Jump to content

Jon was born a bastard and remains a bastard.


Damsel in Distress

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

You apply for the privilege and hope you are accepted.  If you're not, well, you won't have to worry about putting in an unemployment claim.  

That is not always the case. You can be rejected and live, like Alyn Velaryon was. Or some of the guys trying to mount Silverwing at Tumbleton. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

That is not always the case. You can be rejected and live, like Alyn Velaryon was. Or some of the guys trying to mount Silverwing at Tumbleton. 

True, but you would be submitting a disability or worker's comp.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

That doesn't happen. Men claim dragons, not the other way around. The dragons just accept a rider ... or they don't.

 

35 minutes ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

You apply for the privilege and hope you are accepted.  If you're not, well, you won't have to worry about putting in an unemployment claim.  

 

31 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

That is not always the case. You can be rejected and live, like Alyn Velaryon was. Or some of the guys trying to mount Silverwing at Tumbleton. 

 

28 minutes ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

True, but you would be submitting a disability or worker's comp.

Widow maker has the right of it, LV. Even in the Pit with Dany, her shouts, and use of the whip are only good to get Drogon to pay attention, not to tame him. Dragons are not tamed to a rider like some wild west cowboy breaking a wild horse to his will. Or to mangle another metaphor and paraphrase Harry Potter's wand maker, "the wand chooses the wizard, Mr. Potter." Only this wand will likely eat you if it doesn't choose you.

edit: now I will give you this, LV. Jon may well be different than most candidates for the job of dragon rider. We have never seen what happens when a person with the skin changing ability Jon has presents himself or herself for a dragon to choose. Perhaps Jon can slip his skin and control a dragon. That would be a first, as far as we know.

My guess is that Jon would be foolish to attempt it. We see with Varamyr that he can control beasts, but part of them always want to rebel and kill him. Would a Dragon's reaction be more like that, than simple submission? I'd guess so. I think the old tradition of the Targaryens to give their children eggs to sleep with has something to do with getting the dragon to accept the child from its hatching. Much like the choosing of the dire wolf pups to each Stark forms a bond between child and pup. The "warging" connection develops over time, not in the Starks forcing the wolf into submission like Varamyr does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, SFDanny said:

Widow maker has the right of it, LV. Even in the Pit with Dany, her shouts, and use of the whip are only good to get Drogon to pay attention, not to tame him. Dragons are not tamed to a rider like some wild west cowboy breaking a wild horse to his will. Or to mangle another metaphor and paraphrase Harry Potter's wand maker, "the wand chooses the wizard, Mr. Potter." Only this wand will likely eat you if it doesn't choose you.

I never said that a whip is all it takes to tame a dragon. Far from it. You need to have special blood. A magic in your blood, however it works in details. But it is not Drogon who chose Daenerys. It is Daenerys who chose Drogon. She could have chosen any of her three dragons. But she chose Drogon. And Drogon nearly killed her. There is no hint he wanted to be claimed by her. If Dany hadn't jumped on his back he would have either killed her or flown away without her.

Dragons are wild animals, not pets (or magical tools). If they are not forced to hang out with you via magic they will kill or eat you.

5 hours ago, SFDanny said:

edit: now I will give you this, LV. Jon may well be different than most candidates for the job of dragon rider. We have never seen what happens when a person with the skin changing ability Jon has presents himself or herself for a dragon to choose. Perhaps Jon can slip his skin and control a dragon. That would be a first, as far as we know.

Yeah, that could work. And if he does that there is no hint that Dany or anyone has to believe he is Rhaegar's son because he claims a dragonrider. It could just be part of his skinchanger powers.

My point is that Daenerys (or whoever is going to accept Jon's identity as a Targaryen descendant) needs a good reason to actually want to believe that or support his claim that he is Rhaegar's son. Jon becoming a dragonrider could make her and quite a few people believe that he has Targaryen or Valyrian ancestors, but it is not going to be proof that he is Rhaegar's son by Lyanna. Just as Aegon claiming a dragon (if he does that eventually) is not going to be proof that he is Rhaegar's son by Elia.

5 hours ago, SFDanny said:

My guess is that Jon would be foolish to attempt it. We see with Varamyr that he can control beasts, but part of them always want to rebel and kill him. Would a Dragon's reaction be more like that, than simple submission? I'd guess so. I think the old tradition of the Targaryens to give their children eggs to sleep with has something to do with getting the dragon to accept the child from its hatching. Much like the choosing of the dire wolf pups to each Stark forms a bond between child and pup. The "warging" connection develops over time, not in the Starks forcing the wolf into submission like Varamyr does.

There has to be an explanation why the Children and the First Men did not use dragons as weapons via skinchanging. My guess is that a dragons mind *burns too hot* for a normal skinchanger to control it. I could see skinchangers interfering with the bond between dragon and rider but I doubt they can really control them. If they did the First Men would have been crushed by the Children. A single dragon controlled by a skinchanger could have killed thousands or tens of thousands of First Men, and apparently there were more than just one dragon in Westeros back in the Dawn Age.

The whole dragon egg thing is not necessary to claim a dragon. That is just a practice the Targaryens later adopted. Aegon, Visenya, Rhaenys, Maegor, Helaena, Aemond, and the dragonseeds all claimed dragons without bonding with them in advance. And Aenys shows that you can bond with a hatchling easily enough without handling its egg before.

Dany sort of bonded with all her three dragons but she can only mount one dragon. And it happened that this dragon is Drogon, the one she was always closest to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On June 6, 2017 at 4:36 PM, Lord Varys said:

It will come out in October. George has read from at a couple of times, usually only covering the youth of Aegon's sons and the reign of King Aenys. The reign of Maegor was not covered. Our only source for that is TWoIaF and a two page unedited excerpt from TSotD from a very early sample page.

Wow. Yeah, I confirmed that the other day. Also, that is a pretty mean and unfair thing to do by trying to quote unpublished material as truth just yet. But like I mentioned before, I will get to reading the big World book soon because I did order that one. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Sea Dragon said:

Wow. Yeah, I confirmed that the other day. Also, that is a pretty mean and unfair thing to do by trying to quote unpublished material as truth just yet. But like I mentioned before, I will get to reading the big World book soon because I did order that one. 

That is why I try not to do that. But we are talking here about TSotD since the first reading George gave of that story years ago. Information about it has been out there ever since.

Have fun with TWoIaF.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

That is why I try not to do that. But we are talking here about TSotD since the first reading George gave of that story years ago. Information about it has been out there ever since.

Have fun with TWoIaF.

Is that reading out there somewhere? I never heard that one. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Sea Dragon said:

Is that reading out there somewhere? I never heard that one. 

Those are my notes from the LonCon reading. Full of typos due to typing on a tablet but it was fun:

I've elaborated on some details later on but most of the material is to be found in there and in the other reports in the same thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think bonding a dragon is the same as skin changing a wolf.  For one thing, the person who wargs the wolf slowly becomes more wolf mentally and the wolf sort of becomes more human.  Cross contamination of the minds.  As the thread on "Stark Savages" points out, the Stark children who warg their wolves are getting more and more savage.  They're losing parts of their humanity. 

The Targaryens who had dragons were not the ones who went nuts.  *It was the ones who lacked dragons that went off track.  The dragon bond doesn't change the human nor does it change the dragon.  The dragon remains capable of making its own decisions as do the human. 

*I don't think Maegor was crazy.  He was just an entitled dude who was pissed at the faith because they won't let him have his way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

That is why I try not to do that. But we are talking here about TSotD since the first reading George gave of that story years ago. Information about it has been out there ever since.

Have fun with TWoIaF.

What @Lord Varys has done here with "The Sons of the Dragon" is part of a long tradition of fans reporting from Martin's readings. He has done a fantastic job in sharing his notes with information starved readers. Any disagreements I may have with his views on the meaning of what is going on here should absolutely not be interpreted as a criticism of the great contribution he has made by letting us see this material.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Holley 4 Barrel said:

I don't think bonding a dragon is the same as skin changing a wolf.  For one thing, the person who wargs the wolf slowly becomes more wolf mentally and the wolf sort of becomes more human.  Cross contamination of the minds.  As the thread on "Stark Savages" points out, the Stark children who warg their wolves are getting more and more savage.  They're losing parts of their humanity.

The Targaryens also may have lost parts of their humanity. After all, they are 'the blood of the dragon'. But if they have it is a different thing than the consequences and effects of the spirit-merging of the skinchangers. That seems to have the potential to have much worse consequences than dragonriding.

13 hours ago, Holley 4 Barrel said:

The Targaryens who had dragons were not the ones who went nuts.  *It was the ones who lacked dragons that went off track.  The dragon bond doesn't change the human nor does it change the dragon.  The dragon remains capable of making its own decisions as do the human. 

*I don't think Maegor was crazy.  He was just an entitled dude who was pissed at the faith because they won't let him have his way.

The special part of the dragonriding thing is that it is an exclusive marriage. There is no polygamy possible there. A dragon and its rider bond for life. You can only claim a new dragon if your dragon is dead and a dragon can only bond with a new rider if the rider is dead.

We don't have a precedent for the former but quite a few for the latter. But the former is very much implied by the fact that George himself has said that Viserys I chose not to claim a new dragon after Balerion's death. That means he could have done that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
On 3/20/2017 at 1:22 AM, Damsel in Distress said:

I looked at every reasonable scenario and read many opinions from many forums.  Here are those scenarios.

  • Ned Stark + Daughter of a Fisherman = bastard Jon
  • Ned Stark + Ashara Dayne = bastard Jon
  • Mance Rayder + Lyanna Stark = wildling bastard Jon
  • Brandon Stark + Lyanna Stark = bastard Jon
  • Brandon Stark + Ashara Dayne = bastard Jon
  • Rhaegar + Lyanna = royal bastard Jon
  • Ned Stark + Wyla = bastard Jon

Polygamy is not an accepted practice.  Aegon married both his sisters before the conquest began.  While it is possible for Ned to have married Ashara, he later married Catelyn.  This scenario makes Catelyn's children the bastards.  I doubt this is the case.  It is also possible that Brandon married Ashara, in which case Jon would be legitimate but then why would Brandon agree to marry Catelyn.  It doesn't make sense.  I can see Brandon doing something that doesn't make sense but too many people would have known and objected.  Rhaegar was already married to Princess Ellia of Dorne.  He cannot legally marry Lyanna even if he wanted to.  Rhaegar was not the king and he doesn't have the authority to approve polygamy nor did he have the power to legitimize a bastard. 

My verdict?  Jon is a bastard

Jon is a bastard.  Born that way.  He's still that way.  This is so obvious. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 6/9/2017 at 0:10 PM, Lord Varys said:

The Targaryens also may have lost parts of their humanity. After all, they are 'the blood of the dragon'. But if they have it is a different thing than the consequences and effects of the spirit-merging of the skinchangers. That seems to have the potential to have much worse consequences than dragonriding.

The special part of the dragonriding thing is that it is an exclusive marriage. There is no polygamy possible there. A dragon and its rider bond for life. You can only claim a new dragon if your dragon is dead and a dragon can only bond with a new rider if the rider is dead.

We don't have a precedent for the former but quite a few for the latter. But the former is very much implied by the fact that George himself has said that Viserys I chose not to claim a new dragon after Balerion's death. That means he could have done that.

Dragon riding is a bond between the dragon and the human.  It's more of a relationship.  An unbreakable marriage.  

Warging is the human taking possession of the wolf.  It is a two way exchange.  So the human becomes more animal, more savage.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

Dragon riding is a bond between the dragon and the human.  It's more of a relationship.  An unbreakable marriage.  

Warging is the human taking possession of the wolf.  It is a two way exchange.  So the human becomes more animal, more savage.  

Do you realise that your explanation means the opposite of what you seem to think it does? 

The way you put it, dragonriders and their dragons bond, whereas a skinchanger takes possession of an animal. And then you go on to say that taking possession is a two-way exchange and the skinchanger "becomes more animal, more savage". 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5.8.2017 at 0:07 AM, kissdbyfire said:

Do you realise that your explanation means the opposite of what you seem to think it does? 

The way you put it, dragonriders and their dragons bond, whereas a skinchanger takes possession of an animal. And then you go on to say that taking possession is a two-way exchange and the skinchanger "becomes more animal, more savage". 

There is a contradiction in the sentence but the idea what @Widowmaker 811 seemed to try to convey is that skinchanging taints your spirit. You merge with the animal you control and while the animal becomes more human in the process the skinchanger inevitable takes on some characteristics of the animal.

It may be that this is the case with dragonriders, too, but if that's the case it has yet to be established.

In addition, it is also quite clear that skinchangers subdue their animals and force them to serve them. They can break free again or be stolen by another more powerful skinchanger. Dragon and dragonrider apparently bond for life and while the rider is in charge it seems quite clear that the ultimate decision whether to accept or reject a rider is the dragon's. The Targaryens didn't exactly have any means to actually force their dragons to accept or mind control them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎3‎/‎20‎/‎2017 at 5:59 AM, devilish said:

Even if he's a bastard its within King Aegon or Queen Danny to legitimise him. They lack allies and a warden of the North with Targ blood in him will be handy

It is not certain that the Northern Lords will follow a bastard, even Ned's bastard, especially one who has already taken a vow to hold no titles or lands and really especially if there are true born sons of Ned Stark around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

There is a contradiction in the sentence but the idea what @Widowmaker 811 seemed to try to convey is that skinchanging taints your spirit. You merge with the animal you control and while the animals become more humans in the process the skinchanger inevitable takes on some characteristics of the animal.

It may be that this is the case with dragonriders, too, but if that's the case it has yet to be established.

In addition, it is also quite clear that skinchangers subdue to their animals and force them to serve them. They can break free again or be stolen by another more powerful skinchanger. Dragon and dragonrider apparently bond for life and while the rider is in charge it seems quite clear that the ultimate decision whether to accept or reject a rider is the dragons. The Targaryens didn't exactly have any means to actually force their dragons to accept or mind control them.

Correct.  

There is a sharing of the mind, of consciousness, with skinchanging.  It is a form of slavery, in a way.  The dragon bond is another type of relationship.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/26/2017 at 7:48 PM, Bowen 747 said:

Jon is a bastard.  Born that way.  He's still that way.  This is so obvious. 

I think so.  Rhaegar and Elia consummated their marriage.  They produced Rhaenys and Aegon.  There is no divorce or annulment without the permission of King Aerys.  Rhaegar could not marry Lyanna legally.  Jon is a bastard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

Correct.  

There is a sharing of the mind, of consciousness, with skinchanging.  It is a form of slavery, in a way.  The dragon bond is another type of relationship.  

It seems to be somewhat different with the Stark children since they do it mostly on an unconscious level. In their cases it might have been somewhat of a partnership at first. But later on, especially in Bran and Arya's cases, it develops into a master-slave relationship.

And in general skinchangers are not considered to be nice and normal people, even among the wildlings. Varamyr's parents give him away to live with 'his kind'. The whole beastling talk of Janos Slynt about Jon may have been much more effective had Jon not been a Stark bastard and actually had any wolf dreams he talked about and/or depicted any real hints that he was mind controlling his wolf.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, YOVMO said:

It is not certain that the Northern Lords will follow a bastard, even Ned's bastard, especially one who has already taken a vow to hold no titles or lands and really especially if there are true born sons of Ned Stark around.

If Bran is alive then someone must fight his own battles. A Stark, whose battlehardened and whose Aunt/half brother is a queen/king has much more influence on the battlefield than a bastard. Rickon on the other hand my grow up into a good warrior. However he needs time. Whose better to do the Brynden Tully role then Jon Stark?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...