheap and very deus ex machina in my opinion.

And if Dany is a bastard Dayne (which I highly doubt) it doesn't change anything in regards to Jon. They would both just be bastards at that point and then there is just Aegon, who may or may not be the real thing.