Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-4708902-20160726013945/@comment-5308269-20160828160503

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.