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

[The guy from the Vale]

Of course they are half-Tully, that's the point of a marriage in Westeros, after all. As to why Hoster would be opposed? Why, because it would create a non-Tully contender for his grandchildren. Of course he'd be opposed. Legitimizing Jon also serves no direct purpose to Ned, and, again, probably goes against his promise. You don't just slap your father-in-law in the face for shits and giggles.

Tywin is a different case. Ned despises Tywin for quite a number of reasons, the murder of Elia and her children first of all. He also has reasons to distrust the Lannisters as he's led to believe they killed his foster father Jon Arryn. slapping Tywin in the face would serve a purpose here - limiting his influence over Robert.

[mormont]

The logic that says Ned was willing to cause a minor upset to an enemy, therefore he'd have been willing to cause a major upset a vital ally, is pretty weak.

Also, if Robb had inherited from Ned, then he would have been only Lord of Winterfell - and would not have the power to legitimise Jon, surely? It's the King that needs a reason to do so, and why would he? Even if Robb had considered it a good idea, and I can see no reason why he would, either.

As people have already pointed out, bastards are not legitimised out of sentimentality. The only reason good enough to make it worth doing is political necessity.

[oprahnoodlemantra]

Didn't Ned want to populate the Gift? He could have legitimized Jon and created another branch of the Starks to populate the Gift with Jon as the lord.

[Alester Florent]

Ned hates Tywin, though. Annoying him is a bonus. Hoster is his relative by marriage, arguably a friend, and almost certainly a man Ned respects; he may even feel he's in his debt. He felt sufficiently bound by honour to marry Cat in the first place, when he was under no legal obligation to do so; there's no reason to suspect he's changed his mind.

Honour plays another part because the whole point in a Stark-Tully marriage is that the future heirs to Winterfell will have Tully blood and therefore improve relations between the kingdoms. Disinheriting (or appearing to disinherit) those same heirs in favour of a bastard you sired on some Dornish drab you don't even have the decency to name is kind of pissing all over that, and giving two fingers to the original agreement, and by extension, to the Tullys and the Riverlands as a whole.

[eggs]

Of course they are half-Tully, that's the point of a marriage in Westeros, after all. As to why Hoster would be opposed? Why, because it would create a non-Tully contender for his grandchildren. Of course he'd be opposed. Legitimizing Jon also serves no direct purpose to Ned, and, again, probably goes against his promise. You don't just slap your father-in-law in the face for shits and giggles.

Tywin is a different case. Ned despises Tywin for quite a number of reasons, the murder of Elia and her children first of all. He also has reasons to distrust the Lannisters as he's led to believe they killed his foster father Jon Arryn. slapping Tywin in the face would serve a purpose here - limiting his influence over Robert.

The logic that says Ned was willing to cause a minor upset to an enemy, therefore he'd have been willing to cause a major upset a vital ally, is pretty weak.

Im just saying that Ned generally doesnt care about that sort of shit. He didnt even change his mind about sending Loras after the Mountain when told that the Tyrells would make good allies when opposing the Lannisters. If he decided to make Jon legetimate, I doubt he'd have Hoster Tully in his mind at all, and if someone said 'the Tullys wont like that' I doubt he'd change his mind.

[eggs]

Ned hates Tywin, though. Annoying him is a bonus. Hoster is his relative by marriage, arguably a friend, and almost certainly a man Ned respects; he may even feel he's in his debt. He felt sufficiently bound by honour to marry Cat in the first place, when he was under no legal obligation to do so; there's no reason to suspect he's changed his mind.

honor didnt play a part, did it? That was the only way to get House Tully on his side.

Honour plays another part because the whole point in a Stark-Tully marriage is that the future heirs to Winterfell will have Tully blood and therefore improve relations between the kingdoms. Disinheriting (or appearing to disinherit) those same heirs in favour of a bastard you sired on some Dornish drab you don't even have the decency to name is kind of pissing all over that, and giving two fingers to the original agreement, and by extension, to the Tullys and the Riverlands as a whole.

It would definitely be a slap, but I still dont think Ned would care. and besides, Robb was still gonna inherit Winterfell either way. also, what was Hoster gonna do besides sulk and bitch?

As people have already pointed out, bastards are not legitimised out of sentimentality. The only reason good enough to make it worth doing is political necessity.

but they can be, and I doubt Robert would have refused Ned.

[The guy from the Vale]

Im just saying that Ned generally doesnt care about that sort of shit. He didnt even change his mind about sending Loras after the Mountain when told that the Tyrells would make good allies when opposing the Lannisters. If he decided to make Jon legetimate, I doubt he'd have Hoster Tully in his mind at all, and if someone said 'the Tullys wont like that' I doubt he'd change his mind.

I agree with you that Ned's reasons for not legitimizing Jon extended way beyond not pissing off Hoster. However, Ned doesn't care about symbolic politics, that's why he doesn't care about either of these. But legitimizing Jon would have actual political consequence beyond the symbolic, so why should he even consider the thought? Even if Jon was his son (he isn't but I'm considering the hypothetical) I just don't see Ned legitimizing him as long as his children with Cat are alive.

ETA: no, when bastards are legitimized without actual political need, wars over inheritance tend to break out. Remember Daemon Blackfyre? The Westerosi certainly do. Moreover, while Daemon was younger than Daeron II, the situation is much less clear in the case of Robb and Jon. Indeed, Jon could argue that it's perfectly plausible that he's elder than Robb and hence should inherit before him.

[Alester Florent]

It's not just about politics, it's about not being a tool. The instances you cite are of Ned refusing to play politics, or of not caring whether he offends a man he is well known to despise. Publicly humiliating your wife and insulting your father-in-law - who went to war to save your life - are a different kettle of fish. Ned didn't get to where he was by needlessly offending people in a social context.

[eggs]

I agree with you that Ned's reasons for not legitimizing Jon extended way beyond not pissing off Hoster. However, Ned doesn't care about symbolic politics, that's why he doesn't care about either of these. But legitimizing Jon would have actual political consequence beyond the symbolic, so why should he even consider the thought? Even if Jon was his son (he isn't but I'm considering the hypothetical) I just don't see Ned legitimizing him as long as his children with Cat are alive.

Pissing off the most powerful people in the country is hardly symbolic.

ETA: no, when bastards are legitimized without actual political need, wars over inheritance tend to break out. Remember Daemon Blackfyre? The Westerosi certainly do. Moreover, while Daemon was younger than Daeron II, the situation is much less clear in the case of Robb and Jon. Indeed, Jon could argue that it's perfectly plausible that he's elder than Robb and hence should inherit before him.

A war of inheritance would have never broken out between Robb and Jon obviously. Even if Jon wanted to become lord over Robb, no one would support him. That would heve never been an issue, and if Jon did show such ambition, Ned simply wouldnt have legitimised him.

It's not just about politics, it's about not being a tool. The instances you cite are of Ned refusing to play politics, or of not caring whether he offends a man he is well known to despise. Publicly humiliating your wife and insulting your father-in-law - who went to war to save your life - are a different kettle of fish. Ned didn't get to where he was by needlessly offending people in a social context.

yes, he got to where he was by sitting on the Eyrie while his father and brother died. Catelyn had already been publically humiliated and Hoster didnt join the war to save Ned.

[mcb]

Im just saying that Ned generally doesnt care about that sort of shit. He didnt even change his mind about sending Loras after the Mountain when told that the Tyrells would make good allies when opposing the Lannisters. If he decided to make Jon legetimate, I doubt he'd have Hoster Tully in his mind at all, and if someone said 'the Tullys wont like that' I doubt he'd change his mind.

But he did care that the title of Warden of the East was taken away from Jon Arryn's son. Not only because it was been given to Jaime, but also because it meant a slight to House Arryn (and people of the Vale received it as such). The Arryns, just like the Tullys, belonged to the "friends and allies" category.

Also, not presenting Loras with an opportunity to settle his personal score with Clegane is incomparable to legitimizing Jon and possibly fucking Catelyn's children, Hoster's grandchildren, out of their birthright. I see no possible point to the latter. The last notable lord who legitimized his bastard, while he had trueborn son and heir, would be, I think, Aegon IV Targaryen. Known as the Unworthy for a reason.

[UnFit Finlay]

honor didnt play a part, did it? That was the only way to get House Tully on his side.

It would definitely be a slap, but I still dont think Ned would care. and besides, Robb was still gonna inherit Winterfell either way. also, what was Hoster gonna do besides sulk and bitch?

Petition Robert not to legitimize Jon? Robert didn't seem all that interested in the wellfare of his own bastards so I don't see him bothering about Ned's with no just cause. Besides the last thing Robert would want to do is risk causing a potential civil war in the North after Ned's death. I think he'd side with Hoster pretty quickly, and if he didn't, he'd have pressure from Cersei, Littlefinger and Pycelle, who all had a vested interest in keeping Robert from thinking that legitimizing bastards is a good idea, in case he decided to legitimize a few of his own.

If Joffrey was King, he'd refuse to do it even if Jon was the last of Ned's children.

I'm pretty sure Catelyn said to Robb that the issue wasn't about Jon and himself anyway. It was about Jon's kids and Robb's kids and their Grandkids. We know that Jon would never hurt his brother's children but you never know what could happen a few generations down the line.

I think Jon would've had a solid life serving as a Knight in Robb's Army. He wouldn't have any lands or titles of his own, though he might've been a Castellan at various times.

[mormont]

Im just saying that Ned generally doesnt care about that sort of shit.

I think you're wrong. Ned does care very much about loyalty. He cares very much about duty. He cares very much about family. And he cares very much about honour. Legitimising Jon delivers a slap in the face to his in-laws, a House who bled with him in the Rebellion, and to whom he owes much. (He owes the Lannisters nothing, or less than nothing.)

In any case, it's irrelevant, since in addition to all that Ned cares very much about Cat. He knows that it would profoundly hurt her if he legitimised Jon, discounting her feelings and her family. He would not do it without an absolutely compelling reason - and there just isn't one.

[TalalOfDorne]

Like others have said, he wouldnt do it, and if he wanted to he would have done it in a while.

[David Selig]

No real benefits, plenty of potential problems. Ned should've been an idiot to do it, so no way. As a feudal lord one of your main priorities is not to mess up with the succession in any way, and given how close in age Jon and Robb are and Jon's mysterious origin (nobody can be really sure if he's really younger than Robb as claimed), legitimising him is a recipe for trouble.

And of course, if R+L=J is true, the last thing Ned wants is for Jon to attract Robert's attention for any reason.

[The Mountain That Flies]

Didn't Ned want to populate the Gift? He could have legitimized Jon and created another branch of the Starks to populate the Gift with Jon as the lord.

Agreed. This would have actually been ideal for Jon, as it would have given him his own life (freeing him from the shadow of his half-brother), played to his strengths, and secured the North a bit better. It could have been called the Bastard's Gift.

[David Selig]

Agreed. This would have actually been ideal for Jon, as it would have given him his own life (freeing him from the shadow of his half-brother), played to his strengths, and secured the North a bit better. It could have been called the Bastard's Gift.

But Jon doesn't need to be legitimised for this. Ned could just make him a minor noble and grant him some lands there. Much more simple and convenient.

[Minsc]

but they can be, and I doubt Robert would have refused Ned.

Robert might not, but if Jon Arryn was still alive he would ensure it didn't go through as not to cause any instabily in the realm.

Moreover, Ned wouldn't do that as he cares for Cat and is not a dick that actively goes out of his way to insult her.

[eggs]

But he did care that the title of Warden of the East was taken away from Jon Arryn's son. Not only because it was been given to Jaime, but also because it meant a slight to House Arryn (and people of the Vale received it as such). The Arryns, just like the Tullys, belonged to the "friends and allies" category.

that had had more to do with tradition than anything. the title goes with the name Arryn.

Also, not presenting Loras with an opportunity to settle his personal score with Clegane is incomparable to legitimizing Jon and possibly fucking Catelyn's children, Hoster's grandchildren, out of their birthright. I see no possible point to the latter. The last notable lord who legitimized his bastard, while he had trueborn son and heir, would be, I think, Aegon IV Targaryen. Known as the Unworthy for a reason.

Legetimising Jon because he loved him is enough of a point. I'd say giving the guy who fought against you till the end the finger is a pointless, stupid gesture but Ned did it anyways.

Petition Robert not to legitimize Jon? Robert didn't seem all that interested in the wellfare of his own bastards so I don't see him bothering about Ned's with no just cause.

Ned was basically Roberts favorite person. I would think that Ned asking would be cause enough.

Besides the last thing Robert would want to do is risk causing a potential civil war in the North after Ned's death. I think he'd side with Hoster pretty quickly, and if he didn't, he'd have pressure from Cersei, Littlefinger and Pycelle, who all had a vested interest in keeping Robert from thinking that legitimizing bastards is a good idea, in case he decided to legitimize a few of his own.

It wouldnt have caused a civil war.

I'm pretty sure Catelyn said to Robb that the issue wasn't about Jon and himself anyway. It was about Jon's kids and Robb's kids and their Grandkids. We know that Jon would never hurt his brother's children but you never know what could happen a few generations down the line.

The same can be said for Bran or Rickons future kids.

I think you're wrong. Ned does care very much about loyalty. He cares very much about duty. He cares very much about family. And he cares very much about honour. Legitimising Jon delivers a slap in the face to his in-laws, a House who bled with him in the Rebellion, and to whom he owes much. (He owes the Lannisters nothing, or less than nothing.)

I think he might put his kid's happiness over all of that.

In any case, it's irrelevant, since in addition to all that Ned cares very much about Cat. He knows that it would profoundly hurt her if he legitimised Jon, discounting her feelings and her family. He would not do it without an absolutely compelling reason - and there just isn't one.

he knew that raising Jon besides his other kids hurt Cat and didnt seem too bothered. He scared the shit out of her and told her to never speak of Jon.

Robert might not, but if Jon Arryn was still alive he would ensure it didn't go through as not to cause any instabily in the realm.

We dont know enough about Jon to say one way or the other.

Moreover, Ned wouldn't do that as he cares for Cat and is not a dick that actively goes out of his way to insult her.

Jons continued presence for 15 years is taken as an insult by Cat.

[Minsc]

that had had more to do with tradition than anything. the title goes with the name Arryn.

Not having your bastard legitimised and actively insulting your wife is also tradition.

Simply, if Ned legitimised Jon he would been as big of an ass as a husband as Robert.

!oreover, it would be in complete contrast to his belief in honor.

[Daynestar]

The only reason to legitimise a bastard is so they can inherit.

There have been bastards on the small council and Kingsguard. He could also be made Lord of a new house (in the gift) or married into a house with no male heirs and take their name.

So the only reason Ned would have to seek legitimisation for Jon is if he wanted him to become Lord of Winterfell (ie if all his other children were dead).