Board Thread:TV Show Discussion/@comment-1399600-20160629121258/@comment-5308269-20160731181429

Well, like I said, being a lord or king is a duty, not just something which one can take or refuse at will. If Jon knows that he's not Ned Stark's son, then he will have zero right to be King in the North. It's one thing to have a right to the Iron Throne, but Kingship in the North is specifically tied to the Lordship of Winterfell. And if Jon is not Ned Stark's son, then it is natural that Bran should take it. It's one thing to have a birthright as a lord, but you can't just refuse. The people of the North need a ruler, and if Bran simply refuses it, they'll look for someone else, and Bran would be deprived of all status. Even if he didn't want the job, Jon and Sansa would simply force and cajole him to take it anyway, because that's how things work in their society. And unlike some commentators of this series I've read about, I don't see how being a greenseer would stand in the way of that. House Stark and its kingdom was founded by a man who was said to have used sorcery in his building projects (the Wall, Winterfell and Storm's End). Bran's abilities as a greenseer are clearly lampshaded to be part of his heritage, so it just makes him an even better fit as a king.

If Bran is King, then Sansa and Jon would hold power anyway. Sansa would be at Bran's side, acting as his "Hand", and Jon could take up the duties of the Warden of the North. He would command the North's armies without the additional kingly responsibilities of civil governance, since Jon is a soldier and not a politician or administrator. And if they survive the war with the White Walkers, Jon would have ample opportunity to make his claim for the Iron Throne.