The Lyanna + Rhaegar = Jon Thread (Part VI)

[Serc]

I thought that he would be released because he made a decision without important information or something - wasnt it mentioned that oaths dont hold when something like that happens.

[Guest Ontology Interface Layer]

I thought that he would be released because he made a decision without important information or something - wasnt it mentioned that oaths dont hold when something like that happens.

Not really. The closest i can think of is Mel's claim that oaths said to false gods don't count. And she's hardly an expert of Westerosi law or customs.

[Prince Rhaegar Targaryen]

The trouble is that after legitimization Jon will be trueborn from his bith not from the moment of legitimization.

You say it, "after legitimization". There you are, we are after "point x" on timeline and Jon is legitimate (and, his oaths aside, king). So what? There is no time travel. "Dany can't legitimate him" ... she just did, in out little simulation.

[Jon Targaryen]

I thought that he would be released because he made a decision without important information or something - wasnt it mentioned that oaths dont hold when something like that happens.

This exchange between George and a fan might help.

"Would", yes. Now, I ask: how would revealing "the truth" work in reality? (you cannot invoke DNA sampling machines and mass hypnosis devices)

I don't think the "King Jon Targaryen, Lord of the Seven Kingdoms" necessarily require court of law quality proof for it to occur.

The simplest scenario is that Jon and Dany survive the war for the dawn, Dany believes whomever gives the big reveal, and she says his king. If at least one dragon and the Unsullied are still around, that's the end of the story.

Another scenario is that Jon "saves the realm" and is put in there due to being the savior. The Targaryen ancestry is really secondary.

I don't either of these is likely. The first because I don't think both Dany and Jon will survive. I expect one or the other to die. The second because it's too sickly-sweet.

But a DNA test isn't absolutely necessary.

[Errant Bard]

The simplest scenario is that Jon and Dany survive the war for the dawn, Dany believes whomever gives the big reveal, and she says his king. If at least one dragon and the Unsullied are still around, that's the end of the story.

Another scenario is that Jon "saves the realm" and is put in there due to being the savior. The Targaryen ancestry is really secondary.

Works for my argument: that Jon could be a Targaryen in truth is not nearly enough, or actually, important... What's important is the approval and support of some major power, and it seems that in scenarii involving Dany, it always implies making him a Targaryen (essentially, the "legitimization" line of thought, with all the problems inherent to it). There is no "He's a Targaryen and that's it" like Prince Bran claimed.

(And of course, the idea that the word of a parangon of morality would make the realm, and other monarch bow is naive at best... After all that's what happened with Stannis already)

[Edward the Great]

Did Rhaegar name the "Tower of Joy?" I always thought it was an obvious sexual reference, a bit of bad humor on the part of RR Martin. What's it shaped like?

[Shewoman]

I don't get the impression that the name of the tower is supposed to be suggestive. I think it was a favorite place of Rhaegar's.

[Jon Targaryen]

Works for my argument: that Jon could be a Targaryen in truth is not nearly enough, or actually, important... What's important is the approval and support of some major power, and it seems that in scenarii involving Dany, it always implies making him a Targaryen (essentially, the "legitimization" line of thought, with all the problems inherent to it). There is no "He's a Targaryen and that's it" like Prince Bran claimed.

Oh yeah, most of the people of Westeros, common and noble, are not like the Goodbrother maester, obsessively hewing to the laws of inheritance. They support them at times, the times when it benefits them. But they can just as easily ignore them when they are inconvenient as the Reach lords and Storm lords proved.

[Mezeh]

Is that supported in the text?

""It's you who are forgetting," King Stannis replied.

Melisandre put a warm hand on Jon's arm. "A king can remove the taint of bastardy with a stroke, Lord Snow."

[Guest Ontology Interface Layer]

""It's you who are forgetting," King Stannis replied.

Melisandre put a warm hand on Jon's arm. "A king can remove the taint of bastardy with a stroke, Lord Snow."

The trouble is that after legitimization Jon will be trueborn from his birth not from the moment of legitimization.

Your quote didn't answer the question, which was about timing.

Let's suppose the King can also cure the disease scrofula with a touch. The fact that he does so to some poor sufferer doesn't mean that he never had the disease in the first place, merely that he no longer has it after the King's Touch.

"The taint of bastardy" is a social stigma, so it's hardly the same thing, but we need more evidence for the legal ramifications than that quote provides. In fact, the taint being seen as still applying for the time up until the King's decree (rather than retroactively disappearing) also fits with the notion of legitimised bastards coming behind trueborn children in a succession. Jon would be in the Stark succession if Robb legitimised him, but Bran had 9 years seniority as a Stark, whereas Jon would only have those few weeks of Stark seniority from after the decree. If that's how it works, which we don't know.

[Mezeh]

There is no notion in the text that legitimized bastards are behind of trueborn children in the line of succession. On the opposite Robb stated that his reason of legitimizing Jon is that he does not want Sansa and her Lannister husband to inherit the North. So legitimization at least would place Jon ahead of his half sisters. It is not likely that law places legitimized bastards only behind trueborn children of the same sex so after legitimization the taint baseborn is removed and the former bastard has the same rights and he was trueborn from the beginning.

Anyway – there were few precedents when bastards were legitimized in other cases then absence of any other heirs besides very distant relatives.

[John of Greywater Watch]

There is no notion in the text that legitimized bastards are behind of trueborn children in the line of succession. On the opposite Robb stated that his reason of legitimizing Jon is that he does not want Sansa and her Lannister husband to inherit the North. So legitimization at least would place Jon ahead of his half sisters. It is not likely that law places legitimized bastards only behind trueborn children of the same sex so after legitimization the taint baseborn is removed and the former bastard has the same rights and he was trueborn from the beginning.

Anyway – there were few precedents when bastards were legitimized in other cases then absence of any other heirs besides very distant relatives.

I think Jon get's the nod because not only does Jon get legitimized, but Robb also names him his heir. Plus Jon is male and since they're not in Dorne he gets the nod, but nonetheless Robb does say he is specificly naming Jon his heir.

[Guest Ontology Interface Layer]

There is no notion in the text that legitimized bastards are behind of trueborn children in the line of succession.

True. That doesn't support retroactive legitimacy, though. It just means that we don't know, as we've been saying all along.

On the opposite Robb stated that his reason of legitimizing Jon is that he does not want Sansa and her Lannister husband to inherit the North. So legitimization at least would place Jon ahead of his half sisters. It is not likely that law places legitimized bastards only behind trueborn children of the same sex so after legitimization the taint baseborn is removed and the former bastard has the same rights and he was trueborn from the beginning.

"It's not likely" are weasel words here, trying to sound like there's proof when there really isn't. In fact it absolutely is likely. This is male-preference primogeniture; daughters come after the sons. You can't just declare that Bran would be displaced by a legitimate Jon just because Robb wanted to exclude Sansa.

[Mezeh]

The point is that after legitimization a former bastard enters into line of succession and not on the last place. We know quite a few cases of legitimization in Westeros and only one when bastards were legitimized in the presence of trueborn heir – by Aegon the III yet even this case does not help us since Daeron was the eldest son in any case.

And Robb definitely displaced Bran as his heir by naming Jon the one but Robb thought that his brothers are dead. Since they are alive – he created an interesting precedent most probably never happened before in Westeros.

[Guest Ontology Interface Layer]

And Robb definitely displaced Bran as his heir by naming Jon the one but Robb thought that his brothers are dead.

He only "displaced" Bran (and he wouldn't have done anything if he knew he was alive) by declaring an heir by decree, not necessarily by virtue of normal rules integrating legitimised bastards into the line...if there even are any such normal rules.

[Mezeh]

I’m sorry but “normal rules†or rather tradition does not imply any integration of bastards in the line of succession at all as long as the line exists or in other words any trueborn heir is present. What Robb did (or intended to do) was exception since by law Sansa was Robb’s heir presumable and Robb placed his bastard half brother ahead of his trueborn sister. While Robb surely had the right to legitimize Jon as a King this apparently was unprecedented move.

[Guest Ontology Interface Layer]

I’m sorry but “normal rules†or rather tradition does not imply any integration of bastards in the line of succession at all as long as the line exists or in other words any trueborn heir is present.

Do you have any evidence at all for your assertions?

[Mezeh]

Basically all talks about legitimization of bastards. We know only about two of them. One is legitimization of all of his bastards by Aegon the third that by Catelyn words created a very bad precedent and the second is legitimization of Bolton’s son that was justified by the death of the only trueborn heir. In addition legitimization of lord Hornwood natural son was considered once again in the absence of any other heir and it was postponed until the lady Hornwood death. One more occasion is house Darry but there was only a cousin and by political reasons the title was passed via female relatives.

[Guest Ontology Interface Layer]

Basically all talks about legitimization of bastards. We know only about two of them. One is legitimization of all of his bastards by Aegon the third that by Catelyn words created a very bad precedent and the second is legitimization of Bolton’s son that was justified by the death of the only trueborn heir. In addition legitimization of lord Hornwood natural son was considered once again in the absence of any other heir and it was postponed until the lady Hornwood death. One more occasion is house Darry but there was only a cousin and by political reasons the title was passed via female relatives.

Not a single one of those says anything about whether legitimised bastard sons come before or after daughters or even younger sons in succession. Your notion of evidence is pretty much non sequiturs.

[Mezeh]

No one legitimized bastards when there were younger sons or daughters. Even Aegon the III since he had only one legal son and Daeron was the eldest. It seems that Robb was the first to alter order of succession by legitimizing bastard.