Ad blocker interference detected!
Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers
Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.
Why does this page say that Brandon, Rickon and Arya Stark are "Missing, persumed deceased." When we clearly see them alive in the season 4 finale, and as this wiki is about the television series and not the books (don't know if this is the situation in the books) it should say that they are alive.
It's an "in-universe" observation. They are missing and/or presumed dead by the people in Westeros. 220.127.116.11 05:35, June 17, 2014 (UTC)
Jon does become King of the North. That's what's actually happening because Robb did name Jon as heir. So stop adding fan fiction with Bran or Sansa being rightful heir of anything. The Northern Lords will consider Jon as king. Robb did name him as heir. He's the king and Bran soon knows that his cousin is not just king in the North. Jon, first of his name (talk) 10:32, June 13, 2016 (UTC)
- We can't add information from leaked sources - it has to actually be confirmed in the show before we add it to the wiki. - 11:14, June 13, 2016 (UTC)
- Er... I did not add information. I did remove wrong information. Nobody in GoT did ever call Bran or Sansa a rightful heir of the king in the north. There is no king in the north before the Northern Lords proclaim a king in the north. Jon, first of his name (talk) 11:44, June 13, 2016 (UTC)
Jon in line of succession Edit
Why Jon is in line of succession? He is only bastard, so he has no right to the tittle. Pawel10s 11:18, June 13, 2016 (UTC)
In a way he does say if Sansa, Arya, Bran and Rickon were all dead then he is the last stark left and can try and claim the title thats why he is at the bottom, I'm trying explain it so I don't know if it helps Bree 11:25, June 13, 2016 (UTC)
Jon is not a bastard. He has royal blood. Rhaegar and Lyanna did marry. This whole line of succession is a joke. The Northern Lords will proclaim Jon as king in the north. There is no other heir. Jon, first of his name (talk) 11:44, June 13, 2016 (UTC)
But he is not a Stark. I think, that like Ramsay before his legitimization didn't have any right to Dreadfort, Jon doesn't have right to call himself Stark.Pawel10s 10:26, June 14, 2016 (UTC)
Okay, here's how it works:
Many of us thought that Bran Stark would never return from beyond the Wall, and that Rickon was "the spare" who would later be left as Lord of Winterfell and the North when the dust settled.
While the TV series is condensing this, the fact that his direwolf is named "Shaggydog" now leads me to suspect that Martin himself was going to "shoot the shaggy dog" - it was too obvious that Rickon seemed to be the youngest heir he was implying would rule one day, but instead we're surprised that Bran returns. Whatever happens to Rickon, we now see Bran returning to the North, which we weren't expecting. Or who knows if Bran will abdicate at the end to go back to live in the weirwood as the new three-eyed raven? Dunno.
Assuming that Bran stays in the North and the world of men....
- There is officially no formal rule for where legitimized bastard children stand in the line of succession, i.e. of Sansa proclaims herself Queen in the North for a day in order to legitimize Jon Snow and make him king. This came up when Roose legitimized Ramsay: Ramsay was an older bastard but a younger legitimate son was born: once Ramsay is legitimized, it's entirely at Ramsay's discretion which son is his heir: Ramsay because he's legitimate now and eldest, or the younger one that was actually born legitimate. By this principle, we have no idea if a legitimized Jon or Bran would have better claim - I think it depends on who even wants the job.
- If Jon Snow is secretly Lyanna Stark's son, the theory is that he's actually legitimate, because Lyanna married Rhaegar in secret (the Targaryens sometimes practiced polygamy). Even assuming that is done, and he's a product of a secret marriage....he's still Lyanna's legitimate son. Lyanna ranked behind Eddard in line of succession. In which case both Bran and Sansa have better claim to the title through Eddard. Any children Lyanna had would only inherit after Eddard's bloodline is totally exhausted (even Arya would rank ahead of Jon).
- Yes, that's how it works. Stannis was younger than Robert, not older. - 11:29, June 15, 2016 (UTC)
- Robert did conquer the Throne. Jon conquers Winterfell. That's what Jon makes actually king when the Northern Lords proclaim him in the season finale. Then you can delete ur line of jokes. Jon, first of his name (talk) 11:36, June 15, 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, we will update the page when the episode airs, not before, based on leaked spoilers and book info. - 11:57, June 15, 2016 (UTC)
- I don't demand the page being updated before the season finale airs. I'm just generally questioning a "line of succession" which was actually never mentioned in the show. You call Bran and Sansa a rightful heir in the same articles. This does not make any sense. Such a line does not exist as long as Ramsay Bolton is warden of the noth. There's also no king in the north or a heir of the king in the north until the Northern Lords proclaim a king in the north. Nobody did ever call Bran prince or Sansa princess. Even when Robb was king. This is just fan fiction. Jon, first of his name (talk) 12:20, June 15, 2016 (UTC)
- That does not make sense Sansa has more claim to the north than Jon. Jon is conquering winterfell in the name of Sansa just like Ned was sent in the name of Robert to conquer Kings landing,
- Bree 13:30, June 15, 2016 (UTC)
- This is unbelievable! Why would they disregard the Stark line of succession after a war has been fought because of this issue? Jon has ZERO claim to Winterfell! Even if R+L were married in secret, it would be like saying House Royce of the Gates of the Moon had a stronger claim to Winterfell than all of Eddard Stark's children. It doesn't even matter if Jon is a Targaryen! That does not give him the right to claim Winterfell, nor does he have any right to accept it by acclaim of the Northern houses. I mean, Sansa is right there with him. She's an actual Stark. And no, it's not "fan fiction", because the North follows the same laws of succession as the rest of the six of the Seven Kingdoms. They should be holding off from naming anyone a "King in the North" until all the Starks are accounted for!--Fenrir51 (talk) 21:50, June 15, 2016 (UTC)
- There is no law of succession because there is no king until a new king is proclaimed. Jon is conquering Winterfell because he wants to rescue Rickon - Sansa does not want to rule and they do not fight "in her name". They want to unite the North for the war against the White Walkers. However. Rickon is hit by Ramsay's arrow and Jon will be proclaimed as king in the season finale because also Sansa wants Jon to be king. Jon, first of his name (talk) 01:21, June 16, 2016 (UTC)
- Laws of succession apply to all other noble houses, so they still apply for House Stark. Sansa bears the Stark name, so if Rickon dies, she represents House Stark. She told Jon they must reclaim it for their family. Rickon's captivity by Ramsay Bolton was the kick in the pants he needed to organize an army to challenge House Bolton. An army mostly composed of borrowed forces. Sansa "wanting Jon to be king" makes no sense here. Making Jon king would be a massive contrivance by the show writers. --Fenrir51 (talk) 06:27, June 16, 2016 (UTC)
- Westeros needs a leader for the fight against the White Walkers and Jon is the prince who was promised. It makes very much sense that Sansa does not want to rule and sees that Jon is the king who can win against the White Walkers. Lyanna Mormont will do a speech because Jon and her uncle did defend the North against the White Walkers and both died for the North. The Northern Lords will apologize and proclaim Jon as king. In the same episode Bran will see that Jon is not just rightful king in the North but also king of the Seven Kingdoms. Obviously the same thing will happen in the books, where Jon already is the heir of Robb because Robb named him. Jon, first of his name (talk) 09:35, June 16, 2016 (UTC)
- Jon is a normal human being who was resurrected by the power of a Red Priestess of R'llor. And you know what? Beric Dondarrion was also resurrected (six times) by a Red Priest of R'llor. So if this is the standard for your "Prince that was Promised", than Beric Dondarrion might as well be King in the North. "All hail King Beric, First of His Name!" Aside from this, Jon is only distinguished by his military prowess. That does not make him eligible to be Lord over Winterfell, whatever you may wish! When Bran sees the full extent of the Tower of Joy incident, he's going to find that Jon Snow is not a Stark on his paternal side. And when he gets home to Winterfell (likely by Season 7), and sees that everyone made Jon Snow their king, this is going to make things VERY AWKWARD!
- Even if Jon was the the rightful Lord of the Seven Kingdoms (assuming his parents WERE married), that does not make him King in the North. Because the latter title is associated with the hereditary Lordship of Winterfell. Winterfell is Stark property and a creation of the first Stark in history. Bran IS the true heir to Winterfell. He's also the last Greenseer. An ability which was stated by Jojen Reed to be part of his Stark heritage ("it's in your blood, Bran!"). If Bran the Builder had built both the Wall and Winterfell with the aid of giants and had woven spells in the construction of the Wall to strengthen it against the White Walkers, then he may very likely have been a greenseer and a warg, and that would make Bran's claim to Winterfell all the more superior.
- If the Northern lords do declare him their king, than that would be a betrayal of their fealty to the Starks. I it's a spoiler, it only proves how removed D&D are from the plot. It just sounds like a cheap way of appeasing the audience. And if they've done this, then they've contradicted the whole premise of the Stark uprising against House Bolton. --Fenrir51 (talk) 16:23, June 16, 2016 (UTC)
- Bran is missed and his place will never be in the political system of Westeros. Neither in the series nor in the books. Bran loves Jon and will also want him to be king. He'll know that he sees the birth of Jon for a good reason in his visions. If you think Robb did name Jon as heir (in the books!) for no reason, you didn't pay attention. There's no doubt that Jon becomes king in the series as well as in the books. Jon, first of his name (talk) 21:10, June 16, 2016 (UTC)
- Bran is the heir to Winterfell, fact! This is something that is not even up for discussion. And he's the only living member of his family to have any experience of ruling, so you're wrong again. His place IS in the political system. And even though he loves Jon, that does not mean Jon should be king. Personal/public preference does not qualify anyone for high office in a non-democratic, feudal society. Bran's Lordship of Winterfell is not something he can just shirk from, or allow someone else to take off of him. Jon's real birth is neither here nor there! Winterfell is a Stark birthright, and they have a duty to keep it!
- Bran has only experience in being conquered by Reek and right now the Norh needs a king who has experience in leading people in the war against the White Walkers and not a warden in the wheelchair. Bran's fate is being the three-eyed raven. Jon Targaryen has as much Stark blood as Bran Tully. As long as Bran, Sansa and Arya refuse to rule at Winterfell (like Aemon Targaryen refused to become king), Jon is of course also the Lord of Winterfell. If Jon finds out that he's the rightful king of the Seven Kingdoms, he will name a warden. But it is very unlikely that Bran will ever want to be warden and Lord of Winterfell if he survives the end. Probably the son of Sansa and Tyrion would become warden of the north. Jon, first of his name (talk) 01:08, June 17, 2016 (UTC)
- Are you really blaming Bran for Theon's betrayal? Bran wasn't the one to release Theon back to the Ironborn, nor leave the North unprotected. And while Bran is the Three-eyed Raven, that does not preclude him from being King in the North. There is no sense for Bran to have all this power, and a legitimate claim to Winterfell, only to be wasted as some sort of "soothsayer" for Jon Snow. That is just pathetic, and even more pathetic if he were to willingly kowtow to someone with NO LEGAL CLAIM to the demesne of Winterfell.
- And how the hell would you know how Bran, Sansa or Arya would feel about their vassals choosing their half-sibling as King in the North? Their allegiances are to the Stark name. Not to a bastard. And as good a soldier as Jon is, making him the king could throw Northern allegiances in turmoil at just as the White Walkers come knocking.
- The only reason why anyone would choose a bastard of a ruling house to lead them is IF all the legitimate siblings were dead. But Sansa isn't, and by rights her presence alone should prevent such an action. And Sansa has a responsibility to Winterfell, otherwise what was the point in her fighting for it in the first place? It'll be as daft as the supporters of Empress Matilda choosing Robert of Gloucester (her bastard half-brother) as king, just because he led them in battle.
- Regardless of whether or not this is truly a spoiler (which, by the way, you shouldn't even be talking about if it is), it would show a complete lack of respect for custom by the main characters, which flies in the face of the reasons they went to war against House Bolton in the first place! How do you not see that? --Fenrir51 (talk) 16:19, June 17, 2016 (UTC)
- The Northern Lords consider Jon as a Stark as well as Robb did when he named him as heir. Even Bran himself knows that they need a king in the north who can hold a sword and not a Lord who even couldn't before he watched the Lannisters making love. Jon will unite the North because there are not much Bran fans at Westeros who insist that he should rule just because he's maybe somewhere out there as strange wizard. Joffrey and Tommen ruled as bastards. Renly got more followers than his older brother. Ramsay is warden of the North although he's a bastard ("legitimized" by another bastard) and no one (except for Arya maybe) would ever have stopped Ramsay if Jon wouldn't have returned from the dead. Bran will see that Jon is not a bastard and there will be no one in the North who doubts that Jon is rightful king because his cousins are obviously not seeking power. Bran will help King Jon to take over his other six kingdoms because they need every warrior of Westeros against the White Walkers. Jon, first of his name (talk) 19:42, June 17, 2016 (UTC)
About why I added Jon to the lineEdit
We use Stark inheritance line based in Jon been acknowledged by Ned as his bastard son. Legimitization is pending as well as competing claims of distant relations - though these have not even hinted at in the show. Jon being the son of Rhaegar and Lyanna is only a theory - a likely one - but still a theory. If its true, then he would be Rhaegar and Lyanna's heir, not Robb's.--Gonzalo84 (talk) 03:18, June 15, 2016 (UTC)
This whole line is a joke. There is no "line of succession" because the Starks lost Winterfell. Jon will conquer Winterfell and this will make him king in the season 6 finale. Jon, first of his name (talk) 11:25, June 15, 2016 (UTC)
Is Robb's decree still valid?Edit
In book 3 Robb made a royal decree that legitimized Jon and made him his successor, in case he died without offsprings. What was done with the decree is unknown, it is not mentioned in the books afterwards.
Suppose that the decree is found and is given publicity. Based on it, can Jon become the king in the north? 18.104.22.168 12:55, June 15, 2016 (UTC)
- Unlikely, but it can happen. If the decree is valid, Jon would, according to independent Northern laws, that do not count at the moment, officially be named "Jon Stark". However, since the Kingdom of the North has been destroyed and brought back into the Seven Kingdoms, this degree is legally invalid. BUT, should the Starks win the Battle of the Bastards, they could reinstate the independent Kingdom of the North, and that could possibly make Jon legitimate. Again, only according to Northern Kingdom laws, not Seven Kingdoms laws. Lord Sharky (talk) PINK is the new Black 16:27, June 15, 2016 (UTC)
- Except that there's no mention of Robb's will in the show because he manages to impregnate Talisa, unlike the novels in which he and Jeyne try to conceive but fail because Sybell is giving her contraceptives, unbeknowst to her daughter.--Gonzalo84 (talk) 18:55, June 15, 2016 (UTC)
Jon Snow is king in the north Edit
Now it happened. There's only one king in the north and it is Jon. 22.214.171.124 02:33, June 27, 2016 (UTC)
Only King Jon has a line of succession Edit
If there is a line of succession now, then it is King Jon's line of succession since he is proclaimed by the Northern Lords and the Vale. So technically Drogon, Viserion and Rhaegal should be added because they are his cousins. Jon, first of his name (talk) 00:36, June 29, 2016 (UTC)
- I literally had to wash my eyes with soap...that is probably one of the dumbest comments I've ever read... Lord Sharky (talk)
Vote! Lord of House StarkEdit
There's an ongoing discussion of the head/lord of House Stark. Here's the thread link: http://gameofthrones.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:47132#16. Add some input, there's a poll too for those who love voting. Admins, there's an edit war, your involvement in the thread is recommended. --Kai200995 (talk) 15:39, June 30, 2016 (UTC)
Jon's shield Edit
Jon's shield will be updated once his shield is shown on the show - until then, we are using the Stark shield as placeholder.