R + L = J v 74

[Ghost's Shadow]

If there has been one, I missed it. I did touch the theme in my R+L essay in the Romance thread - with Robb and Jeyne, and, curiously, Craster. I couldn't think of any other occurence then and I cannot even now.

Ah, oops. Well, if I cross the path of such a thing on a re-read, I'll make notes. ;)

[Amoracchius]

The same lens apply to the whole R+L business. Do you recall that test I took with a friend who had no knowledge of ASOIAF? I gave her the very basics on the causes of the Rebellion, "my blood", "promise me" that haunts Ned even fourteen years later and the ToJ sequence, and I asked her what she can make out of it. The answer was, "why, of course Jon is the son of his sister and that dead prince".

A while back, I posted a story about my girlfriend's first read through (after having seen all three seasons of the HBO show). About three quarters of the way through AGOT, without any comments from me, she was convinced that Lyanna was Jon's mother, but she was still couldn't shake the idea that Ned was the father (leading to some very amusing conversations about incest and ASOIAF). Well, all that changed after she finished the HOTU chapter and the chapter when Ygritte tells Jon about Bael the Bard in ACOK. I think the many differences between the show and book versions of the HOTU piqued her interest, but I spent a few days listening to theories about blue roses, before I caught her rereading sections of AGOT and asked her what was up. Then she approached me with "a crazy idea about Jon's parents."

[The Snowfyre Chorus]

Question: If I'm not mistaken, a theme in the books was basically 'doing right by the woman and marry her'. Has there ever been a thread about how many times that's mentioned/hinted at in the books?

That line, I believe, was spoken by Craster when he met Jon. The irony, of course, is that Craster himself doesn't fit any straight categories - the wildlings say his "blood is black," and the Night's Watch says he's a wildling. And when all is said and done, Craster's own wife/daughter - Gilly - appears to define marriage by conjugal union alone (she "marries" Samwell Tarly on the Cinnamon Wind by bedding him down). No ceremony, per se. No witnesses named. Nothing that would qualify for the sake of "legitimacy" in the Seven Kingdoms, should the union bear fruit.

And of course, the Rhaegar/Lyanna story looks like a clear reprisal of the story of Bael the Bard, who was a wildling himself. Did Bael the Bard "marry" the Stark daughter with whom he disappeared? The baby, once returned, is referred to as a bastard, so apparently the union itself was not accepted south of the Wall - by the old god standards, much less the new.

[The Snowfyre Chorus]

I've done the exact same experiment with the exact same outcome. Those who believe that Jon is not legitimate are the ones splitting hairs here.

Has Martin left it ambigous enough to make it be possible? Yes he has.

Is the first and easiest answer that Jon is not legitimate - no it's not.

Do I care - honestly, not that much. I do care, however, about clues and where they point us. It can be twisted and turned, of course, to fit the other way around. I simply don't see the need to, because as far as what the info shows us, the more logical conclusion is that Jon is the legitimate son of Rhaegar and Lyanna.

Well, that's what i've been trying to get a sense of these last couple of days. How much do people around here actually care about Jon's Targ legitimacy? And how do you think it would affect the direction of the story - if at all?

[Lady Gwynhyfvar]

Well, that's what i've been trying to get a sense of these last couple of days. How much do people around here actually care about Jon's Targ legitimacy? And how do you think it would affect the direction of the story - if at all?

It's a great question. I think one of the commonly held misconceptions about RLJ is that there is some monolithic opinion that Jon is legitimate and will one day sit the IT. The reality of course is much more nuanced.

Personally I agree with FL and Ygrain, that the text points to legitimacy but that the actual fact of it may not mean much in the final analysis.

I'm not entirely sure how that message gets out and what it would mean to the realm anyway. I tend to think Jon will not sit the IT, that his destiny lies elsewhere. That's where I believe the inversion of the hidden heir trope lies. He is hidden heir, I think the text is clear on that. What is less clear is where that will take him. So far I've seen nothing in the text pointing to King's Landing.

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

Well, that's what i've been trying to get a sense of these last couple of days. How much do people around here actually care about Jon's Targ legitimacy? And how do you think it would affect the direction of the story - if at all?

The direction of the story? Perhaps not that much (especially not after Robb legitimizing Jon). But it would be important in explaining the actions of the three KG at TOJ, and Neds feelings towards them.

[FrozenFire3]

Well, that's what i've been trying to get a sense of these last couple of days. How much do people around here actually care about Jon's Targ legitimacy? And how do you think it would affect the direction of the story - if at all?

All that I care is solid structured narrative. Devising such a plot twist only to leave Jon's condition fundamentally unchanged (a bastard was, a bastard is) would be the most pleonastic move in the history of characterization (the author might have as well left him the bastard son of Ned).

Not to mention all the ironic metatextual nuances Martin has shaded the text with (we have been analyzing those little gems ad nauseam on the 74 versions of this thread). They would lose their double entendre, their delicious ambiguity, their foreshadowing quality to reverse to plain descriptive text. So it all comes to brilliantly flavoured writing versus a bland one.

[FittleLinger]

The direction of the story? Perhaps not that much (especially not after Robb legitimizing Jon). But it would be important in explaining the actions of the three KG at TOJ, and Neds feelings towards them.

Nah, there should be something more. It will be a cyclic redundancy if the KG was there, to show us that Jon was legitimate, which is there to show us why they were there.

But I don't think that this "something more" is tied to a throne, that if it is, Jon will want it, or that someone will give it to him.

[MtnLion]

Well, that's what i've been trying to get a sense of these last couple of days. How much do people around here actually care about Jon's Targ legitimacy? And how do you think it would affect the direction of the story - if at all?

If Daenerys learns of it, it can be an important turning point in her arch. I think that we will see some interesting things develop because of Jon being the legitimate heir. If he is the Prince that was Promised, there may be more to that prophecy that we need to learn, in order to have a full understanding of where Jon is headed. I do believe that the Others are a huge threat to all warm blooded life, and I don't see them being stopped north of the Neck, forcing Jon at least as far south as the Trident in his battle against them. He is a key to uniting the realm, and because of that he will be forced to reign over the Seven Kingdoms and marshal their armies in the Battle for the Dawn II.

[FrozenFire3]

And the articulation of our replies is evidence enough that we are not a bunch of cult adepts and very much rationally guided in our argumentations. All the rest is... projection ;)

[Ygrain]

And the articulation of our replies is evidence enough that we are not a bunch of cult adepts and very much rationally guided in our argumentations. All the rest is... projection ;)

What? We're not members of the cult of Jon I Targaryen? Seven help me, my life is in ruins!

[Jon Weirgaryen]

Well, that's what i've been trying to get a sense of these last couple of days. How much do people around here actually care about Jon's Targ legitimacy? And how do you think it would affect the direction of the story - if at all?

I have no idea if it will affect the future story, @MtnLion has brought the arguments how it would.

I have the feeling that it doesn't matter much. I think it gives the life as a bastard making his own way just that additional tad of irony if he actually is the very Targaryen Prince. (Not that I think it will change his future path)

And the Rhaegar-character is the one to marry Lyanna. If he does everything the "right" way, in all that chaos he must have married her. Elsewise he would be out-of-character, I think.

The other thing, if he planned an incestuous polygamy marriage for his children born or unborn right away, what would have kept him from doing a non-incestuous polygamy marriage for himself but the unthinkable lack of a septon to do it?

Except from these three arguments, that seem to be in favour of it, there is no reason for R+L to marry, that I agree ;-)

[stateofdissipation]

Ned is also discussed by Bob's reaction to the deaths of the Targs and the Targ children. It almost seems that Bob's hatred of the Targs goes far deeper than just the Lyanna abduction.

At KL, Bob was happy they were dead but disgusted by the corpses of the children and turned away. He did not order their murders but accepted it after it was done. Ned was disgusted by Robert failing to bring their murderers to justice and his apparent joy he got from their deaths. After he learned of Lyanna's death things got much worse.rde. 15 years after the fact Bob hated the Targs. However in 15 years he had not ordered the deaths of those Targs. When he finally did he offered a Lordship and then took it back.

[COYStars]

Ned, whose own honour wavered only for love, would never accept any excuses why the KG weren’t with Viserys if he was the king.

When did Ned's honour waver for love?

[Ygrain]

When did Ned's honour waver for love?

For Cat when he took the blame for Tyrion's abduction on himself, for Sansa he confessed treason which he never committed, and for Lyanna.

[COYStars]

For Cat when he took the blame for Tyrion's abduction on himself, for Sansa he confessed treason which he never committed, and for Lyanna.

I think each is honourable, though. To take the fall for one to whom you owe a duty is the epitome of honour.

Especially Lyanna. Promise me, Ned. He made a promise and he honoured it (I am convinced that this promise was to protect Jon and hide his true identity - we have had no clues as to anything else that makes sense in the context), even if it meant denying Jon the upbringing that he deserved.

[Lady Gwynhyfvar]

I think each is honourable, though. To take the fall for one to whom you owe a duty is the epitome of honour.

Especially Lyanna. Promise me, Ned. He made a promise and he honoured it (I am convinced that this promise was to protect Jon and hide his true identity - we have had no clues as to anything else that makes sense in the context), even if it meant denying Jon the upbringing that he deserved.

Honorable in a sense. But all three examples Ygrain gave are lies nonetheless, which goes against standard definitions of "honor"

[J. Stargaryen]

The circular arguments were giving me headache too ... :)

I think the main split is between those who see a need for Jon to be legitimate, and those if us who see a more compelling storyline with him being a bastard.

It's not a matter of which storyline is more compelling for me at all. I just think there are way too many hints and clues pointing to Jon's legitimacy for it not to be true.

And of course, the Rhaegar/Lyanna story looks like a clear reprisal of the story of Bael the Bard, who was a wildling himself. Did Bael the Bard "marry" the Stark daughter with whom he disappeared? The baby, once returned, is referred to as a bastard, so apparently the union itself was not accepted south of the Wall - by the old god standards, much less the new.

If Bael's son was considered a bastard in the North, then he must have been legitimized by Brandon the Daughterless in order to become a Stark. Jon Snow is trueborn, I'm fairly certain. However, there is a legitimized Northern bastard living in Winterfell at the moment.

[Ygrain]

Honorable in a sense. But all three examples Ygrain gave are lies nonetheless, which goes against standard definitions of "honor"

What Lady G says :-)

[Lyse Stark]

I wonder what the old Targaryen kings will think of Jon, him being the Ice Dragon to their normal fire?