Would Ned have legitimised Jon if he hadn't gone to the Night's Watch?

[The Snowman]

Just had a random thought..

Bar the whole Jaime-Cersei incest gig getting out in the open and the Others strolling into town

What would Ned have done with Jon, bar the Night's Watch?

Would he have asked Robert to make Jon a legitimate Stark...it'd certainly destroy any rumours of anything like R+L=J coming up.

Would he have created a minor branch of House Stark? Much like the Karstarks.

I'm sure Robb would have made sure his bro wasn't doing it tough especially if he was in fact Lord of Winterfell (Sat Ned dies of an illness or an injury etc within 5-10 years (hypothetical I know)

[Kingofcero]

Interesting

[Tony Soprano]

No. If he was planning on legitimizing him, he would have done it already.

[Runaway Penguin]

Ned knows Jon ain't his son so he won't legitimise him, he cannot spill the beans about him being Lyanna's probably as well until Robert is dead.

[Hangover of the Morning]

How would legitimisation of Jon help in the fight against the Lannisters and the Others?

Sorry, just noticed that you meant that the twincest and Others would not happen. No, Ned would not do that. He promised to keep Jon's identity secret. But Cat wanted Jon out of Winterfell, so he would have to do something if NW was not an option. Doubt he could give him to anybody as a squire or send him to be fostered somewhere else. Maybe he would take him to King's Landing where he would find him a job. Ned would pay Jon's apprenticeship and all his expenses but Jon would not be allowed to live with him and the girls in the Hand's residence.

[The Snowman]

Interesting

Indeed Cero

No. If he was planning on legitimizing him, he would have done it already.

You want to expand on why you think that? I was going for a discussion kinda thing.

Ned knows Jon ain't his son so he won't legitimise him, he cannot spill the beans about him being Lyanna's probably as well until Robert is dead.

I said that he would legitimise Jon as HIS son, nothing to do with mentioning Lyanna in that convo with Bobby B

How would legitimisation of Jon help in the fight against the Lannisters and the Others?

I don't know...maybe Ned falls ill...blurts something out he shouldn't, it gets covered up with a legitimisation. Maybe the Stark family falls ill, Ned might need to make sure he has an heir.

My point on this topic is what would Ned have done if Jon had reached his late teens or 20s, would he leave his "son" to forever be labelled Snow. We see Jon is ridiculed for his name...someone say Lord Snow or The Bastard or traitors bastard.......

[Thendel]

Why on earth would Ned, father of five healthy children, want to legitimize Jon? Legitimization is primarily used as a last resort for a house in shortage of trueborn heirs, and the Starks were looking fairly secure at the onset of AGoT. We know Ned was intending for Bran and Rickon to be bannermen to Robb, meaning he was intending to set up cadet branches for them, but it's a bit much to expect he'd do the same for Jon.

I believe Ned's plans for Jon were primarily to live a happy life, free of the danger involved in the game of thrones. Summarily, Jon could eventually become master-at-arms, master of the guard or even steward of Winterfell. All honorary positions, and all positions we know were within Jon's skill set.

[Tony Soprano]

You want to expand on why you think that? I was going for a discussion kinda thing.

Sorry about that. :P

If Ned wanted to legitimize Jon, he had plenty of time to do it already. Fifteen years, and he didn't lift a finger. He didn't want to legitimize him. Whether it's because of R+L=J or something, I don't know. But, what I know that it wasn't in anyone's best interests for Jon to be legitimized.

First of all, he has three trueborn sons, so why would he want to legitimize Jon? Legitimizing bastards is only done when they're your only descendants. Roose didn't legitimize Ramsay until after Domeric died, and Robb didn't want to legitimize Jon until after he heard news of Bran's and Rickon's deaths.

Catelyn wouldn't approve either.

Jon's life wasn't that difficult. He may have been left out of feasts and other formal occasions, but he wasn't interested in that kind of stuff anyway. His legitimization wouldn't have changed his life too much. Even as a bastard, he might have had a bright future at Winterfell.

[The guy from the Vale]

Ned can't legitimize Jon anyway, for two reasons. First of all, Jon is probably already legitimate. Moreover, only a king can legitimize a bastard - and the last thing on earth Ned wanted was for Bob to pay attention to Jon. No, Ned would not have tried to have Jon legitimized. He promised, after all. And making Jon legitimate (or telling him his real parentage) would have been the opposite of what he promised.

[The Snowman]

Why on earth would Ned, father of five healthy children, want to legitimize Jon? Legitimization is primarily used as a last resort for a house in shortage of trueborn heirs, and the Starks were looking fairly secure at the onset of AGoT. We know Ned was intending for Bran and Rickon to be bannermen to Robb, meaning he was intending to set up cadet branches for them, but it's a bit much to expect he'd do the same for Jon.

I believe Ned's plans for Jon were primarily to live a happy life, free of the danger involved in the game of thrones. Summarily, Jon could eventually become master-at-arms, master of the guard or even steward of Winterfell. All honorary positions, and all positions we know were within Jon's skill set.

Thanks for the reasoning on this. I would have thought if Jon had stayed and Robb had marched to war, Jon would've been one of Robb's Sworn Swords/Shields in TWOT5K

[The Snowman]

Ned can't legitimize Jon anyway, for two reasons. First of all, Jon is probably already legitimate. Moreover, only a king can legitimize a bastard - and the last thing on earth Ned wanted was for Bob to pay attention to Jon. No, Ned would not have tried to have Jon legitimized. He promised, after all. And making Jon legitimate (or telling him his real parentage) would have been the opposite of what he promised.

I was thinking that Bob would do the legitimising as he is the king. If Ned stuck to the story of Wylla being the mother or even Ashara Dayne then I doubt Bob would have paid much mind. It always struck me as odd why Ned made the statement that he had conceived Jon after marrying Catelyn, wouldn't it have been easier to say it happened beforehand? So it wouldn't be cheating...

Sorry about that. :P

If Ned wanted to legitimize Jon, he had plenty of time to do it already. Fifteen years, and he didn't lift a finger. He didn't want to legitimize him. Whether it's because of R+L=J or something, I don't know. But, what I know that it wasn't in anyone's best interests for Jon to be legitimized.

First of all, he has three trueborn sons, so why would he want to legitimize Jon? Legitimizing bastards is only done when they're your only descendants. Roose didn't legitimize Ramsay until after Domeric died, and Robb didn't want to legitimize Jon until after he heard news of Bran's and Rickon's deaths.

Catelyn wouldn't approve either.

Jon's life wasn't that difficult. He may have been left out of feasts and other formal occasions, but he wasn't interested in that kind of stuff anyway. His legitimization wouldn't have changed his life too much. Even as a bastard, he might have had a bright future at Winterfell.

Fair points, would Catelyn really have a say in it though. Robb didn't seem to give two shits about her opinion at Oldstones. Different situation I know so maybe a bad example

[mormont]

If Ned wanted to legitimize Jon, he had plenty of time to do it already. Fifteen years, and he didn't lift a finger. He didn't want to legitimize him. Whether it's because of R+L=J or something, I don't know. But, what I know that it wasn't in anyone's best interests for Jon to be legitimized.

First of all, he has three trueborn sons, so why would he want to legitimize Jon? Legitimizing bastards is only done when they're your only descendants. Roose didn't legitimize Ramsay until after Domeric died, and Robb didn't want to legitimize Jon until after he heard news of Bran's and Rickon's deaths.

Catelyn wouldn't approve either.

Not just Catelyn. The entire Tully family would be alienated. They would (correctly) see it as a threat to the rights of Cat's children and a repudiation of the allegiance entered into when Ned married Cat. The entire point of such marriages is that the children of the union inherit: a legitimised Jon is a threat to that and therefore an insult to the Tullys. It would be a diplomatic catastrophe.

[Tony Soprano]

Fair points, would Catelyn really have a say in it though. Robb didn't seem to give two shits about her opinion at Oldstones. Different situation I know so maybe a bad example

Well, she didn't want Jon to be present at the feast for Robert. I think if Cat hadn't complained about it to Ned, he would have let Jon go to the feast. That proves she did have a say in how Jon was treated.

The situation with Robb is another matter. She would rather give the whole Kingdom to some petty lordling from the Vale who has never laid eyes on Winterfell rather than Jon. She wasn't really thinking straight at the time. What Robb did was a last resort. He wanted Winterfell to pass on to someone who had Stark blood in his veins.

Not just Catelyn. The entire Tully family would be alienated. They would (correctly) see it as a threat to the rights of Cat's children and a repudiation of the allegiance entered into when Ned married Cat. The entire point of such marriages is that the children of the union inherit: a legitimised Jon is a threat to that and therefore an insult to the Tullys. It would be a diplomatic catastrophe.

I absolutely agree. That's why legitimizing a bastard is a pretty touchy business. No one wants to do it unless they have to.

[Arya Targaryen]

Ned wanted to repopulate the Gift, and Jon wonders in one of his POVs if he would have been chosen to keep a castle there. If he is given lands in the gift, he might have been allowed to take on any name he wanted (not Stark, obviously), and start a new House loyal to the Starks of Winterfell.

[Randyll Flowers]

I believe Ned's plans for Jon were primarily to live a happy life, free of the danger involved in the game of thrones. Summarily, Jon could eventually become master-at-arms, master of the guard or even steward of Winterfell. All honorary positions, and all positions we know were within Jon's skill set.

I agree. Indeed, I think Jon wanting to the join the Night's Watch was probably something of a relief for Ned, taking a potential problem off his hands and putting it in a safe, largely anonymous place.

[eggs]

No. If he was planning on legitimizing him, he would have done it already.

this. its probably cause Jon is a targ.

[Alester Florent]

Ned could never have legitimised Jon, for the reasons mentioned above: it would have been a catastrophe regarding the Tullys. We saw the way the Blackfish reacted to Jon's appointment as LC of the Night's Watch. To an outsider, the Starks and Tullys look so close as to be virtually inseparable - and for the most part are - but as far as the Tullys are concerned, Jon is a slap in the face. That Jon is totally loyal to Robb and his half-Tully "half-brothers" doesn't figure into it. Keeping him out of the way is important to Stark-Tully relations.

However, assuming Jon never joined the NW, and things ran their natural course rather than being disrupted by the events of AGoT, Robb might eventually have been able to legitimise Jon if he was so minded, because he's half-Tully himself, and one generation removed from the "insult". There's also no problem of the bastard being perceived as trying to manoeuvre to steal Robb's inheritance because Robb would already have inherited and would probably have children of his own. Of course, had things run their natural course, Robb and Jon might have been well into their forties or fifties by the time it became relevant and Ned passed on. Cat might be out of the picture, Robert might be dead, and Jon, assuming he didn't join the NW, would have had his chances to prove his loyalty to the true Starks - and maybe the Tullys - on several occasions.

When Robb actually does name Jon his heir in reality - assuming that's what he does - the situation has changed beyond recognition. Bran and Rickon are presumed dead, Arya is MIA and Sansa married to the enemy, so Jon is the only realistic Stark heir available. Moreover, by this point the lord of Winterfell has gone from being the son-in-law and ally of the Lord of the Trident to being his king and liege lord - not to mention that rather than the formidable Hoster, the LotT is now the more pliable Edmure - which changes the political implications.

[eggs]

I doubt Ned gave a single fuck as to what Hoster Tully thought of Jon.

[Alester Florent]

I think Ned, as an honourable man, would have cared about not upsetting Hoster - who went to war on his behalf, let's not forget - more than absolutely necessary. How Jon is treated in Winterfell, how he's raised, etc. is none of Hoster's concern. However, if you start messing around turning your bastard son into a power piece and presenting a threat to the Tully grandchildren, that's the sort of thing that breaks alliances and starts wars.

[eggs]

I think Ned, as an honourable man, would have cared about not upsetting Hoster - who went to war on his behalf, let's not forget - more than absolutely necessary. How Jon is treated in Winterfell, how he's raised, etc. is none of Hoster's concern. However, if you start messing around turning your bastard son into a power piece and presenting a threat to the Tully grandchildren, that's the sort of thing that breaks alliances and starts wars.

Theyre not Tully, theyre Stark. Ned can do as he pleases. I dont see how honor plays a part. Why would Hoster be foolish enough to oppose his daughters husband.

btw, when has Ned given a shit about pissing off lords? he offered to foster Robert Arryn, and when Robert said that would be a slap in Tywins face, Ned's reaction was basically 'so what?'.