R+L=J v.31

[rmholt]

First, This is a huge mystery. Remember, a rebellion was happening that could bring down the kingdom. Rhaegar was not the king at the time he was a prince. Aerys would surely not have commanded the kingsguard to be at the tower of joy, in fact if he knew of Lyanna and Jon he probably would have had them killed. The kingsguard is not going to perform an act that they know would directly contradict the will of the king especially if it was to guard the bastard child of the prince's mistress. (Well Arthur maybe, but not Hightower and Whent). They would either be guarding Aegon, or be at the trident. Unless, they knew that Jon was the rightful heir to the kingdom.

Does your theory address my thought, which is, Jon is no way the heir to the actual kingdom because #1 Rhaegar was never king and then inconveniently died - leaving, well, not Jon as the rightful heir. Aerys was king and the Targ heir was now Viserys who was a minor and suspected to be nuts but still the next in line and #2 Robert had defeated the Targs so they were bounced out of the succession automatically. These are things I have been reminded that the T o J KG knew. So they werent saving a current heir or kinglet. More importantly IMHO if he is the PWWP, does it really matter if he is also king? I think possibly it does not. Perhaps protecting the *king* isnt the idea. The KG were promoted to PWWP-guard or the equivalent behind Aerys' back but the KG was on board with Rhaegar taking over from Aerys. Anyway, Aerys sent 6 of the 7 to Rhaegar so he was expected to command them. They were under Rhaegar's orders, officially. They thought Aerys was safe with Jaime of course so they have nothing from Aerys to supersede Rhaegar orders.

I do have a memory that craps out occasionally so if I have the sequence of events wrong, specifically, Rhaegar dies first, please someone correct me.

TIA

[Dragonfish]

First, This is a huge mystery. Remember, a rebellion was happening that could bring down the kingdom. Rhaegar was not the king at the time he was a prince. Aerys would surely not have commanded the kingsguard to be at the tower of joy, in fact if he knew of Lyanna and Jon he probably would have had them killed. The kingsguard is not going to perform an act that they know would directly contradict the will of the king especially if it was to guard the bastard child of the prince's mistress. (Well Arthur maybe, but not Hightower and Whent). They would either be guarding Aegon, or be at the trident. Unless, they knew that Jon was the rightful heir to the kingdom.

No, it's honestly not a mystery. The Kingsguard go where they are ordered. That includes orders from Rhaegar. It's certainly true that they wouldn't have followed Rhaegar's orders if they contradicted orders from Aerys, but if they didn't even have contradictory orders from Aerys, then they were bound to follow Rhaegar's wishes.

Second,because Aegon (his grandfather) was still alive through him. Remember Rhaegar's fascination with Summerhall, he was born on the day Aegon perished in some type of mystical fire. They are both the dragon and the prince that was promised, just like now, Rhaegar and Aegon are still present through Daenaerys. The prince that was promised currently exists through three people who lived during different times, but he connects them all.

This is a really, really big stretch. And why would he even speak about it so cryptically? He knows Elia's child isn't his, she knows he knows, and he knows she knows he knows. He has no reason to be oblique about it. This strikes me as an incredibly contrived, convoluted attempt to fit contradictory evidence to your theory.

Oh, and one other thing: you mentioned before that a king cannot be a prince. This actually isn't true. The term "prince" can also refer to a reigning monarch.

Finally, do we know if Rhaegar was referring to a comet on the night of Aegon VI's conception or on the night of Jon's conception? Remember how confused Aemon is at the time he is relating the story to Sam. Sam notes that he goes back and forth between Rhaegar and "Egg". I think the comet might herald the tools of the Other's defeat: Jon Snow and Daenaery's dragons. Also, if Rhaegar just said that a comet came on the night of his son's conception, Aemon would have probably thought that he meant Aegon VI.

Well, I can't think of an answer to this, other than the fact that Aegon was conceived years before Jon was, and the comet was specifically said to have been seen in King's Landing. If Rhaegar was referring to Jon, then he actually would have been away from King's Landing at the time.

[Frey family reunion]

I think under Westeros succession laws, it would go Aerys then Rhaegar then Rhaegar's son. If Rhaegar dies first, that does not disinherit Rhaegar's child. As long as he conceived the child and he was in line for the throne, the child becomes next in line. As for Robert's defeat of the Targs, I don't think those three kingsguards viewed Robert as legitimate.

[Budj]

holy crap *crackpot helmet on*

What if the house of the undying scene Rhaegar is with Elia and her Aegon talking ABOUT Jon having successfully knocked up Lyanna at that point in that scene in the house of the undying? IF Elia was complacent in the deal and Rhaegar talked to her when he went back to KL before going to war then he would probably be talking to her about that to update her. Elia's willing involvement has been brought up before and if she did have a relationship with Arthur it would explain her being cool with it remember not everyone has a lust for power. According to the scene text this obviously assumes Rhaegar liked the name Aegon as Elia's son was also named Aegon (maybe the secret got out prior to naming "Aegon")...haha...but if it's true then I answered the earlier debate about his Targ birth name. :dunno:

Another question on Rhaegar's prophecies was he following the Essos text? Or was he referring to the long night version? The terms of a song of ice and fire are never mentioned in the prophecy - which could mean that Rhaegar was adding artistic license to the prophecy by referring to himself as fire and lyanna as ice in the song? Unintentionally adding his own bit of prophecy to the text?

Rhaegar was born when Summerhall was destroyed in 259 AL. Tyrion was born in 274 AL. So Rhaegar probably would have been fourteen when he conceived Tyrion. I'm not one hundred percent sold on this either but, it would fit with a lot of the imagery especially in the first book. He would have had the opportunity, Joann would have been in King's landing since Tywin was the hand. Joann I believe was one of the queen's ladies in waiting. All of the ladies in the court were said to be in love with Rhaegar. Could see him seducing her over Aerys at any rate (which is another common theory).Apparently Martin has confirmed that this conversation was between Rhaegar and Ellia. I think they were both talking about two different things in the same conversation (anyone who is married can confirm that this happens). Ellia is talking about her child, Rhaegar is talking about the person who he wants to name the child after.

I would just want to know Joann's relative age at this point? It could be possible and is a fun speculation...that would make Tyrion a dwarf AND a bastard though, haha, or with the timing would that make Jaime and Cersei the first two attempts? This would also add another motivation to Tywin's desire to maim the Targ children...?

Does your theory address my thought, which is, Jon is no way the heir to the actual kingdom because #1 Rhaegar was never king and then inconveniently died - leaving, well, not Jon as the rightful heir. Aerys was king and the Targ heir was now Viserys who was a minor and suspected to be nuts but still the next in line and #2 Robert had defeated the Targs so they were bounced out of the succession automatically. These are things I have been reminded that the T o J KG knew. So they werent saving a current heir or kinglet. More importantly IMHO if he is the PWWP, does it really matter if he is also king? I think possibly it does not. Perhaps protecting the *king* isnt the idea. The KG were promoted to PWWP-guard or the equivalent behind Aerys' back but the KG was on board with Rhaegar taking over from Aerys. Anyway, Aerys sent 6 of the 7 to Rhaegar so he was expected to command them. They were under Rhaegar's orders, officially. They thought Aerys was safe with Jaime of course so they have nothing from Aerys to supersede Rhaegar orders.

I do have a memory that craps out occasionally so if I have the sequence of events wrong, specifically, Rhaegar dies first, please someone correct me.

TIA

Rhaegar did die first. In line of succession does death remove Jon from succession? I still think it would follow the crown prince's line? Leaving Jon still an heir.

To your #2 the succession of Baratheons has already been usurped by the Lannisters...I see this situation as 3 families with a claim fighting over it - Lannister, Baratheon, and currently 2 Targaryens. Lannister's are wrongly sitting and the usurped Targ dynasty is essentially doing the same thing Stannis is doing and fighting for their claim to the throne. Jon's legitimacy would add more support for his claim if it comes out (if he goes for it) - but being a bastard would still allow him a possibility (see Blackfyre support) for support for a claim...again...if he decides to go for it. But in the grand scheme the legitimacy does not matter if we run with the logic that being removed from the throne removed them from power. Power lies where people believe it to.

[Budj]

I thought Aegon was about a year old when he died? Would that put him as almost a year older than Jon?

[Dragonfish]

Does your theory address my thought, which is, Jon is no way the heir to the actual kingdom because #1 Rhaegar was never king and then inconveniently died - leaving, well, not Jon as the rightful heir. Aerys was king and the Targ heir was now Viserys who was a minor and suspected to be nuts but still the next in line

That's not how succession works. The first son of the Crown Prince becomes heir to the throne when the Crown prince dies. All of Rhaegar's sons would have had to have died before Viserys could inherit.

and #2 Robert had defeated the Targs so they were bounced out of the succession automatically.

That's not how it works from the perspective of the Kingsguard. They still think Robert is a usurper. The Kingsguard are not sworn to defend whoever sits on the throne, they are sworn to defend a specific dynasty.

More importantly IMHO if he is the PWWP, does it really matter if he is also king? I think possibly it does not. Perhaps protecting the *king* isnt the idea. The KG were promoted to PWWP-guard or the equivalent behind Aerys' back but the KG was on board with Rhaegar taking over from Aerys.

But they state that they are upholding their vow as Kingsguard, not "PWWP-guard" or whatever.

[Dragonfish]

I thought Aegon was about a year old when he died? Would that put him as almost a year older than Jon?

Yes, you're right. But this also puts the kibosh on your theory that Rhaegar was referring to Jon when talking to Elia.

ETA--I should say that the issue of Aegon's age has been complicated somewhat by the appendix of ADWD, which lists Young Griff as being eighteen years old, while Jon is around sixteen, IIRC. Perhaps that is meant to be Aegon's "official" age, or maybe it is YG's actual age and could count as a clue that he is not who he claims to be. Or alternatively, Jon is close to being seventeen, in which case the ages may indeed coincide with what Martin said in a previous SSM.

[Alia of the knife]

Rhaegar was born when Summerhall was destroyed in 259 AL. Tyrion was born in 274 AL. So Rhaegar probably would have been fourteen when he conceived Tyrion. I'm not one hundred percent sold on this either but, it would fit with a lot of the imagery especially in the first book. He would have had the opportunity, Joann would have been in King's landing since Tywin was the hand. Joann I believe was one of the queen's ladies in waiting. All of the ladies in the court were said to be in love with Rhaegar. Could see him seducing her over Aerys at any rate (which is another common theory).Apparently Martin has confirmed that this conversation was between Rhaegar and Ellia. I think they were both talking about two different things in the same conversation (anyone who is married can confirm that this happens). Ellia is talking about her child, Rhaegar is talking about the person who he wants to name the child after.

I don't think every single word in a prophesy need be part of the prophesy, so the part about the sword breaking in the lion could be just a legitimate account of what happened on the second attempt, or as Aerys is Rhaegars Father, it still takes care of the Targaryen element if "killing a lion" is absolutely required.

It was known that Aerys had a thing for Joanna Lannister before she married Tywin, and took in-depth liberties with her during the bedding, but then at some point later in their lives, did rape her.

We can assume that if any of Tywins children are bastards, it might be Tyrion given that both dwarfism and the mixed-eye color are Targaryen traits, and I think in this instance, Aerys would be his Father and not Rhaegar.

There is another theory based upon irony, that perhaps of ALL three of Tywins children, it's actually Tyrion who is his true son given Tyrions cleverness and cunning which is very Tywin, and it's the twins that are Aerys.

And in terms of age, I believe that Tywin, Aerys and Joanna were all peers given that Joanna and Elia's Mother were best friends and part of Rhaellas entourage'

[Frey family reunion]

No, it's honestly not a mystery. The Kingsguard go where they are ordered. That includes orders from Rhaegar. It's certainly true that they wouldn't have followed Rhaegar's orders if they contradicted orders from Aerys, but if they didn't even have contradictory orders from Aerys, then they were bound to follow Rhaegar's wishes.

This is a really, really big stretch. And why would he even speak about it so cryptically? He knows Elia's child isn't his, she knows he knows, and he knows she knows he knows. He has no reason to be oblique about it. This strikes me as an incredibly contrived, convoluted attempt to fit contradictory evidence to your theory.

Oh, and one other thing: you mentioned before that a king cannot be a prince. This actually isn't true. The term "prince" can also refer to a reigning monarch.

Well, I can't think of an answer to this, other than the fact that Aegon was conceived years before Jon was, and the comet was specifically said to have been seen in King's Landing. If Rhaegar was referring to Jon, then he actually would have been away from King's Landing at the time.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on your first point. If a rebellion was not happening at the time, then I might see your point. I don't think Hightower would have taken almost half the kingsguard out of the action just because Rhaegar ordered it especially when the order was to guard his mistress and bastard child. Rhaegar did not command the kingsguard, the king did.

As for your second point, I don't think it's Rhaegar being oblique I think it's Rhaegar being distracted and not really listening to what Ellia is talking about, but thinking about Aegon V who I believe he has a mystical connection to from the destruction at Summerhall. Basically it's two people having a different conversation in the same room. Rhaegar assumes the person she is asking him about writing a song about is Aegon V.

I edited my post after my initial reply. I went back to the book to look at the exact quote. Nowhere does it say that Rhaegar sees a comet, it says that a comet was seen over King's landing on the day that Aegon was conceived. Do we have anything else in the text that refers to a comet seen during the timeline of Ellia's child being conceived? I think Rhaegar once again is referring to historical texts that he researched as a child and he came to the conclusion that a comet was seen on the day that Aegon V was conceived. I believe that Aegon V had this information as well which made him believe he was the prince that was promised. I think Aemon once again is assuming that a reference to Aegon is a reference to Aegon VI. Interestling enough, a similar conversation happens with Sam and Gilly when Aemon died. Gilly says we can name (the child) Maester and Sam then says not Maester but Aemon. Sam is also distracted during that conversation thinking of his own father.

[Guerillacropolis]

Hey, I got involved in a debate on the "Who's your favorite bastard?" thread about Jon Snow's illegitimacy/legitimacy. I accept the likelihood that R + L = J. However, I still don't consider him legitimate since Rhaegar was married to Elia, and the conception of Jon at the Tower of Joy was part of a hidden affair. That being said, people were putting forth the idea that since the Targaryens participated in polygamous marriages in the past, Rhaegar married Elia, consummated the marriage, and the product was Jon. Therefore, Jon is a legitimate heir, (i.e., not a bastard). Here is what I was writing about in the "bastards" thread. Feel free to skim, since I summarized most everything here.

'I think Jon is likely the child of Rhaegar and Lyanna. What I don't understand is how this makes him "legitimate". Rhaegar was married to Elia Martell, not Lyanna Stark. Somehow, Targaryens have had polygamous marriages, and that makes Jon legitimate? I call shenanigans.

First, the marriage between Rhaegar and Elia was a traditional, one on one marriage. Rhaegar was bored with Elia, Lyanna was smitten by Rhaegar, and they had an affair. Jon Snow was the product of that affair. Ned claimed him as his own bastard, because he knew a Targaryen bastard would be too dangerous to Robert's Beratheon descendants, and would kill the infant even though he was Lyanna's son and Ned's nephew.

The product of an affair is always a bastard. Is there any textual evidence for a secret marriage other than the history of polygamy practiced by the Targaryens?

Either way, whether the marriage was legitimate or not, Jon would still be the Targaryen heir since Viserys is dead and Daenerys is a woman. (I've since realized that if Aegon is who he claims to be and wasn't killed by Gregor, he would be the heir before Jon.)'

Sorry for the long post, but I appreciate any clarification.

[Dragonfish]

We'll just have to agree to disagree on your first point. If a rebellion was not happening at the time, then I might see your point. I don't think Hightower would have taken almost half the kingsguard out of the action just because Rhaegar ordered it especially when the order was to guard his mistress and bastard child. Rhaegar did not command the kingsguard, the king did.

No, Rhaegar can order the Kingsguard around as well. Martin says so here

"The King's Guards don't get to make up their own orders. They serve the king, they protect the king and the royal family, but they're also bound to obey their orders, and if Prince Rhaegar gave them a certain order, they would do that. They can't say, 'No we don't like that order, we'll do something else.'"

As for your second point, I don't think it's Rhaegar being oblique I think it's Rhaegar being distracted and not really listening to what Ellia is talking about, but thinking about Aegon V who I believe he has a mystical connection to from the destruction at Summerhall. Basically it's two people having a different conversation in the same room. Rhaegar assumes the person she is asking him about writing a song about is Aegon V.

Sorry, I'm just not seeing it. When would he say, "Aegon. What better name for a king?" if he wasn't referring to his son? The sentence doesn't make sense if he's referring to Aegon V, as it is apropos of nothing.

I edited my post after my initial reply. I went back to the book to look at the exact quote. Nowhere does it say that Rhaegar sees a comet, it says that a comet was seen over King's landing on the day that Aegon was conceived. Do we have anything else in the text that refers to a comet seen during the timeline of Ellia's child being conceived? I think Rhaegar once again is referring to historical texts that he researched as a child and he came to the conclusion that a comet was seen on the day that Aegon V was conceived. I believe that Aegon V had this information as well which made him believe he was the prince that was promised. I think Aemon once again is assuming that a reference to Aegon is a reference to Aegon VI. Interestling enough, a similar conversation happens with Sam and Gilly when Aemon died. Gilly says we can name (the child) Maester and Sam then says not Maester but Aemon. Sam is also distracted during that conversation thinking of his own father.

Well, I can't think of anything that would explicitly contradict this argument, but I don't think that I have to. Rhaegar is clearly referring to his son Aegon in the scene from the House of the Undying. There really isn't any other way to read it. There a several ways to write an ambiguous scene, but this isn't one of them.

[Dragonfish]

'Is there any textual evidence for a secret marriage other than the history of polygamy practiced by the Targaryens?

The presence of the Kingsguard is the most commonly cited evidence. They should not have stayed at that tower once they'd heard what happened to Aerys and Rhaegar and Aegon, not unless the true heir was with them. Though there is an outside chance that Aegon was the one who was with them in that tower, I highly doubt it, as I think Aegon is fake.

There is also another piece of evidence that some people don't accept, but which I find to be highly plausible. Remember Mormont's raven? Remember how he seemed to say things in an unusually knowing manner, at just the right times, like when he said Jon Snow's name on the night of the choosing of the Lord Commander? Well, a lot of people are of the opinion that the raven is being warged by Brynden Rivers, aka the Three-Eyed Crow. And it just so happens that in Clash, this raven says the word "king" several times while looking at Jon. I think that was a message being sent by Bloodraven, who, through his great weirwood network, would probably know about Jon's true origins.

[Guerillacropolis]

Thanks, Dragonfish. I think the KG were being used to cover up Rhaegar's affair (imagine Secret Service standing outside of JFK and Marilyn Monroe's hotel room). At least now I understand the theory behind the legitimacy, in terms of the true heir being made inside the room.

Mormont's raven is more compelling evidence for me. That being said, Jon would still be the Targaryen heir and future king assuming that Aegon is an impostor, or if Aegon dies before the end of the war.

[Frey family reunion]

No, Rhaegar can order the Kingsguard around as well. Martin says so here"The King's Guards don't get to make up their own orders. They serve the king, they protect the king and the royal family, but they're also bound to obey their orders, and if Prince Rhaegar gave them a certain order, they would do that. They can't say, 'No we don't like that order, we'll do something else.'"Sorry, I'm just not seeing it. When would he say, "Aegon. What better name for a king?" if he wasn't referring to his son? The sentence doesn't make sense if he's referring to Aegon VI, as it is apropos of nothing.Well, I can't think of anything that would explicitly contradict this argument, but I don't think that I have to. Rhaegar is clearly referring to his son Aegon in the scene from the House of the Undying. There really isn't any other way to read it. There a several ways to write an ambiguous scene, but this isn't one of them.

No reason to keep going back and forth on your first point. I just think the kingsguard had undertaken a duty that they believed was critical to the core of their duty, a duty which lasted beyond Aerys and Rhaegar's deaths.

As to second point, visions are not meant to be crystal clear, they are meant to confuse. Rhaegar referring to Aegon VI would be too easy imo. I agree that it is meant to appear from the text that he is talking about the chld Aegon being the prince that was promised. However, it is clear from the direction of the books that Ellia's child is not the prince that was promised. Why would Daenaerys be shown this vision? Well, there is a second way of interpreting this that fits both the scene (Rhaegar being distracted) and fits him referring to a character that is given great significance by George R.R. Martin. Another clue: when Tyrion is speaking to Brown Ben Plumm, Plumm tells him that he is the descendant of a Targarean under the rule of King Aegon. When Tyrion asks him which one since there were six, he says words to the effect of he can never keep that straight. I think this is an extremely subtle hint from Martin not to assume we know which Aegon is being spoken of. I think it's also important to remember that Rhaegar is not completely living in the present but he lives in both the past and the future as well.

[Dr. Pepper]

First, the marriage between Rhaegar and Elia was a traditional, one on one marriage.

I don't think there's any reason to assume that the historical and present-day polygamous marriages were/are ones where the groom marries all wives at the same time. It's reasonable to assume that the groom initially had a traditional monogamous marriage to his first wife and then later married someone else. Mentions of Maegor's marriages support this. Craster and Ygron in the north also suggest this.

The product of an affair is always a bastard. Is there any textual evidence for a secret marriage other than the history of polygamy practiced by the Targaryens? .

The product of an affair between unmarried people is always a bastard. The child of a married couple is always legitimate.

The presence of the Kingsguard at the TOJ is the most conclusive evidence for Jon's legitimacy. The heart of a KG vow is that they are sworn to protect the king. Hightower, Whent and Dayne were aware that Aerys, Rhaegar and Aegon were dead and also that Viserys had fled to Dragonstone. They noted that they were obeying their KG vow by staying at the TOJ with Jon, the new king. If they were staying at the TOJ because they made a promise to Rhaegar or because they were obeying his last command (which would have been null once he and Aerys died) or because they just didn't like Viserys, then their remarks for the reason they were there would not have been a bit different.

Jon's legitimacy does not take away from or cheapen his character. His entire identity has been shaped by being a bastard. Despite his the bastard smear, he has managed to earn high positions based on merit. He's the Lord Commander of the Night's Watch and also the de facto King of the Wildlings (probably unbeknownst to him). His arc presents an exploration on the themes of identity and merit (among others). I think that Jon's legitimacy will matter for readers, but will probably have little to no bearing on in-universe characters.

[Guerillacropolis]

Ah, okay Dr. Pepper. I thought the KG being at the ToJ was during the affair, not during Lyanna's birth of Jon (or was it both?). That makes more sense. Well now I'm kind of in the middle on the whole issue, but unless GRRM explicitly writes otherwise, Jon will always be a bastard in my book.

Really appreciate the clarification and breaking everything down for me. :cheers:

[Dr. Pepper]

Ah, okay Dr. Pepper. I thought the KG being at the ToJ was during the affair, not during Lyanna's birth of Jon (or was it both?). That makes more sense. Well now I'm kind of in the middle on the whole issue, but unless GRRM explicitly writes otherwise, Jon will always be a bastard in my book.

Really appreciate the clarification and breaking everything down for me. :cheers:

Not to confuse the issue, but it's possible that one or more of them were with Rhaegar when he went to get Lyanna, when he married and while they were locked away at the Tower of Joy. It's reasonable to assume that the Crown Prince would have had at least one KG with him and the text suggests that it was probably Dayne, his best friend. Dayne would have been witness to any sort of marriage vows. I can't specifically recall the order of events that sent Hightower and/or Whent to the TOJ. Hopefully someone can jump in with that.

Out of curiosity, why are you resistant to Jon being legitimate?

[rmholt]

I think under Westeros succession laws, it would go Aerys then Rhaegar then Rhaegar's son. If Rhaegar dies first, that does not disinherit Rhaegar's child. As long as he conceived the child and he was in line for the throne, the child becomes next in line. As for Robert's defeat of the Targs, I don't think those three kingsguards viewed Robert as legitimate.

trying to think, probably not a great idea, but if a king dies after his heir, isnt his next child the heir? Rhaegar, IIRC, was never king because he preceded Aerys in death. How could his children fall behind Rhaegar's offspring? The KG were sworn to the Targs so it would have been incumbent upon them to protect the fam or die trying. That's sort of why I like the idea of why they threw themselves at Ned et al, but still why at T o J? and they killed a lot of people if they were just trying to get themselves killed. So I think they meant to live, and for some greater purpose (Jon) promised to Rhaegar. KG unfortunate enough to be injured instead of killed and rescued by their conquerors have a bit of a dilemma (Selmy). Still left with the puzzle of what they planned to do if Lyanna had lived and they had gotten her and Jon away from Roberts guys. 3 men and a baby?

[Guerillacropolis]

It's more appealing for me to think of Jon as a bastard, because that fits my conception of him since the beginning of the series. It appeals more to his under-dog nature, and even his name labels him as such. Jon Targaryen doesn't have quite the same ring to it.

Perhaps future generations will call him "Jon I, the bastard king".

In terms of succession, would a bastard prince succeed before the younger brother of the former king? Because in that case, wouldn't Jon still have been the true king, legitimate or not? But that can't be the case if people are making such a big deal about it. I assume legitimate = Rhaegar -> Jon and illegitimate = Rhaegar ->Viserys -> Jon.

[Jem]

trying to think, probably not a great idea, but if a king dies after his heir, isnt his next child the heir? Rhaegar, IIRC, was never king because he preceded Aerys in death. How could his children fall behind Rhaegar's offspring?

I feel as though we have been through this a million times. I don't understand why people still don't get it (or, indeed, why they didn't know it in the first place).

It does't matter that Rhaegar was never king. It doesn't matter that Aerys died after Rhaegar. Rhaegar was Aerys's heir, and Rhaegar's son(s) are his heirs. Therefore any son of Rhaegar comes before any other sons of Aerys.

Imagine if Prince Charles died tomorrow. And then Queen Elizabeth died the next day. Who would follow? Prince William, Prince Charles's heir - not Prince Andrew, the Queen's second son. It doesn't matter that Charles was never king - the issue of his body precede his younger brothers.

Now just change Prince Charles for Prince Rhaegar, Queen Elizabeth for King Aerys, Prince William for Prince Aegon and Prince Andrew for Prince Viserys.