Game of Thrones

[Johnny Peril]

Jon isn't the rightful heir, because Rhaegar was never king. He was still a prince when killed, and Aerys died on the throne. Danaerys inherits the crown because she's the last surviving child of the king.

Jon may have a better claim because he is the only living male descendant of Rhaegar (even though he was a prince). Women can only inherit if there are no males alive. Cersei has that going for her plus a right of conquest/possession claim.

[JBatmanFan05]

Jon may have a better claim because he is the only living male descendant of Rhaegar (even though he was a prince). Women can only inherit if there are no males alive.

Yeah, precedent favored: women came after all men in the Targaryen succession (All male claimants must be exhausted in order for a female to inherit). Meaning Jon over Dany. That Rhaegar was merely crown prince mattered not.

[AndrewCrossett]

The line of succession goes through males even if they are dead at the time.

When Jaime killed Aerys, the throne would have passed to Rhaegar, but he was already dead. Rhaegar's baby son Aegon then technically became king for a few minutes until Gregor Clegane and Amory Lorch murdered him. Viserys (Rhaegar's brother), being the only remaining known male descendant of Aerys, then became the rightful king (in exile) until Khal Drogo killed him. At that point, the OTHER Aegon (Jon Snow) rightfully became king, although no one knew that then. Instead Daenerys, being the only known legitimate descendant of Aerys, became the supposedly rightful queen.

If Jon Snow's true ancestry had been known, he would have been the rightful king as soon as his half-brother Aegon was murdered.

[JBatmanFan05]

Rhaegar's baby son Aegon then technically became...

I had to google, but you're right. Seems that form of agnatic primogeniture favored sons (the Aegons) of the heir (Rhaegar) before looking sideways to the heir's even male siblings (Viserys).



EDIT: Typed it wrong the first time, but confirmed the succession battle royale of the Aegons of Rhaegar vs hypothetically living Viserys, I didn't realize Jon would prevail over Viserys too

[AndrewCrossett]

I had to google, but you're right. Seems that form of agnatic primogeniture favored sons (the Aegons) of the heir (Rhaegar) before looking sideways to the heir's even male siblings (Viserys).



EDIT: Typed it wrong the first time, but confirmed the succession battle royale of the Aegons of Rhaegar vs hypothetically living Viserys, I didn't realize Jon would prevail over Viserys too

Yep. GRRM seems to have based his succession rules pretty closely on those used for the British succession. (Except that they've recently been amended so that females don't automatically come behind males.)

Aerys's correct line of succession, if Jon's status had been known, would rightly be:

1. Rhaegar [dead]
2. Aegon 1 [dead]
3. Aegon 2 [Jon]
4. Rhaenys [dead]
5. Viserys
6. Daenerys

If Viserys had any children, they would be before Dany.

[JBatmanFan05]

Fair to assume the annulment would not affect Aegon 1 or Rhaenys's claims? I think they are totally unaffected, in a succession sense.

[AndrewCrossett]

Fair to assume the annulment would not affect Aegon 1 or Rhaenys's claims? I think they are totally unaffected, in a succession sense.

Well, if GRRM was staying strictly with British succession rules, Rhaegar would not have been able to get an annulment, or get re-married, without the king's permission, and Jon would have been illegitimate. But apparently that doesn't hold in Westeros. And he would have no power to have his older children removed from the succession, though maybe the king could have done so... but why would he?

[Jackalope89]

Well, if GRRM was staying strictly with British succession rules, Rhaegar would not have been able to get an annulment, or get re-married, without the king's permission, and Jon would have been illegitimate. But apparently that doesn't hold in Westeros. And he would have no power to have his older children removed from the succession, though maybe the king could have done so... but why would he?

Gives him power over, not only Rhaegar as a father, but loyalists that would want to ensure the Targaryens remain on the throne (being that Jon's half-brother was in front of him).

[Johnny Peril]

A lot depends on whether Robert was legally the King. If he won the title through 'right of conquest' then Targaryens no longer have a claim.

[AndrewCrossett]

A lot depends on whether Robert was legally the King. If he won the title through 'right of conquest' then Targaryen's no longer have a claim.

There are no more Baratheons, and I think Dany's idea is along the lines of "conquest right back at you."

[Master Planner]

A lot depends on whether Robert was legally the King. If he won the title through 'right of conquest' then Targaryens no longer have a claim.

Although it was conquest that put Robert on throne,it was his connection with the Targaryen family(his grandmother was a Targaryen) that gave him an aura of legitimacy and continuity after Aerys II death and the depose of House Targaryen.

[JBatmanFan05]

I do have a nagging suspicion the Night King is a Stark ancestor, a close blood ancestor (whether he bore the Stark name exactly or not):

A Stark Ancestor
It has been well-established that the Starks are descendants of the First Men who found themselves engaged in a battle with the Children of the Forest before the arrival of the Andals. Their history is intrinsically tied to the North, and that could explain why Bran and Jon are both so drawn to the battle against the White Walkers. The Starks are determined to defend their home and the realm, but what if their blood is what provides them with a direct link to the Night King? If he was a Stark when he was human, then that could explain how he could see and touch Bran, and it could possibly also hint at why he seems so focused on Jon. The blood of the First Men could form a bond between the Night King and his present-day descendants that allows them to feed off of the different forms of magic they both seem to possess.

The books offer a small clue that there is indeed a connection between the Starks and the Night King, since the book's version of the character is actually the 13th Lord Commander of the Night's Watch, who is a rumored ancestor of the Stark family. However, his origin story doesn't involve the Children of the Forest.

Who Is the Night King? The White Walkers' Leader Could Be One of These 4 People

[Johnny Peril]

I wonder if the Night King (tv version) was actually created (voluntarily) after the initial White Walkers in an effort to stop them. Then after time when he couldn't be changed back went mad.

[Johnny Peril]

There are no more Baratheons, and I think Dany's idea is along the lines of "conquest right back at you."

Although it was conquest that put Robert on throne,it was his connection with the Targaryen family(his grandmother was a Targaryen) that gave him an aura of legitimacy and continuity after Aerys II death and the depose of House Targaryen.

Gendry has Robert's blood. He's illegitimate but I'm pretty sure Ned was trying to put him on the throne so he has a claim also.

[AndrewCrossett]

I'm not sure who would have the standing to legitimize Gendry now that House Baratheon is officially extinct. I assume the sovereign could do it, but Cersei certainly won't, nor would Dany unless Gendry agreed to renounce all claim to the throne. Jon might, if Dany was dead and he didn't want the throne himself. But Gendry is a complete unknown with no following among the people, and I don't think there's any faction out there jonesing for the return of the Baratheon "golden age."

I could see Dany or Jon making Gendry Lord of Storm's End, in return for his loyalty, but I don't see him becoming king unless he's the last claimant standing and unless he distinguishes himself somehow.