Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-4708902-20160726013945/@comment-5308269-20160829023045

BigBadBruin343 wrote: Fenrir51 wrote: We actually don't know that Bran is unable to produce children. Eddard does suspect the worse in the books, but that doesn't stop Robb from making Bran his heir, and his training as the Lord of Winterfell. If Bran was intended to be the heir during the events of seasons1-2, they must have expected the possibility of him fathering children, so they were keeping their options open. If they were so sure that Bran's paralysis rendered him infertile, I believe Robb would have decided to confirm Rickon as his first-in-line. In the first book, Maester Luwin recommended Bran a career as a Maester, but only as a replacement-ambition for being a knight, which he was still pining for.

As for the lords of the Vale, I'm not so sure they acclaimed him as their king. At best, they only showed their support for Jon's acclamation. The North has no authority over the Vale, so they're really just allies. They may even prefer to acclaim their liege-lord Robin Arryn their king in emulation of the Northerners.

And I don't see why Jon's Targaryen heritage should strengthen his rulership when these same lords whom acclaimed him desired 1) nothing less than complete independence of the Iron Throne, and 2) acclaimed Jon King in the North on the grounds (flimsy though it was, as he's a bastard and Sansa was right there in the room with them) that he's Eddard's son. With all that debunked, that puts Jon's right to rule the North in question. Why should it matter to the Northerners that Eddard lied all these years to protect his nephew? That does nothing to excuse Jon's kingship being held under false assumptions of his birth! Even if they forgive Jon for being as ignorant of the facts as they were, his continued hold on the Kingship of the North may lead to resentment. The Northerner may have acclaimed Jon their king, but that doesn't mean they can't change their minds if they discover his claim to be false.

The Northen lords named him king because of his bravery on the battlefield, and that they thought he was Ned's son. I don't think they'd be against Jon as king if he's a Targ, hell, they might want him on the Iron Throne. No-one of Northen blood has every sat the Iron Throne. They know that Ned raised him to be a Stark, he knows what it means to be a northman, he served on the Wall, and hunted in the Wolfswood. One of the reasons that the northman look down on the kings on the Iron Throne is because they don't know what it's like in the North. Jon does, he's never known anything else his enitre life.

As for Bran having kids, he's paralyzed from the waist down, he can't... *ahem* get it up. So he can't have kids to continue the Stark bloodline. The only two people tha can carry on the Stark bloodline are Sansa and Arya.

"The Northern lords named him king because of his bravery, and that they thought he was Ned's son."

No, it was ONLY because they think he's Ned's son. Emerging victorious on the battlefield put him in good standing and made him look like a worthy successor in their eyes, but his filial relationship with Ned is the sole reason for his being king.

"I don't think they'd be against Jon if he was a Targ, hell, they might want him on the Iron Throne."

I just explained, in the above paragraph you just quoted from me, the very reasons why they WON'T want Jon as their king if they found out he wasn't Ned's son. They DON'T want to be part of the Seven Kingdoms, and the Iron Throne is the very thing they want independence from. What is so hard to understand about this?

"No-one of Northern blood has every(sic) sat on the Iron Throne."

And this should matter to the Northern lords why, exactly? I repeat, they want INDEPENDENCE! For Jon to be King in the North by acclamation, and the heir to the Iron Throne, he would be required to rule from King's Landing, and the Northerners would be back to square one as a mere province of a larger kingdom. They didn't name Jon their king to let that happen all over again!

"They know Ned raised him to be a Stark.."

And? This gives him the right to be their king in a culture where the firstborn legitimate son inherits, somehow?

"He knows what it means to be a Northman..."

As does the rest of the population in the North. But not all of them can be King in the North, can they?!

"..he served on the Wall.."

As have thousands of other convicts.

"..and hunted in the Wolfswood."

Who in the North hasn't?

"As for Bran having kids, he's paralysed from the waist down, he can't *ahem* get it up."

We. Don't. Know. That!

We don't know the full extent of Bran's paralysis. Is it his entire lower body, or just his legs? Not every case of paralysis results in infertility. And apparently, it would be realistically very difficult for a paraplegic to endure even the most minor rigours of living in the wilderness for several years, as Bran has. If EVERYTHING below the waist was unresponsive, Bran might need..*ahem*..changing! And yet, despite living off the land and not changing his clothing for years, Bran doesn't appear to be shitting and pissing himself! Living in a frozen wilderness, they don't have clean linens, and cacking yourself this often without the means to clean yourself will result in a serious infection. And without access to fresh clothes and medicine of any kind in the wilderness, someone in Bran's situation might, where he might soil his clothes at any given time if he was completely numb below the waist, would have been dead within weeks.

And the fact Bran was acknowledged as Robb's heir is itself an indication that even his own family thought that Bran may not be infertile, despite his injury, so they were willing to take a chance with Bran's future.