Arya may have delivered the killing blow, but she's not who the prophecy is referring to.
It's pretty obvious by now it's Jon if you don't take the prophecies completely literally.
Spoilers Game of Thrones: The Final Season
- Thread starter The Nth Doctor
- Start date
Arya may have delivered the killing blow, but she's not who the prophecy is referring to.
It's pretty obvious by now it's Jon if you don't take the prophecies completely literally.
In the books Dany was conceived during the last month of Robert's Rebellion. She wasn't even born until after her mother fled to Dragonstone, nine months later. Obviously since the kidnapping of Lyanna Stark set off Robert's Rebellion, Jon was likely conceived earlier than this. According to the show (books haven't revealed yet) Ned finds him as a newborn fairly after the Battle of the Trident, though we don't know exactly how long. Given Rhaegar was afield for some time, Jon must be at least a few months older - possibly close to a year.
Last edited:
I don't have a definitive source, but I was looking at a timeline of events for Robert's Rebellion and the sequence in which said events are laid out suggests that Dany was already born (and enroute to Essos) when Lyanna gave birth to Jon/Aegon.
I suppose the question is did Eddard's search for Lyanna take longer than Stannis's preparations to
Actually, isn't Dany Jon's Aunt, not sister? In which case it wouldn't matter, as Rhaegar was clearly older than Dany (in the same way in the UK, William is next in line after Charles, rather than Andrew)
Completely incorrect. Both in Westeros and England. His claim is better because he's the child of Dany's older brother. Same way that William and Kate's kids are now above Harry in the line of succession. Children of the first born jump the second (and subsequent) children of the ruler. Dany is what, 3rd child of the old king? Her oldest brother (of R+L=J fame) was the heir, the middle brother with the golden skullcap was second in line, and then Dany. But even at the start of the series, the middle brother had been skipped and didn't know it because Jon became heir as oldest child of the oldest child.
Possible that gender roles would have played into it if Dany was the middle child and not the youngest, but she was never in a position to test that. She (thought she was) sole survivor, so won as last heir standing...
Also, don't be condescending about the fire immunity thing. Yours is as much a theory as anyone else's, until they light Jon on fire and see if he screams or not. May be what the writers are going for, but they've never tested that one either. Her brother didn't do great with the molten gold, but maybe fire resistance is just limited to fire itself. Also gold's melting point is way hotter than fire, so could be an upper limit on the temps. Either way, you're not coming across well with the lecturing, especially when it's not based on the actual show/text. Interviews on intent are fun, but not binding to the show moving forward. Equally possible the belief is part of it, and he got burned because he didn't know he was a Targaryan and potentially immune. It's imaginary, so they can kinda play fast and loose with it if they want.
Yes, Dany is Jon's Aunt, but his claim to the Iron Throne supersedes hers - even if she was born first - because the rules of succession are affixed to gender moreso than age (although both are important).
At the time of Robert's Rebellion, Viserys was fourth in line to the Iron Throne behind his father Aerys, brother Rhaegar, and nephew Aegon the Elder (so named in retrospect because of the fact that he was born before Jon, who was also named Aegon upon his birth).
If Rhaegar had survived Robert's Rebellion and ascended the throne, the line of succession would've looked like this:
Aegon the Elder (his son by Elia)
Aegon the Younger, AKA Jon Snow (his son by Lyanna)
Viserys (his younger brother)
Last edited:
Under both pre and post 2012 UK law then gender is more important to an extent -- the daughter of the first born son is ahead of the second born son.
With the following tree
Succession is, pre 2012
Alfred
Dave
Fred
Enid
Bob
Charlie
Succession is post 2012
Alfred
Dave
Enid
Fred
Bob
Charlie
In the Targaryan family gender makes no difference to Dany Vs Snow
Gender does apply:
Gender doesn't apply:
And if Raenys/Aegon don't count as the marriage was anulled:
In all cases Jon is ahead of Dany.
You're the only one arguing age. Jon would be ahead of Dany even if he was 6 months old. he's the son of her older brother. She's the 3rd child of the monarch, she was never going to sniff the throne unless every relation of hers died horribly. Which ALMOST played out, but missed by one.
Succession is affixed exactly ZERO to age. If, again, Jon was 6 months old, he'd STILL be named king over Dany, and there would be a Regent acting in his place until he was of age. Same reason Cersei stayed in charge with Tommen technically the king for a minute. She was acting as Queen Regent.
Agree with all of that, you just skipped over that it invalidated most of what you stated above. And to complete your point, probably should have shown Dany being below Viserys on the list. Gender isn't a deciding factor, it's age of birth. And children of the first born skip over any younger siblings of the first born. That's how it works everywhere, pretty much. You can make some guesses about whether Dany would have had a claim if she was male, but since she was 3rd child of the monarch, and her older sibling had kids, she was permanently shunted to the side unless everyone died or she played the incest card and married one of the older ones...
Gender seems to apply with siblings (as with pre-2012 UK) -- otherwise why did Tomin get promoted over Myrcella?
Gendry is still around, so likely has a claim, although likely weaker than Jon Snow's as he's illegitimate (and legality seems to matter more than genetics). I suppose you could argue that now Cerci is Queen, Jamie (and Tyrion) have valid claims.
They are in the same level of mess, in terms of the crown, as they were in season 1. How can it get resolved in 3 episodes?
What I outlined doesn't invalidate what I said at all.
Without Rhaegar's death during Robert's Rebellion, the line of succession still proceeds through the male line regardless of age (I only brought up age in relation to Jon's claim superceding Dany's even if she's older because he's male and she's female), even if Aegon the Elder, Elia, and Rhaenys still perish if Tywin attacks King's Landing and Viserys and Dany are still exiled to Essos before Rhaegar can stop Stannis from attacking Dragonstone.
Assuming Aegon the Elder still dies, the line of succession, had Rhaegar survived, would have been Rhaegar, Aegon the Younger (Jon), and Viserys up until either Aegon the Younger had any male children, in which case said male children would push Viserys back in the line of succession).
Equating the line of succession for the Iron Throne to the British throne as the current laws of Westeros dictate, the British throne would pass solely from male to male, with the female members of the family line only coming into play in regards to the line of succession were all of the family's male members to die.
Lol is this your first time talking to this guy? He's always condescending, always lecturing, and always wrong. One of my favorite posters.
To further elaborate on what I said regarding the line of succession to the Iron Throne, Rhaenys and Daenerys would never have entered the conversation - under the current laws of Westeros - because said laws directly prohibit female family members from sitting the throne.
Had Dany reached Westeros on her own without meeting Jon and becoming entangled with the Great War, her claim to the Iron Throne would have faced a serious legal challenge based on her gender.
Cersei only ascended the Iron Throne because she'd been appointed Regent to Tommen and because she declared herself Queen in the aftermath of his suicide, but her claim is wholly illegitimate based on the law because of her gender and the only reason she hasn't been challenged on that is because the people who could challenge her on that were killed - by her - during the Explosion of the Great Sept of Baelor.
Had Dany reached Westeros on her own without meeting Jon and becoming entangled with the Great War, her claim to the Iron Throne would have faced a serious legal challenge based on her gender.
Cersei only ascended the Iron Throne because she'd been appointed Regent to Tommen and because she declared herself Queen in the aftermath of his suicide, but her claim is wholly illegitimate based on the law because of her gender and the only reason she hasn't been challenged on that is because the people who could challenge her on that were killed - by her - during the Explosion of the Great Sept of Baelor.
Here, let me highlight your wrongness for you again, just because it's funny
, gender has ZERO to do with this particular claim. Dany is the 3rd child, and the 1st born had several children. It wouldn't matter if she was male, female, or unsullied unless both of her siblings and ALL of their children were dead first. Or if she had younger siblings that were male, that would then trigger the same discussion. But in this actual example, at no point did her gender become a consideration.
And age is also ZERO to do with this, aside from birth order. If Jon was a baby, someone would act as King's Regent in his place until he was of age. Dany wouldn't rule if she was 40 and Jon was 4 months. Jon's claim still wins. Not male/ female or age, birth order and then children of those children in order of birth. Dany being last born means her gender never even got considered, she was always behind several other people.
other than the part right above, which is clearly wrong/invalidated by both what we've all said and actual reality, I suppose
Which has exactly fuck all to do with anything. Jon's claim is superseding Dany's because he's the son of the first born. Repeating again so you understand
, gender has ZERO to do with this particular claim. Dany is the 3rd child, and the 1st born had several children. It wouldn't matter if she was male, female, or unsullied unless both of her siblings and ALL of their children were dead first. Or if she had younger siblings that were male, that would then trigger the same discussion. But in this actual example, at no point did her gender become a consideration.And age is also ZERO to do with this, aside from birth order. If Jon was a baby, someone would act as King's Regent in his place until he was of age. Dany wouldn't rule if she was 40 and Jon was 4 months. Jon's claim still wins. Not male/ female or age, birth order and then children of those children in order of birth. Dany being last born means her gender never even got considered, she was always behind several other people.
correct, other than again neglecting that Dany is at the END of that list. Not by gender, but by birth order.
that was changed recently such that princess Charlotte is now in line as well, ahead of her younger brother. So you're now wrong there too
I know, i just find it entertaining. The more wrong he is, the more militant and pedantic he gets. And always spoken with such authority and conviction, even when wrong. Especially when wrong. Eventually, I'll hop on my invisible jumpjet and get out of hereLol is this your first time talking to this guy? He's always condescending, always lecturing, and always wrong. One of my favorite posters.
Has that been established? Is there a situation where a king's nephew took over rather than his daughter? Or is it an inference from the fact that there has never been a Queen (before Cersei)
Either way, think (almost all of us) can agree that neither Dany's age nor her gender is preventing her from sitting on the throne, nor has it ever been a consideration at any point in her life. There were ALWAYS people alive that were ahead of her, and not for either of those reasons...
Here, let me highlight your wrongness for you again, just because it's funny
other than the part right above, which is clearly wrong/invalidated by both what we've all said and actual reality, I suppose
Which has exactly fuck all to do with anything. Jon's claim is superseding Dany's because he's the son of the first born. Repeating again so you understand
And age is also ZERO to do with this, aside from birth order. If Jon was a baby, someone would act as King's Regent in his place until he was of age. Dany wouldn't rule if she was 40 and Jon was 4 months. Jon's claim still wins. Not male/ female or age, birth order and then children of those children in order of birth. Dany being last born means her gender never even got considered, she was always behind several other people.
correct, other than again neglecting that Dany is at the END of that list. Not by gender, but by birth order.
that was changed recently such that princess Charlotte is now in line as well, ahead of her younger brother. So you're now wrong there too
Because Jon/Aegon the Younger was born of a legally recognized marriage between Rhaegar and Lyanna, his claim to the Iron Throne automatically supercedes Dany's because of his gender, even if she is older, and always would have.
You keep claiming that Dany would have been 'at the back of the line' because of birth order, not gender, but the truth is that, unless she were the absolute last surviving member of her House and nobody could come up with a legally binding reason to deny her, she would never have 'entered the line' at all.
The male line automatically takes precedent in Westerosi law in perpetuity unless there is an absolute 'last resort' situation where it can't.
Similar threads
