Damsel in Distress

Jon was born a bastard and remains a bastard.

161 posts in this topic

17 hours ago, 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

Cool. Okay, cool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

@Protagoras

That sums it up pretty fine. Often enough people fail to discuss or entertain the details how this story might unfold and instead put all emphasis on the claim that it has to unfold.

Perhaps we can talk a little bit about the how here. Do you have a scenario in mind how Jon's status from Eddard Stark's bastard to Rhaegar Targaryen's bastard or even Rhaegar's son, a royal prince of House Targaryen, could change?

If leave the whole Others plot out of that to keep things somewhat simpler (although the real setting most likely is not going to be a simple as that) then I'd give the following criteria as starting point for this thing (also ignoring the effect the resurrection/whatever might have on his psyche - that is impossible to predict right now):

1. Jon Snow has to receive good information about his true parentage (that excludes things like prophetic visions and dreams and other dubious talk).

2. Jon Snow has to believe the person telling him about his true parents.

This is already a pretty big conundrum. Whom would Jon believe that he is Rhaegar's son by Lyanna? Bran, perhaps. Howland Reed is considerably less like since Jon has - for all we know - never met that man. Wylla or some Daynes seem to be too far away to ever end up in a position to talk to Jon Snow. If Bran talks to Jon, convinces him that he actually has accurate visions of the past (say, by telling Jon stuff about his own past only Jon would know), then Jon could believe what he says. While he might listen to the stories Howland might tell him I think his stories would be considerably less convincing. That leads us to the next point.

3. Jon Snow actually has to want to believe and accept that he is not, in fact, Eddard Stark's son but in fact Lyanna Stark's son by Rhaegar Targaryen.

That is going to be a hugely important point. Jon Snow's self image right now is that of Eddard Stark's bastard son. Eddard Stark is his father. He looks up to the man, tries to emulate him, tries to make him proud of his accomplishment. It was his love he wanted to win, the love of a father who would, once Jon had finally proven himself to be 'a true Stark' and proper son to be formally declared a true Stark.

Being Eddard Stark's son is a core part of Jon Snow's identity, and we can all imagine that he is not going to like that being taken away from him. After all, Eddard Stark was a good and honorable man and the only father Jon Snow ever knew. So I think we all can agree that Jon Snow himself won't be all that keen to hear some story about his true parents, and that many great heroes died so he could be raised as the bastard son of his own uncle. If I put myself in Jon's shoes for a moment imagining some friend of my father's (whom I had never met) would show up and tell me that I wasn't my father's son but instead his nephew, etc. I'd not like that story all that much.

Jon is not going to interpret the truth about his parentage as act of liberation. Tyrion might. Everything is better than being Tywin Lannister's son, even being Aerys Targaryen's bastard (especially if that comes with a dragon) but I'm not sure it is so great to lose Eddard Stark as a father only to see him replaced by a man who is long dead and actually rode to war against the man you thought was your father.

Irregardless how Jon learns the truth I don't think he is likely to act quickly on that 'revelation'. His first impulse might even be to ignore this story entirely.

The only thing I think that could convince him to accept this whole thing as the truth is if the Targaryens are about to become or already have become important in his life. Say, through something Aegon is doing or because Dany has already arrived in Westeros. He might have to send envoys to them to ask for help in the fight against the Others or may have received such envoys from them.

If we assume Jon finally gets around to see himself as Lyanna's son (and not Ned's) then we have the next point:

4. Something has to happen so that Jon and House Targaryen form some sort of connection.

Where Jon is right now (at the Wall/in the North) there are basically no or only very few Targaryen loyalists. Nobody who might actually care that he is Rhaegar Targaryen's son (regardless whether trueborn or bastard). If the North has a royal house right now it's name is Stark (or Baratheon if Stannis lives and is accepted as king by a majority of the Northmen), and that's not going to change soon.

If Jon is ever tempted to take on Robb's mantle as king or succeed him as Lord of Winterfell (which would be really tiresome because he rejected that whole thing so often already) then the truth about him merely being a Stark (bastard) through the female line is not going to help with that. The claims of Sansa, Arya (and of course Rickon) would easily supersede that.

One imagines that the only thing over which there could be any sort of connection between Jon and 'the Targaryen camp' (Aegon's people - Dorne, the Golden Company, various other houses declaring for Aegon - and Dany's people - whoever she brings with her) could be formed would be the threat of the Others (in that sense this whole thing figures into this whole topic, after all) because there is no way, NO POSSIBLE WAY, that a single man in Westeros is going to believe that Jon is Rhaegar's son and thus an 'important person politically' if he doesn't figure somehow in a much larger picture. The people in the North are way too weak to ever become political players in the South ever again in this series, and even if they did they are not very likely to play the 'Jon Snow is a Targaryen' card against other Targaryen pretenders whose identity is either clear or much more convincing than somebody's word that Jon is a Targaryen.

Thus we have

5. The something mentioned in (4.) is most likely some sort for another head of the dragon, ally in the fight against the Others, third dragonrider, whatever.

The Targaryen faction - either Aegon's or Dany's, more likely the latter - must receive good information on the possible existence of a true (or another) son of Rhaegar's (possibly due to interaction with some Daynes and further magical prophecy events). This will then lead to some sort of meeting/alliance/union that results in Jon being adopted into House Targaryen, either by being recognized as Rhaegar's trueborn son (if the Targaryen doing this believes in Rhaegar's second marriage) and a royal prince or by being formally legitimized as a Targaryen (the latter could be done in either case to placate people who challenge the validity of a bigamist marriage).

Without (5.) there isn't any chance for Jon to become accepted by anyone as a Targaryen.

From there he could even sit the throne (for time), either as Dany's heir (if she dies) or as her prince consort and co-ruler (at her side/in her absence). I'm more inclined that he will not survive the series (due to the whole resurrection thing - not liking undead kings) but he could still sit the Iron Throne for a short time before the final battle against the Others.

The idea many people are tossing around that there might be some Great Council in the end choosing him seems very strange to me. The story is structured in such a way that there won't be need of such an anticlimactic moment at the very end. It is more likely that Jon would end up in a position of supreme leadership at Dany's side during the final battles and thus simply continuing her work should she die untimely. He is not likely going to be the hidden prince who is handed the kingdom by some people who finally realized who he is and feel now obliged to give him his due because he has proven his worth.

That's the childish dream Jon had when he was young. The one that had Ned recognize his worth and make him a true Stark. This story is not going to make such dreams come true. If Jon wants the kingdom he will have to take it. And the only way I could see him doing that is through Daenerys. Anything else is not going to work.

The fact that the knights stayed with Lyanna (even while her child was not yet born and with no guarantee that she would live to give birth to it or give birth to a living child) is already ample evidence that those men did not really care all that much about the Kingsguard duty of protecting the king. Else they would have protected the king.

But if you acknowledge this then the whole Kingsguard vow part of their motivation essentially disappears. But then, a man like Ser Arthur Dayne was praised by Ned as a great knight, not exactly a great Kingsguard.

Rhaegar's beliefs in prophecy are likely to be a motivation there. However, those wouldn't be actually very good motivations. I mean, Rhaegar was wrong so many times before and interpreted prophecy really isn't something that should be more important than your vows. However, it is just as likely their vows as mere knights also played an important role there. Protect the innocent from harm. Lyanna and her child were both innocent and the men might have had reason to believe than delivering them into Ned's hands might be dangerous.

So much to critique. Let me focus on the timing issue for now, which I have always and repeatedly stated is crucial. Note that even the Show has:

Spoiler

Only revealed to the audience, and not to the citizens of Westeros or even to Jon himself, the truth of his birth. And this is already well after his resurrection. And at the point where Winterfell has been retaken by the Starks. A point in time that will likely only be reached at the end of Winds of Winter.

I think it quite likely that Jon will not learn the truth of his identity until well into Dream of Spring. Since Martin still intends to finish this series in 7 books as of his blog post a week or so ago, who knows how late in the plot this is supposed to occur.

So to me there is zero chance that Jon will learn the truth of his birth before Daenerys has landed and conquered much of the South. To me, the reveal of Jon's birth to Westeros will be the big surprise revelation towards the end of the story. And as I have said before, and as strongly foreshadowed by Maester Aemon, he mirrors Egg in that he will not be a conqueror, but a ruler, and not out of choice, but out of duty. I certainly favor the Great Council idea at the end of the series, after the Others have fallen and Dany has died, to try and decide who will rule the realm during the Great Rebuilding after the War of the Dawn. And that this King will be Jon.

Remember, by then the entire Westeros will be in ruin, and who knows how few of the Great Houses will still be standing? It might well be that in this aftermath of devestation, war, famine and disease, far fewer men of power will remain to be convinced when it comes time to elect a King. In a Westeros with almost no armies left, the man who was the war hero against the Others might well be seen as a great choice as future king.

Especially if the few remaining Lords Paramount now include Tyrion Lannister (who has since discovered the truth of Jon's birth), Bran Stark-Tully (ruler of both the North and the Riverlands, who also knows the truth), Sansa Arryn and maybe Edrick Storm who could be convinced of the truth by Davos. And who knows what the Dayne's could reveal about the truth to Trystane Martell, who might be the only surviving Martell at that point. Martin has strongly hinted that some Great Houses won't survive, and the Tyrells might even be that House, although that is not a requirement, as they could be totally devestated and weak at that point in the story.

In a land on its knees in the aftermath of Armageddon, unity might be desperately required in order to rebuild the Seven Kingdoms to its former glory, and Jon might end up being the only Targaryen left alive at that point, without whom the Seven Kingdoms might fall apart in its time of greatest vulnerability. In that situation I see him becoming King. Not by choice, but out of duty.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

The fact that the knights stayed with Lyanna (even while her child was not yet born and with no guarantee that she would live to give birth to it or give birth to a living child) is already ample evidence that those men did not really care all that much about the Kingsguard duty of protecting the king. Else they would have protected the king.

But if you acknowledge this then the whole Kingsguard vow part of their motivation essentially disappears. But then, a man like Ser Arthur Dayne was praised by Ned as a great knight, not exactly a great Kingsguard.

Rhaegar's beliefs in prophecy are likely to be a motivation there. However, those wouldn't be actually very good motivations. I mean, Rhaegar was wrong so many times before and interpreted prophecy really isn't something that should be more important than your vows. However, it is just as likely their vows as mere knights also played an important role there. Protect the innocent from harm. Lyanna and her child were both innocent and the men might have had reason to believe than delivering them into Ned's hands might be dangerous.

Believing in a prophecy would explain why they were there. Why they were blindly sure of their duty, even before the child's birth. They insisted a lot on their vows. But obviously the Mad King was irrelevant for them, same for Rhaegar. We can't exclude they forgot completely their vows, and behaved as simple knights "protecting the innocent from harm". IMHO it would be lame. All this Tower thing for nothing.But it's just me.

They 100% betrayed the Mad King, no question about that. And you may name that betraying their vows. But possibly, they saw it differently. If they thought they were protecting Westeros and its future kings (make sense in light of the Others). I agree rational men should not listen to prophecies. But this is not our world, and we don't know what they knew.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

The idea many people are tossing around that there might be some Great Council in the end choosing him seems very strange to me. The story is structured in such a way that there won't be need of such an anticlimactic moment at the very end. It is more likely that Jon would end up in a position of supreme leadership at Dany's side during the final battles and thus simply continuing her work should she die untimely. He is not likely going to be the hidden prince who is handed the kingdom by some people who finally realized who he is and feel now obliged to give him his due because he has proven his worth.

That's the childish dream Jon had when he was young. The one that had Ned recognize his worth and make him a true Stark. This story is not going to make such dreams come true. If Jon wants the kingdom he will have to take it. And the only way I could see him doing that is through Daenerys. Anything else is not going to work.

That was a long post. :P

Anyway,  I agree with all of it.

At best, polygamy would be a technical explanation to present as legitimate someone who is already a king (or a prince) in the eyes of everyone, like Robert's Targaryen grandmother conveniently put him "in line" for the throne. Of course, we the readers know that the reasons Robert took the throne are a bit more complex (Ned wasn't interested, Jon Arryn was old, Robert had killed Rhaegar... etc).

But the other way around? There's nothing in the books that can allow for such a scenario.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Ferocious Veldt Roarer said:

“Ser Willem Darry is fled to Dragonstone, with your queen and Prince Viserys. I thought you might have sailed with him.”
“Ser Willem is a good man and true,” said Ser Oswell. “But not of the Kingsguard,” Ser Gerold pointed out. “The Kingsguard does not flee.”
“Then or now,” said Ser Arthur. He donned his helm.
“We swore a vow,” explained old Ser Gerold.

OK. So, Jon was born a bastard. The finest knights of the Kingsguard left the actual, well, kingsguarding, to Darry, "a good man and true", but "not of the Kingsguard". They themselves, however, are stuck taking care of dead prince's paramour and a bastard of no consequence, and at the same time consider that duty a fulfillment of their Kingsguard vows and a source of enormous pride. Nope, I don't think so.

(Mind you, I actually don't care if Jon's a bastard or not. Heck, I don't even care much about who his parents were, TBH. But what's written is written, no way around it).

I think this pretty much covers it. We don't have much information about what happened during that period but Ned's memory of the tower of joy scene strongly implies that the Kingsguard considered Jon the rightful king of the seven kingdoms. No other argument to the contrary really makes much sense unless they can explain this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Makk said:

I think this pretty much covers it. We don't have much information about what happened during that period but Ned's memory of the tower of joy scene strongly implies that the Kingsguard considered Jon the rightful king of the seven kingdoms. No other argument to the contrary really makes much sense unless they can explain this.

Two words: Fever. Dream. Also a pretty good book, or so I've heard. I plan to read it soon.

I won't go into it in much detail but the knights Ned is dreaming about are dream images, created by his unconscious mind. We have no guarantee that this conversation took place this way in real life. And it is actually pretty productive and interesting to imagine what Ned might have caused to imagine exchanging such highly stylized and ritualized phrases with the knights at the tower. That is much more fun than taking this whole episode as 'evidence'.

If you think a little bit about it you will realize that the chances that Ned actually talked this way to the men (and they answered in this way) makes not a lot of sense if we think they are actually living people.

In addition, in gobbled succession as Aerys II's was - him and his Heir Apparent being killed shortly after each, the capital and royal throne in the hands of rebels - it would be completely irresponsible for the knights at the tower to even make up their mind who the next Targaryen king should be (or even choose such a king). A king is proclaimed, crowned, and anointed. Before any of that doesn't happen he is no king.

That is why Viserys III, Renly, Stannis, Balon, Robb, Joffrey, Tommen, Dany, etc. are all monarchs and Prince Aegon is not. The boy was neither proclaimed, nor crowned, nor anointed. And neither was Lyanna's infant child at the tower of joy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty much agree with OP. While it's very possible Jon could be legitimized, I am not understanding how it's possible he wasn't born a bastard. For Rhaegar to be available to marry, Elia would have to be dead or the marriage would've had to  be set aside. We know when Elia died and it was after Rhaegar died. It's also very unlikely that the marriage would've been set aside because it had already been consummated. Westeros does not recognize polygamy, as seen when Maegor tried to second wife. Yeah, technically he did it, but it was not recognized as valid. Aegon the Conqueror is a anomaly that only happened because he was married to his wives before he came to Westeros and considering what he had just done in the Field of Fire and Harrenhal who was going to tell him he was going to have to give up one of his wives. But every other Targ has adhered to the Faith in this aspect. If Rhaegar can just have a valid second out of the blue when no other person has been able to just so Jon can be legitimate that's super weak regardless of Elia's consent. 

The KG being at TOJ doesn't mean much to me.Three men believing Jon was legitimate does not make him so. What makes him legitimate is the laws of the land or at least the general public's belief of his legitimacy. Neither would see Jon as being born legitimate considering Rhaegar was already married to another woman. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Maxxine

In relation to Aegon I, never forget that one of his sister-wives died very early in his reign and he remained a monogamous man for the twenty-seven years that followed thereafter, the majority of his reign.

And he only had a son with his other wife after the mother of his firstborn son had died. He is not that different there than a man who remarried after the death of his first wife.

And Maegor only tried to live a polygamous lifestyle after he became king (and failed). As prince he tried to set aside Ceryse for Alys and was exiled for that (which is also a failure).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Two words: Fever. Dream. Also a pretty good book, or so I've heard. I plan to read it soon.

I won't go into it in much detail but the knights Ned is dreaming about are dream images, created by his unconscious mind. We have no guarantee that this conversation took place this way in real life. And it is actually pretty productive and interesting to imagine what Ned might have caused to imagine exchanging such highly stylized and ritualized phrases with the knights at the tower. That is much more fun than taking this whole episode as 'evidence'.

If you think a little bit about it you will realize that the chances that Ned actually talked this way to the men (and they answered in this way) makes not a lot of sense if we think they are actually living people.

 

I don't agree with you. We have virtually no information about what really happened there. For GRRM to provide an extremely interesting hint once you understand it, and then have it all be false because the POV was delusional would simply be bad writing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Makk said:

I don't agree with you. We have virtually no information about what really happened there. For GRRM to provide an extremely interesting hint once you understand it, and then have it all be false because the POV was delusional would simply be bad writing.

It is still a very good hint. We learn three KGs were at the tower, that Lyanna died there, and that she might have given birth to a child. That is enough for us to conclude that Rhaegar was the father of the child and that it might be Jon Snow. We don't also have to conclude that he is the one true king.

And George himself has referred to the dream as a fever dream which doesn't accurately reflect what actually transpired there. The dream as we have it is full of holes as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

It is still a very good hint. We learn three KGs were at the tower, that Lyanna died there, and that she might have given birth to a child. That is enough for us to conclude that Rhaegar was the father of the child and that it might be Jon Snow. We don't also have to conclude that he is the one true king.

And George himself has referred to the dream as a fever dream which doesn't accurately reflect what actually transpired there. The dream as we have it is full of holes as well.

So why are the 3 kingsguard there? That is the whole point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Makk said:

So why are the 3 kingsguard there? That is the whole point.

1. They are with Lyanna, on the orders of someone who had authority over them.

2. That would be either Aerys II, his Hand, the queen, or Rhaegar. Most likely Rhaegar, especially in the cases of Dayne and Whent, his good friends, who would like even take his side against the king (despite them being Kingsguard). Hightower is a harder nut to crack but he, too, could have decided to obey Rhaegar rather than Aerys once he found him.

3. If the men either felt honor-bound to follow an order given to them by Rhaegar, or considered it a good and honorable task to do this, or felt that it was necessary and very important to protect Lyanna and her (unborn) child regardless whether Rhaegar wanted it or not (although he most likely wanted it) then this would be a perfect explanation for why they were there.

All this speculation about them having had word of Viserys III, needing to send one of their numbers to Dragonstone, etc. is just that - ad hoc speculation. They could just as well have reached the conclusion that the new king was safe on Dragonstone (just as a previous Kingsguard concluded that Aegon II was safe on Dragonstone, in the care of some bastard knight). Perhaps they even intended to go to Dragonstone but never got around doing it (because Lyanna was too sick and the child still to frail). Or they concluded that King Viserys III wasn't as important as this child of Rhaegar's.

Nobody asks why Barristan Selmy isn't in the Dothraki Sea searching for Daenerys instead of guarding her empty throne and arresting her king consort. Arys Oakheart did not contact King Tommen after Joffrey's death, asking whether he was still charged with protecting the Princess Myrcella.

If a royal person of authority (again, the king, the Hand, the queen, and possibly other members of the royal family and possibly even members of the Small Council) charge a Kingsguard with protecting somebody than those men do their duty until they get a different order. Such is the life of a Kingsguard. This can be pretty confusing, too. Ser Marston Waters (the bastard knight who hid Aegon II on Dragonstone) later joined his Kingsguard and at one point besiege his own king, Aegon III in Maegor's Holdfast, whose Hand he was at that time. We might never understand what drove this man (he later died in service to that king after he realized it was, perhaps, wrong to besiege your king in his own castle, especially when his sixteenth nameday is no longer that far away) but I'm pretty sure we will get a full explanation why the three knights were with Lyanna.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Makk said:

 We have virtually no information about what really happened there. For GRRM to provide an extremely interesting hint once you understand it, and then have it all be false because the POV was delusional would simply be bad writing.

The problem is with the bolded.
How can you "understand the hint" when you are almost certain (as per the SSM) that the entire dialogue is completely distorted? Any interpretation of that dialogue is inherently suspicious.
The fact that so many people believe in an "obvious" interpretation is the very reason why I'm reluctant to buy it. If Martin deliberately wrote this dialogue so that it couldn't be read literally, then the "obvious" interpretation is most certainly wrong.

What is certain about the meaning of the dream? Perhaps that after all these years Ned is still tortured by that encounter. If you read it literally he is puzzled by the KG's presence. So naturally the readers tend to focus on that. And of course, it seems to make sense since at that point Ned had good reason to see the war as being over.
On a deeper level however, I would say Ned is tortured by the fight itself, the reasons of which are unclear, even if you assume the KG are protecting Jon because they see him as the heir. Let's bear in mind that at this point in the story Ned has just had an argument with Robert over the death of Rhaegar's children. He's extremely unlikely to be a threat to Lyanna's child, even if that child is a Targaryen prince. Nor of course, would he be a threat to Lyanna.
So why did they fight? The reasons may be more complex than those we may assume. Because the literal reading doesn't answer that question satisfyingly I don't think we should give it too much credence.

If you start thinking about the whole exchange differently, the KG are telling Ned that they are bound by their vows. That could also mean that they have to follow orders, even those they don't like. It's easy to imagine some orders that would explain the entire situation in a satisfying way imho.

Edited by Rippounet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would also go back to the irony foreshadowed right at the start in A Game of Thrones when Arya talks to Jon about why he isn't kicking Joffery's arse.

"Why aren't you down in the yard?" Arya asked him.

He gave her a half smile. "Bastards are not allowed to damage young princes," he said. "Any bruises they take in the practice yard must come from trueborn swords."

"Oh." Arya felt abashed.

Is it conclusive proof? No, but at the same time I think GRRM has made it pretty obvious. I think there are much, much stronger arguments that Rhaeger and Lyana married than not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Free Northman Reborn

Sorry, I've to quote myself here:

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The idea many people are tossing around that there might be some Great Council in the end choosing him seems very strange to me. The story is structured in such a way that there won't be need of such an anticlimactic moment at the very end. It is more likely that Jon would end up in a position of supreme leadership at Dany's side during the final battles and thus simply continuing her work should she die untimely. He is not likely going to be the hidden prince who is handed the kingdom by some people who finally realized who he is and feel now obliged to give him his due because he has proven his worth.

That's the childish dream Jon had when he was young. The one that had Ned recognize his worth and make him a true Stark. This story is not going to make such dreams come true. If Jon wants the kingdom he will have to take it. And the only way I could see him doing that is through Daenerys. Anything else is not going to work.

That is my opinion on that. The leadership question is not going to be found by giving stupid lords a vote who failed to even see the great danger. The prophesied heroes will take over Westeros, one way or another, and they (or some of them) will rule Westeros (and perhaps large portions of Essos, too) thereafter if there is something left to rule.

If you want the 'hidden prince story is made king by the people because he has proven his worth' story go and (re-)read Tad Williams' Memory, Sorrow, and Thorn. But even there the hidden prince marries the daughter of the last king and rules together with her. The latter being something that's going to happen almost certainly in this series, too, though. There is a reason why Dany is a woman and Jon a man.

2 hours ago, Rippounet said:

At best, polygamy would be a technical explanation to present as legitimate someone who is already a king (or a prince) in the eyes of everyone, like Robert's Targaryen grandmother conveniently put him "in line" for the throne. Of course, we the readers know that the reasons Robert took the throne are a bit more complex (Ned wasn't interested, Jon Arryn was old, Robert had killed Rhaegar... etc).

But the other way around? There's nothing in the books that can allow for such a scenario.

I think the polygamy thing could also be in the story to have Dany - who very much is sort of a female version of Aegon the Conqueror looking for some close (Targaryen) kin to marry - to recreate the founding trinity. Apparently, George had not yet included Visenya as Aegon's sister-wife in 'The Blood of the Dragon'. That only came with the final AGoT.

Could mean nothing, but just so happens that Dany originally was to hatch just one dragon, not three, so the whole three heads of the dragon, three Targaryens uniting to fight the common enemy beyond the Wall, was, most likely, a concept that gradually arose during the writing process of the first book.

Now, once George knew who Jon and Tyrion would be it makes sense that he would also foreshadow Dany marrying them both by having Aegon the Conqueror also marry his two sisters. The concept of Dany intending to marry the riders of her two other dragons (whom she already sees as both male and the other two dragon heads) also already has been introduced. This is neither an accident nor coincidence.

Still not sure what 'claim' either Jon or Ned had to the Iron Throne.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Still not sure what 'claim' either Jon or Ned had to the Iron Throne.

Neither am I but Robert seems to say he wasn't focused on the throne from the start:

 
Quote

 

Robert sat down again. "Damn you, Ned Stark. You and Jon Arryn, I loved you both. What have you done to me? You were the one should have been king, you or Jon."
"You had the better claim, Your Grace."
"I told you to drink, not to argue. You made me king, you could at least have the courtesy to listen when I talk, damn you. Look at me, Ned. Look at what kinging has done to me. Gods, too fat for my armor, how did it ever come to this?"

 

Of course I'm aware that this is Robert being Robert. Still, I think Robert at least pretended that he was convinced by his friends to take the throne. And seriously they'd just ended the ruling Targaryen dynasty, I'm sure they could have put someone without Targaryen blood on the IT if they'd really wanted to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Damsel in Distress said:
  • Mance Rayder + Lyanna Stark = wildling bastard Jon

 

Wait is this really a thing? One tinfoil theory I haven't seen yet....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Damsel in Distress said:

My verdict?  Jon is a bastard

That's mine own verdict as well.  He is a bastard any way you look at it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, BalerionTheCat said:

Believing in a prophecy  would explain why they were there. Why they were blindly sure of their duty, even before the child's birth. They insisted a lot on their vows. But obviously the Mad King was irrelevant for them, same for Rhaegar. We can't exclude they forgot completely their vows, and behaved as simple knights "protecting the innocent from harm". IMHO it would be lame. All this Tower thing for nothing.But it's just me.

They 100% betrayed the Mad King, no question about that. And you may name that betraying their vows. But possibly, they saw it differently. If they thought they were protecting Westeros and its future kings (make sense in light of the Others). I agree rational men should not listen to prophecies. But this is not our world, and we don't know what they knew.

But what if it is a daughter? What happens if Ned didn't find them and the Targaryens dead? How would they have proceeded? How would they prove they were indeed protecting the heir of the kingdoms? Why would they risk it?

Simple explanation they were ordered by a prince and they can't flee from their commitment. KG doesn't need a convincing reason to obey the royal prince. They must obey. 

I don't think polygamy is even needed for the story. If George wants to make Jon the end game King he could by a number of ways other than taking the polygamy route. Even if Jon was the real hidden king Martin made it useless by having another dynasty depose them and only other Targaryens would retake it. Maybe Jon would effortlessly become a king because luckily he had a claim all along and luckily the other Targaryens would have taken the throne for him.

Edited by khal drogon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, BalerionTheCat said:

Believing in a prophecy would explain why they were there. Why they were blindly sure of their duty, even before the child's birth. They insisted a lot on their vows. But obviously the Mad King was irrelevant for them, same for Rhaegar. We can't exclude they forgot completely their vows, and behaved as simple knights "protecting the innocent from harm". IMHO it would be lame. All this Tower thing for nothing.But it's just me.

They 100% betrayed the Mad King, no question about that. And you may name that betraying their vows. But possibly, they saw it differently. If they thought they were protecting Westeros and its future kings (make sense in light of the Others). I agree rational men should not listen to prophecies. But this is not our world, and we don't know what they knew.

I disagree.  Those men were 100% loyal to Aerys all the way to their bitter end.  Read Hightower's words carefully.  Aerys would yet sit the throne if they had had their way.  They were away because Aerys must have sent them to look for his idiot son's whereabouts else they would have stayed and protected Aerys with their very lives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now