Jon was born a bastard and remains a bastard.

[Sansa Snow]

7 hours ago, King Ned Stark said:

Good point, perhaps there was confusion and miscommunication.  

For the second point, I can't see why they would be there for any other reason than they believe it is the right thing to do.  Have you seen any good ideas as to why they would still be with Lyanna and Jon if they didn't think Jon was heir?

I'm too lazy so i'm just using an old text I wrote looong time ago, but this is what I think happened with the kingsguard. 

 

I don't think the kingsguard had any kind of plans regarding baby Jon. Rhaegar probably had, but the remaining kingsguard were just following orders guarding Lyanna and Rhaegar's unborn baby before Rhaegar returns and Jon is born. I definitely believe that Rhaegar had some kind of plan and knew what he was doing (at least in his own head), but of course things didn't go as supposed to and while Rhaegar was away the rebellion began and suddenly Rhaegar had to go to war. I think he had every intention of winning the battle and return to Lyanna, but Robert won the war and killed Rhaegar. When the news of Rhaegars death and the Targaryen's defeat reached the TOJ they had nothing to do anymore they had failed as the kingsguard. Their king was dead and Targaryen rule had ended. Now only thing left to do is to wait what happens next and die fighting. When their king is murdered  they don't just find some other king to serve or go look for someone else to put on the throne. They have sworn to protect their king to the death and the whole Targaryen dynasty collapsed while they were hiding far away. As members of the kingsguard that was probably not their proudest moment. And going into hiding after that is just too shameful.

I don't buy that theory at all where Arthur, Oswell and Gerold had some kind of plan to disappear with "king" Jon and raise him as the true king of Westeros and then after years and years have gone and Jon or whatever kings name he has now is old enough to return and claim his throne. Hard to believe, it doesn't really make sense. Because if that was their plan it wasn't very good. It didn't work. Did they seriously think that just the three of them could protect their baby king from anything that comes their way..? I know they are the kingsguard and top fighters but they can't be that cocky and stupid. I think if they wanted to restore the Targaryens and make Jon king, they would have done it better. It seems to me when Ned arrives with his men that Lyanna has already given birth to Jon and the three kingsguard have just been patiently waiting what comes next. Then after some time Ned and his men arrive and the way they are speaking I can only assume that they had already decided to fight to the death who ever finds them and have to confront them. I don't think their fighting had much to do with Lyanna and Jon, it was about them and their honor. Because When Ned confronts them Lyanna is still alive and if they thought their only option to protect their king is to kill his uncle, I'm sure Lyanna would have something to say about that. I think they would have at least tried to deal with it a little differently, but they are ready to fight Ned the moment he arrives.

[Rippounet]

35 minutes ago, Sansa Snow said:

Then after some time Ned and his men arrive and the way they are speaking I can only assume that they had already decided to fight to the death who ever finds them and have to confront them. I don't think their fighting had much to do with Lyanna and Jon, it was about them and their honor.

I've been thinking along similar lines. With the text we have (not just the fever dream, but Ned's inner thoughts as well) I believe it's one of the best conclusions we can reach at this point. Most of the other explanations quickly run into a lack of textual support and/or the necessity of various assumptions or speculations. I'm surprised this very simple perspective on the ToJ isn't mentioned more often.

If you think about it, the fever dream notwhithstanding, when the rebellion succeeded, the KG had two simple options: bend the knee to Robert or carry on fighting for the dying Targ dynasty. That some chose the latter option really doesn't mean they had any convoluted plans for the future. In fact, such scheming suited the likes of Darry or Connington much more than the KG. Which in a non-literal way is actually what the exchange in the fever dream appears to say.

[Lord Varys]

Let's just cut thing down again and discuss the legal points that are often brought up in such discussion.

There is George's long SSM on succession laws which essentially already laid out what TWoIaF then added a lot of details, namely that such customs and laws were deliberately (left) vague so that the kings and lords could twist them to suit their own goals and ends when a contested situation arose.

A law tradition that is ruled by precedent does never make clauses that have a solution for every possible scenario that comes up. Instead, you take a historical event, and declare that it is a precedent that is relevant in your specific situation.

In this polygamy question we have a lot of obstacles to overcome.

1. Who has any interest to risk his honor and standing in an attempt to establish Jon Snow, a former Lord Commander of the Night's Watch (and an oathbreaker if he ever lays a claim to anything but the Wall), as the trueborn son of Rhaegar Targaryen? Which powerful interest group would for what reason even consider such a move? And if you look at the series as it is right now what dramatic changes in the mindsets of many people have to happen over the course of the future books to make such a setting even remotely plausible?

The word 'plot convenience' (or rather 'contrivance') cannot even begin to answer that. The probability for that to happen would be about the same as Gendry becoming king.

2. How likely is it that citing the precedents set by some kings who died centuries ago should convince anyone? Truly, who cares about legal prattle like that? Emmon Frey also has a piece of paper signed and stamped by His Grace King Tommen that makes him Lord of Riverrun, yet somehow nobody is giving a fig about that. Why is that? Why is it that nobody believed Stannis' little story about Cersei? The answer is simple: People do only what they want, not necessarily what is right. Nobody likes Stannis, so nobody wants him as king.

Jon Snow clearly is not as unpopular as Stannis but his situation is a lot worse. Pretty much nobody south of the Neck even knows or cares that he even exists. How on earth should anybody ever support the claim of such a person? Want to believe that he is Rhaegar Targaryen's son? Jon played twice a crucial role in saving the Night's Watch and the Wall from the wildlings. But literally nobody cares about that (outside the North).

He could continue to do some heroics at the Wall but the people south of the Neck have their own problems, and are unlikely to even care (let alone believe) the weirdo stories about this Bastard of Winterfell chap that trickle down south. News don't spread exactly quickly in this world. Tywin died in ASoS and it took quite some time in AFfC and ADwD for this news to travel around. Beric and Catelyn were resurrected from the dead (multiple times) and only very few people care about those stories. If Jon returns from the dead people will simply not believe that he ever died. End of it. Just as Tywin and his guys never believed that Beric Dondarrion really died (or that the men claiming to be him simply were impostors)

The Northmen might make him Lord of Winterfell (or even choose him to be their king, although I don't think that's going to happen) but only if he was and remains a Stark. But Rhaegar Targaryen's son is not a Stark and sure as hell has no better claim to Winterfell than Rickon, Sansa, or Arya Stark. If Jon Snow accepted this Targaryen ancestry story of his he would lose more than he could gain.

3. We see in our discussion here how unbelievable and problematic the 'Jon Snow is the true king' view is. And in a realistic setting like the series George is writing, where the political interests and ambitions and biases of people actually figure into the equation, it is essentially impossible that a majority of the people actually fall for the hidden prince story and play along with it as if they were reenacting some bad fairy-tale.

Especially since that is actually Aegon's story. He is going to do all that what some people thing Jon should do. He will be the hidden son of Rhaegar, the prince risen from obscurity to take his grandfather's throne. He will win the love and the cheers and the support of all the Targaryen loyalists in the Realm. And he will even fight the evil foreign invader Daenerys, likely to lose that battle. Jon Snow does play no part in that story. The plot has him glued to the Wall or the North where he can continue to do his duty (whatever that will be after the resurrection), trying to defend the Realm against the Others. That should use up all the meager resources he has left.

I get it that many people felt Jon should have a different story, a story that has little and less to do with the Wall and whatever he has to do there. But that is not the story George is writing. Jon Snow is not the hidden prince, Aegon is. And even if he is fake and Jon is real then this is still not going to make a difference in Jon's story. He may be a real prince who has been fucked by the people in his life who simply lied to him to keep him safe. Yet in the end it might still be advantageous that it turned out this way because Jon is where he needs to be to fight the important fight.

But this is not the kind of series where you are rewarded for this kind of thing. Especially not if you become Mr. Undead throughout the story. I say it again, Jesus and Gandalf did not return from the dead to stay. And neither will Jon. Even Victarion of the Smoking Arm is not long for this world - especially not in a prominent position. And we likely all agree that Ser Robert Strong, Qyburn, or Euron are not going to be a part of the 'sweet part' of the bittersweet ending.

[Ralphis Baratheon]

I'm not sure if I'm ready to put Jon in the same category as a Gandalf.

[Lord Varys]

14 minutes ago, Ralphis Baratheon said:

I'm not sure if I'm ready to put Jon in the same category as a Gandalf.

It is about resurrection. George has made it clear repeatedly that he did not like how Gandalf came back. If Jon comes back - which is very likely - he will be changed. He will have to pay a price for cheating death.

I expect his spirit will be trapped in Ghost's body for too long, having severe effects on his mental faculties and his character, making him much more feral and wolfish (feeding on raw meat, no longer sleeping in a bed, enjoying to kill, pick one or all of those) than he was before, ending his stint as this hero character he was up to this point. He might still fight the good fight (i.e. against the Others) but he might become much more like Ramsay on that road than he is now.

You don't shrug off being killed. Not in this world. Nor are you coming back wiser or more powerful. If anything, you come back reduced, broken, and twisted. Perhaps Jon will eventually put himself back together, recovering the person he was before his death, but if that's the case it is going to take time.

And while I can see Jon still fighting the good fight in a sense I really don't see some zombie hero ever becoming a king.

Pretty much everybody is seeing this, too. Which is why many people who really want Jon to be the great and ultimate hero who gets the crown in the end are so dead-set against the idea that he was actually killed. Because they, too, feel that the idea of some zombie king would be a little bit too much.

Magic is supposed to make Jon hale and whole again, best before his body is going to die, no strings attached. But that's not going happen in this world. That would be like it is with Gandalf and Jesus.

[The Fattest Leech]

41 minutes ago, Ralphis Baratheon said:

I'm not sure if I'm ready to put Jon in the same category as a Gandalf.

Don't worry, Jon is not Ned-dead and he ain't another LSH either

[Makk]

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

It is about resurrection. George has made it clear repeatedly that he did not like how Gandalf came back. If Jon comes back - which is very likely - he will be changed. He will have to pay a price for cheating death.

Which quote are you referring to? I have two here.

I always felt like Gandalf should have stayed dead. That was such an incredible sequence in Fellowship of the Ring when he faces the Balrog on the Khazad-dûm and he falls into the gulf, and his last words are, ‘Fly, you fools’. What power that had, how that grabbed me. And then he comes back as Gandalf the White, and if anything he's sort of improved. I never liked Gandalf the White as much as Gandalf the Grey, and I never liked him coming back. I think it would have been an even stronger story if Tolkien had left him dead. - GRRM

Tolkien made the wrong choice when he brought Gandalf back. Screw Gandalf. He had a great death and the characters should have had to go on without him. - GRRM

While he has made it clear that he would have preferred Gandalf to stay dead, he has only gone into a little detail about why he thinks that and it is mainly about Gandalf having a heroic death that loses it's meaning if there is no sacrifice. Jon had no such death. He was stabbed in the back by his own men just his story arc appeared to open up in front of him. I wouldn't read too much into what he was saying there, the situation is not equivalent. Although he may well be setting up a situation in which he says "Tolkien, this is how you should write a resurrection." He will likely try and have more meaning to it which may involve a price he or someone else pays, but I wouldn't assume too much at this stage.

[teej6]

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Let's just cut thing down again and discuss the legal points that are often brought up in such discussion.

There is George's long SSM on succession laws which essentially already laid out what TWoIaF then added a lot of details, namely that such customs and laws were deliberately (left) vague so that the kings and lords could twist them to suit their own goals and ends when a contested situation arose.

A law tradition that is ruled by precedent does never make clauses that have a solution for every possible scenario that comes up. Instead, you take a historical event, and declare that it is a precedent that is relevant in your specific situation.

In this polygamy question we have a lot of obstacles to overcome.

1. Who has any interest to risk his honor and standing in an attempt to establish Jon Snow, a former Lord Commander of the Night's Watch (and an oathbreaker if he ever lays a claim to anything but the Wall), as the trueborn son of Rhaegar Targaryen? Which powerful interest group would for what reason even consider such a move? And if you look at the series as it is right now what dramatic changes in the mindsets of many people have to happen over the course of the future books to make such a setting even remotely plausible?

The word 'plot convenience' (or rather 'contrivance') cannot even begin to answer that. The probability for that to happen would be about the same as Gendry becoming king.

2. How likely is it that citing the precedents set by some kings who died centuries ago should convince anyone? Truly, who cares about legal prattle like that? Emmon Frey also has a piece of paper signed and stamped by His Grace King Tommen that makes him Lord of Riverrun, yet somehow nobody is giving a fig about that. Why is that? Why is it that nobody believed Stannis' little story about Cersei? The answer is simple: People do only what they want, not necessarily what is right. Nobody likes Stannis, so nobody wants him as king.

Jon Snow clearly is not as unpopular as Stannis but his situation is a lot worse. Pretty much nobody south of the Neck even knows or cares that he even exists. How on earth should anybody ever support the claim of such a person? Want to believe that he is Rhaegar Targaryen's son? Jon played twice a crucial role in saving the Night's Watch and the Wall from the wildlings. But literally nobody cares about that (outside the North).

He could continue to do some heroics at the Wall but the people south of the Neck have their own problems, and are unlikely to even care (let alone believe) the weirdo stories about this Bastard of Winterfell chap that trickle down south. News don't spread exactly quickly in this world. Tywin died in ASoS and it took quite some time in AFfC and ADwD for this news to travel around. Beric and Catelyn were resurrected from the dead (multiple times) and only very few people care about those stories. If Jon returns from the dead people will simply not believe that he ever died. End of it. Just as Tywin and his guys never believed that Beric Dondarrion really died (or that the men claiming to be him simply were impostors)

The Northmen might make him Lord of Winterfell (or even choose him to be their king, although I don't think that's going to happen) but only if he was and remains a Stark. But Rhaegar Targaryen's son is not a Stark and sure as hell has no better claim to Winterfell than Rickon, Sansa, or Arya Stark. If Jon Snow accepted this Targaryen ancestry story of his he would lose more than he could gain.

3. We see in our discussion here how unbelievable and problematic the 'Jon Snow is the true king' view is. And in a realistic setting like the series George is writing, where the political interests and ambitions and biases of people actually figure into the equation, it is essentially impossible that a majority of the people actually fall for the hidden prince story and play along with it as if they were reenacting some bad fairy-tale.

Especially since that is actually Aegon's story. He is going to do all that what some people thing Jon should do. He will be the hidden son of Rhaegar, the prince risen from obscurity to take his grandfather's throne. He will win the love and the cheers and the support of all the Targaryen loyalists in the Realm. And he will even fight the evil foreign invader Daenerys, likely to lose that battle. Jon Snow does play no part in that story. The plot has him glued to the Wall or the North where he can continue to do his duty (whatever that will be after the resurrection), trying to defend the Realm against the Others. That should use up all the meager resources he has left.

I get it that many people felt Jon should have a different story, a story that has little and less to do with the Wall and whatever he has to do there. But that is not the story George is writing. Jon Snow is not the hidden prince, Aegon is. And even if he is fake and Jon is real then this is still not going to make a difference in Jon's story. He may be a real prince who has been fucked by the people in his life who simply lied to him to keep him safe. Yet in the end it might still be advantageous that it turned out this way because Jon is where he needs to be to fight the important fight.

But this is not the kind of series where you are rewarded for this kind of thing. Especially not if you become Mr. Undead throughout the story. I say it again, Jesus and Gandalf did not return from the dead to stay. And neither will Jon. Even Victarion of the Smoking Arm is not long for this world - especially not in a prominent position. And we likely all agree that Ser Robert Strong, Qyburn, or Euron are not going to be a part of the 'sweet part' of the bittersweet ending.

One has to be blind not to see that Jon's arc in the books is following the hidden prince trope, especially in AGOT. And Aegon is not the hidden prince but a red herring. And even Aegon was real, the hidden prince usually is not revealed in the manner Aegon was. Now one can make the argument that GRRM means to upend the standard hidden prince trope and Jon's arc won't end like King Arthur's but to state that his arc does not follow the trope is just wishful thinking on your part.  

As for your comment about Jon coming back as undead Jon, that again is wishful thinking on your part. GRRM's comment on Jon's death was "Oh, you think he's dead, do you?" He used the word "dead" instead of say "not coming back" or "the end of Jon's story". So, Jon is not going to be dead as per your definition of the term and he definitely is not going to come back as a mindless undead person. 

In regards to who will know or have heard of Jon besides people in the North, people are already beginning to talk and hear of the young Lord Commander in the books. Arya hears talk of him in Braavos. Sansa hears of him being LC of the NW in the Vale, and Cersei is sending assasins after him. And after his stabbing and transformation a lot more people will hear of him. Besides if half the population of Westeros is wiped out and Jon's commading the forces of the living (which contrary to your opinion will most likely be the case), all of Westeros will rally behind him.

Unlike you, I do not see Jon having to prove his parentage and his legitimacy as an unsurmountable obstacle to him becoming king. If GRRM means to do it, it will not seem like an arse pull. Your argument about GRRM writing a realistic story and so people won't accept him as king also doesn't sell considering that in a couple of chapters Sam (a self-proclaimed coward) with a little help from a raven in a kettle was able to make Jon LC of the NW. GRRM is writing a fantasy story with realistic and more in-depth characters but in the end it is still a story with magic and dragons and zombies that has many of the tropes and elements we see in fantasy fiction. Also, perhaps there's a reason GRRM puts in ample references to the Great Councils in picking a king. In so doing, he leaves the door open for that possibilty as well. 

I know how much you hate the possibility of Jon saving Westeros or ending up on the throne as that would steal the thunder away from a certain silver-haired queen  Jon may not end up on the throne in the end but I'm pretty certain his arc is following the hidden prince (legitimate) trope. The bittersweet ending of his story could be that he'll save Westeros and die in the process and no one will ever know that he was the true Targ heir or he'll take the throne inspite of not wanting it and be miserable doing so. 

 

[teej6]

7 hours ago, Sansa Snow said:

I'm too lazy so i'm just using an old text I wrote looong time ago, but this is what I think happened with the kingsguard. 

 

I don't think the kingsguard had any kind of plans regarding baby Jon. Rhaegar probably had, but the remaining kingsguard were just following orders guarding Lyanna and Rhaegar's unborn baby before Rhaegar returns and Jon is born. I definitely believe that Rhaegar had some kind of plan and knew what he was doing (at least in his own head), but of course things didn't go as supposed to and while Rhaegar was away the rebellion began and suddenly Rhaegar had to go to war. I think he had every intention of winning the battle and return to Lyanna, but Robert won the war and killed Rhaegar. When the news of Rhaegars death and the Targaryen's defeat reached the TOJ they had nothing to do anymore they had failed as the kingsguard. Their king was dead and Targaryen rule had ended. Now only thing left to do is to wait what happens next and die fighting. When their king is murdered  they don't just find some other king to serve or go look for someone else to put on the throne. They have sworn to protect their king to the death and the whole Targaryen dynasty collapsed while they were hiding far away. As members of the kingsguard that was probably not their proudest moment. And going into hiding after that is just too shameful.

I don't buy that theory at all where Arthur, Oswell and Gerold had some kind of plan to disappear with "king" Jon and raise him as the true king of Westeros and then after years and years have gone and Jon or whatever kings name he has now is old enough to return and claim his throne. Hard to believe, it doesn't really make sense. Because if that was their plan it wasn't very good. It didn't work. Did they seriously think that just the three of them could protect their baby king from anything that comes their way..? I know they are the kingsguard and top fighters but they can't be that cocky and stupid. I think if they wanted to restore the Targaryens and make Jon king, they would have done it better. It seems to me when Ned arrives with his men that Lyanna has already given birth to Jon and the three kingsguard have just been patiently waiting what comes next. Then after some time Ned and his men arrive and the way they are speaking I can only assume that they had already decided to fight to the death who ever finds them and have to confront them. I don't think their fighting had much to do with Lyanna and Jon, it was about them and their honor. Because When Ned confronts them Lyanna is still alive and if they thought their only option to protect their king is to kill his uncle, I'm sure Lyanna would have something to say about that. I think they would have at least tried to deal with it a little differently, but they are ready to fight Ned the moment he arrives.

The Targ queen and Viserys was on Dragonstone and the remanants of the Targ dynasty (the Targ fleet) was still on DS. If Jon was a bastard, Viserys was king and if not for Arthur or Oswell at least Gerold Hightower would/should have made an attempt to reach DS and Viserys, but he didn't. Don't you think there's something amiss there? 

[The Weirwoods Eyes]

12 hours ago, The Twinslayer said:

Yes, good analysis.  

The Act of Settlement dealt with marriage, too.  If you were a protestant and you married a catholic, you lost your claim to the throne.  That is why, when Peter Phillips (Queen Elizabeth's oldest grandson) proposed to Autumn Kelly, she converted away from the catholic church before the wedding.  Otherwise, Peter and all of his descendants would have been excluded from the succession.  

But that did not stop Queen Elizabeth from taking the throne, even though she is descended from Henry VII and Henry's catholic wife, Elizabeth of York.  So the point is that it is easy to pass a law that addresses succession to the throne that will prohibit in the future something that was permitted in the past.  The fact that Queen Elizabeth's ancestors married catholics but her descendants could not in no way calls into question her right to sit the throne.  Just like the fact that Aegon I was allowed to take two wives but Jaehaerys I and everyone after him was not in no way calls into question the right of Jaehaerys or any of his descendants to sit the Iron Throne.     

There is precedent in the USA for slavery but that does not make it legal there. 

 

You don't need to explain the settlement act to me. 

Still not the same cos Westeros does not have an issue with its two religions. And there has been no declaration regarding polygamy. No one has claimed second wives are illegitimate. 

It is not equivilent. 

[The Weirwoods Eyes]

11 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Another attempt. Read the Bible chapters on Jacob's, David's, and Solomon's many wives. Now think about our own marriage concepts which (usually) are strictly monogamous.

A history book written in our day and age would also the wives of those legendary figures also 'wives'. Because that's what they were seen as and presented at the time.

But this does not mean that everybody saw them this way.

The High Septon is on record denouncing Alys Harroway as 'this whore of Harroway'. From the point of view of the Faith Maegor was never married to that woman, and we also know that Maegor's many marriages continued to provide the people with reasons to rebel against him. And he was eventually overthrown. We have to wait and see how popular his other wives were, and who addressed them as such. But we should have a much clearer picture on that in October.

@The Twinslayer has cited the marriage vow of the Faith of the Andals as it is given in those books. They make it crystal clear that a marriage is between one man and one woman and demands faithfulness between the spouses. There are no clauses that allow you to replace your wife if she displeases you or add another to make your sex life more interesting.

Aegon married on Dragonstone, probably the Valyrian way. Maegor's second wedding was done this way, too, and we have no clue how he married Tyanna and the black brides but my gut feeling is that forcing a septon to say some words (and forcing three women who may hate you to marry you) is not exactly considered to be a proper and valid marriage.

I'm sorry, but then your definition of a marriage is completely at odds with the common definitions of that term. It is a social construct that is defined as a public event. That is why there usually are always many witnesses present at a wedding and the whole thing is ideally a huge feast. If you check historical marriage customs you will find that this is usually the case.

The Targaryens aren't Andals. At least not Aegon and his sons and grandchildren. The later generations were more andalized but they still continued the incest thing and were proud of their Valyrian ancestry and traditions.

We know that the Andals (aside from mythical characters like Hugor of the Hill back in Andalos before the Faith was established) were strictly monogamous because there are no examples for Andal kings in Westeros who took more than one wife. Ancient First Men kings did (we have Garland II Gardener and the bastard Durrandon king Ronard Storm as examples). I'd not be surprised if there were also some Stark and Lannister kings with more than one wife, especially in the earlier days.

If the Andals had had no issue with polygamy then Westeros would never have become a strictly monogamous society.

But we learn that marriages that are enforced against a person's will are considered to be invalid.

We have no reason not to believe that Aegon took both his sisters to wife in the same ceremony. Even if he had married Visenya first, it is quite clear that Rhaenys was his favorite wife and sister. In a harem the man usually decides who the highest ranking wife is, not some hierarchy among the women. The man grants or withholds favors. The women just take what they can get. And Rhaenys got pretty much everything while Visenya was getting nothing.

Perhaps Elia and Lyanna would also have been best friends and would have gladly had a threesome with Rhaegar? That is all possible but not very likely. It is much more likely that Lyanna would have been jealous of Elia's children once she had her own and that Elia would have hated both Lyanna (for stealing Rhaegar away from her) as well as Rhaegar himself (for humiliating her publicly by essentially discarding her as a wife).

We are talking about a medieval aristocratic world here where public perception is everything. Rhaegar essentially destroyed Elia's public image and standing as well as the honor of House Martell by taking another wife. Even running away with Lyanna would have been a huge stain on Elia's honor.

You are aware that all smiles died when he gave that crown to Lyanna instead of Elia, right?

Oh, come on now, that is really grasping at straws. Westeros is not a very tolerant culture.

I already said it, insofar as the marriages rites and customs were loosely equivalent to those in Westeros such unions would be accepted. The Targaryen loyalists most likely would accept a son of Daenerys by Khal Drogo, especially if they came with 100,000 Dothraki. But they could get problems if Drogo was one of those khals who had multiple wives (some do) or if Drogo shared Dany with his bloodriders. That would not be the proper way to treat a queen.

As long as Larra and Viserys entered into a monogamous marriage things should have been fine there, too. They could even have been married by some septon, we don't know. Nobody had any reason to question the validity of their marriage. In the Dany-Hizdahr case many people in Westeros might simply do because they would not want to be ruled by a foreign Ghiscari slaver. But Larra Rogare was apparently one of the most beautiful women of her generation.

 

 

I'm going to make it really simple, Bring me text proof that Rhaenys & Maegor's wives were officially seen as not real wives. Until then basically, everything you are saying is just your opinion. Just because you talk about your opinions as though they are facts that doesn't make it so. 

like I keep saying the HS at the time it happened's opinion whatever it may have been is irrelevant. The likelihood of who and who not may accept it at that time is irrelevant.  

All that will matter is that there are witnesses, and I believe there will be several. And that enough people at the point it is revealed decide they are, under the circumstances the realm currently faces willing to accept it. 

 

 

ETA: anyway forget all that, cos we've had that argument before and no way will you ever change my mind without the textual proof I've asked for. But seriously tell me more about this Maidenpool idea of yours. Because that I AM interested in.  

 

[Rippounet]

4 hours ago, teej6 said:

One has to be blind not to see that Jon's arc in the books is following the hidden prince trope, especially in AGOT. And Aegon is not the hidden prince but a red herring. And even Aegon was real, the hidden prince usually is not revealed in the manner Aegon was. Now one can make the argument that GRRM means to upend the standard hidden prince trope and Jon's arc won't end like King Arthur's but to state that his arc does not follow the trope is just wishful thinking on your part. 

One could easily reverse this entire line of argumentation and say that despite the presence of some elements of the "hidden prince trope" it is wishful thinking to believe that Martin will adhere to the "classic" outcome of said trope.
As I like to say, "this isn't Return of the King." In fact, I expect something much closer to the outcome of Robb's Farseer trilogy. But the heart of the matter is that no one knows what Martin intends to do, and that people should probably avoid accusing others of "ignorance" or "blindness." I believe nearly everyone here knows what the hidden prince trope is. What we disagree on is the way Martin is going to use it.

4 hours ago, teej6 said:

Unlike you, I do not see Jon having to prove his parentage and his legitimacy as an unsurmountable obstacle to him becoming king.

I agree with you on this one, which is exactly why I don't understand some people's insistance on Jon's possible legitimacy. I'm not certain Lord Varys disagrees either btw. People arguing against Jon being legitimate from his birth don't necessarily deny the possibility of him becoming a prince or a king. Quite the contrary, I would say it's about arguing what will allow him to become a prince...

4 hours ago, teej6 said:

I know how much you hate the possibility of Jon saving Westeros or ending up on the throne as that would steal the thunder away from a certain silver-haired queen

That's a rather petty argument. There's a troubling tendency of this forum to talk of "Jon fans" or "Dany fans" which I personally find highly ridiculous. My GF believes it's due to a tendency to project's one's sexual fantasies on fictional characters.

4 hours ago, teej6 said:

Jon may not end up on the throne in the end but I'm pretty certain his arc is following the hidden prince (legitimate) trope. The bittersweet ending of his story could be that he'll save Westeros and die in the process and no one will ever know that he was the true Targ heir or he'll take the throne inspite of not wanting it and be miserable doing so.

Again, ironically, I at least partially agree with this. I also think Jon's story is going to be bittersweet all the way. So will Dany's imho.

 

[Lord Varys]

7 hours ago, Makk said:

While he has made it clear that he would have preferred Gandalf to stay dead, he has only gone into a little detail about why he thinks that and it is mainly about Gandalf having a heroic death that loses it's meaning if there is no sacrifice. Jon had no such death. He was stabbed in the back by his own men just his story arc appeared to open up in front of him. I wouldn't read too much into what he was saying there, the situation is not equivalent. Although he may well be setting up a situation in which he says "Tolkien, this is how you should write a resurrection." He will likely try and have more meaning to it which may involve a price he or someone else pays, but I wouldn't assume too much at this stage.

There are also videos of interviews where he discusses this question.

For the record, I never wanted Jon to die. I find this a stupid plot development because I don't really like resurrections all that much. I like Catelyn returning since that made her vastly different (and also because I like revenge stories and horror stuff in general) but I don't like the idea that Jon is effectively dead only to come back hale and whole again.

What would then be the point of his death? Why assassinate him at all if does not stay dead?

We are in agreement that he will come back - he is a major character, and the whole second life of a skinchanger concept was introduced so that he could survive his own death - but there would be no plot reason for this if he just came back as the guy he was. He has to change. And since this is not some fairy-tale and George has recently made it clear that TWoW is going to be a very dark book, the darkest yet to come, I see no room for Jon Snow coming back 'harder and stronger'. After all, he is no follower of the Drowned God...

4 hours ago, teej6 said:

One has to be blind not to see that Jon's arc in the books is following the hidden prince trope, especially in AGOT.

Well, the story grew in the telling. Jaime also looked quite kingly in AGoT but he will never become king. Usually this hidden prince trope thing never has the hidden prince join some warrior-monk order or have him set up to face some sort of very powerful supernatural threat that might very well be too much for him to handle alone. If there is a Frodo-like character in this series it is Jon. He is the humble guy who takes on nearly impossible task. But Frodo was destroyed by his burden. He didn't die (because Tolkien was way too sentimental) but his life and happiness were destroyed. George is a little bit more radical than Tolkien in this regard.

4 hours ago, teej6 said:

And Aegon is not the hidden prince but a red herring. And even Aegon was real, the hidden prince usually is not revealed in the manner Aegon was. Now one can make the argument that GRRM means to upend the standard hidden prince trope and Jon's arc won't end like King Arthur's but to state that his arc does not follow the trope is just wishful thinking on your part.

Well, my argument would be that Aegon definitely is (already) stealing whatever thunder Jon might have had he not joined the Night's Watch and right now revealed (with good evidence) who he was. People are only going to believe once that Rhaegar Targaryen's son was hidden somewhere, irregardless whether Aegon is real or fake (and even if he is fake it won't matter - not for the people who want to believe he is the real deal). Just as there is no way to prove that Jon is Rhaegar's son there is also no way to prove that Aegon is not Rhaegar's son. Especially not if he actually has Blackfyre blood and ends up mounting a dragon.

Jon could also mount a dragon, sure, but Ulf, Hugh, and Nettles didn't suddenly become hidden Targaryen princes just because they became dragonriders, or did they? Ned Stark could have fathered Jon on some great-granddaughter of Aegon the Unworthy.

A lot of unforeseen things happen in those books. Who would have foreseen that Joffrey would be killed by the Tyrells and Littlefinger when reading AGoT and ACoK? Who thought it would be the Freys and Boltons who would kill Robb? Who thought Robert would be killed by a boar and Viserys be crowned with molten gold?

We all have reason to believe that there is a core group of character which will live until the final battle (not just the ones George mentioned in the original outline but also, I think, people like Sansa, Brienne, and Davos - and possibly even Asha, Arianne, and Jaime) but there are no good arguments allowing us to make an educated guess who might sit on the throne in the end or even survive the series.

We can say some of the characters will survive but there surely will be major losses amongst the heroes, especially those who will shoulder the burden of the physical fight against the legions of the Others. I mean, Dany is likely to fly Drogon into battle, but Jon Snow is set up as an actual fighter. He will not just see his dragon (if he gets one) rain fire on the enemy but also lead his men into battle, personally. That gives him a much larger chance to actually die in such a battle.

And George is repeatedly telling us that his characters die because they make mistakes. That's also the reason Jon was killed, by the way.

4 hours ago, teej6 said:

As for your comment about Jon coming back as undead Jon, that again is wishful thinking on your part. GRRM's comment on Jon's death was "Oh, you think he's dead, do you?" He used the word "dead" instead of say "not coming back" or "the end of Jon's story". So, Jon is not going to be dead as per your definition of the term and he definitely is not going to come back as a mindless undead person. 

I never said anything about mindless. I used the term 'undead' or 'zombie' colloquially to point out that Jon would be a creature who was revived (and possibly kept alive) by some form of magic. That is neither natural nor a state a person is likely to enjoy.

Jon's body will most definitely be revealed to be dead meat in the next book. But he himself is only dead if you would also say that Varamyr is now dead. And he isn't. Not completely. He has begun his second life. That's what Jon is going to do, too. And if you live a second life then you aren't dead, right?

4 hours ago, teej6 said:

In regards to who will know or have heard of Jon besides people in the North, people are already beginning to talk and hear of the young Lord Commander in the books. Arya hears talk of him in Braavos. Sansa hears of him being LC of the NW in the Vale, and Cersei is sending assasins after him. And after his stabbing and transformation a lot more people will hear of him. Besides if half the population of Westeros is wiped out and Jon's commading the forces of the living (which contrary to your opinion will most likely be the case), all of Westeros will rally behind him.

Can you lay out how Jon commanding the forces of the living and the wiping out part is going to happen? Jon is stuck at the Wall. Nobody is going to buy any crazy stories about the Others or him being resurrected until it is too late. The North doesn't have the men to convince anyone of the threat of the Others nor is winter making it very likely that anybody would send any men up north.

Only the Wall stands between the Others and Jon, and when it falls he will either die for good or retreat. Telling the guys down south then 'I tried to tell you...' is not going to make him their leader.

I know that some people have heard about Jon Snow. He is the Lord Commander of the Night's Watch. But people know a lot of names in this world. Oh, and by the way - Cersei planned to send assassins after him. That never happened. He wasn't exactly at the top of her list of priorities. Osney Kettleblack was supposed to take a contingent of men to the Wall after Margaery was dealt with. But as you know he is still stuck in the Great Sept of Baelor.

4 hours ago, teej6 said:

Unlike you, I do not see Jon having to prove his parentage and his legitimacy as an unsurmountable obstacle to him becoming king.

I never said Jon has no chance to become king. He has. But not by his own merit or by virtue of his 'legitimate birth'. 

4 hours ago, teej6 said:

If GRRM means to do it, it will not seem like an arse pull. Your argument about GRRM writing a realistic story and so people won't accept him as king also doesn't sell considering that in a couple of chapters Sam (a self-proclaimed coward) with a little help from a raven in a kettle was able to make Jon LC of the NW.

Jon Snow was a Stark bastard, the son of the Lord of Winterfell and brother to a self-styled King in the North. He was the chosen successor of Lord Commander Mormont, the youth he was grooming to one day succeed him. He was still somewhat young but it is no surprise that he became Lord Commander.

Becoming king is a completely different thing, though. The men at the Watch either knew Jon, personally, or had heard of him (and what he had pulled off during the recent battles). And they knew what Mormont wanted for him. There is a longstanding tradition of Stark relatives holding high offices in the Watch.

4 hours ago, teej6 said:

GRRM is writing a fantasy story with realistic and more in-depth characters but in the end it is still a story with magic and dragons and zombies that has many of the tropes and elements we see in fantasy fiction. Also, perhaps there's a reason GRRM puts in ample references to the Great Councils in picking a king. In so doing, he leaves the door open for that possibilty as well.

Sorry, that's not an argument. A story with magic and dragons does not have to follow a trivial and clichéd pattern.

Perhaps Jon is also elected Pope by acclamation? Come on. There should be quite a few characters living to the very end of this series who could be better kings than Jon. A Great Council is called when the succession is unclear but we can be pretty clear that if the wars kill all the Targaryen descendants than whoever will be the most powerful guy left standing will take the throne by the right of 'I say so'. There is no reason to discuss this with anyone as if they were all best friends. They aren't, especially not after all those civil wars.

4 hours ago, teej6 said:

I know how much you hate the possibility of Jon saving Westeros or ending up on the throne as that would steal the thunder away from a certain silver-haired queen  Jon may not end up on the throne in the end but I'm pretty certain his arc is following the hidden prince (legitimate) trope. The bittersweet ending of his story could be that he'll save Westeros and die in the process and no one will ever know that he was the true Targ heir or he'll take the throne inspite of not wanting it and be miserable doing so. 

I don't think anybody can steal Dany's thunder. She is riding the largest dragon in the world.

And I'm pretty sure these two will hook up, anyway, so there is no potential for conflict there. That is how I see Jon could become king, after all (assuming I'm totally wrong about that resurrection transformation thing). He will enter Dany's circle, they will fight the Others together, and then they might even rule together. Somebody has to rebuild that world.

However, if somebody has to die then Jon is the best candidate for that - because he already died once in ADwD, and may lose even more of his humanity along the way. Defeating the Others is not going to be easy. But perhaps his undead semen is going to quicken in Dany's womb. Who knows.

49 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

I agree with you on this one, which is exactly why I don't understand some people's insistance on Jon's possible legitimacy. I'm not certain Lord Varys disagrees either btw. People arguing against Jon being legitimate from his birth don't necessarily deny the possibility of him becoming a prince or a king. Quite the contrary, I would say it's about arguing what will allow him to become a prince...

Yeah, there is no great dissent there. I think the political plot of this story culminates in a Targaryen restoration of one sort or another. If Aegon is going to be taken from the board (in this or that fashion) then the center of that thing will be Daenerys, with Tyrion (as her half-brother) and Jon gather around her. They will be the three heads of the dragon leading the good guys against the Others (or 'the virtuous into battle', as Yandel said Hyrkoon the Hero did).

Jon and Dany will hook and if Dany dies (which certainly is a possibility) then Jon could very well become king after her. In fact, they might all three become kings the same way Aegon and his sister-wives were a trinity of co-rulers.

If both die then Tyrion could take over in their stead. But I honestly think the chances for Tyrion to die are much larger since the man has to pay for the murder of Shae and the way he treated Tysha. There are a lot of unresolved issues in his story.

But still, the idea that we are getting a King Jon of the Smoking Wounds is still very odd to me. By the way, do those people resurrected by fire magic even die of natural causes? If not then Jon the Zombie could rule Westeros forever, not exactly a very promising idea...

49 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

That's a rather petty argument. There's a troubling tendency of this forum to talk of "Jon fans" or "Dany fans" which I personally find highly ridiculous. My GF believes it's due to a tendency to project's one's sexual fantasies on fictional characters.

Never thought about that this way. Could very well be the case. I think it was always pretty evident that Dany and Jon will eventually hook up and be (sort of) happy, at least for a time. But if you consciously or unconsciously think a certain character is unworthy of your favorite then the reactions can be pretty mean.

A lot of ideas are tossed around how Jon could become king without Dany's help or without ever being drawn into her circle. I don't think this makes any sense in light of the prophecies nor in light of threat the Others pose.

The overwhelming theme of this story is that the people who should see the common enemy that is plotting to destroy them all are not seeing it. Unless a group of people are going to unite them in time they will all die. That's the overall plot.

[Ralphis Baratheon]

I'm not sure if I'm ready to put Jon into the Frodo category either. As you said he's been set up as a fighter who would likely lead men into battle on the field. If someone had to be compared to Frodo wouldn't it be Bran?
 

[teej6]

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, the story grew in the telling. Jaime also looked quite kingly in AGoT but he will never become king. Usually this hidden prince trope thing never has the hidden prince join some warrior-monk order or have him set up to face some sort of very powerful supernatural threat that might very well be too much for him to handle alone. If there is a Frodo-like character in this series it is Jon. He is the humble guy who takes on nearly impossible task. But Frodo was destroyed by his burden. He didn't die (because Tolkien was way too sentimental) but his life and happiness were destroyed. George is a little bit more radical than Tolkien in this regard.

Well, my argument would be that Aegon definitely is (already) stealing whatever thunder Jon might have had he not joined the Night's Watch and right now revealed (with good evidence) who he was. People are only going to believe once that Rhaegar Targaryen's son was hidden somewhere, irregardless whether Aegon is real or fake (and even if he is fake it won't matter - not for the people who want to believe he is the real deal). Just as there is no way to prove that Jon is Rhaegar's son there is also no way to prove that Aegon is not Rhaegar's son. Especially not if he actually has Blackfyre blood and ends up mounting a dragon.

Jon could also mount a dragon, sure, but Ulf, Hugh, and Nettles didn't suddenly become hidden Targaryen princes just because they became dragonriders, or did they? Ned Stark could have fathered Jon on some great-granddaughter of Aegon the Unworthy.

A lot of unforeseen things happen in those books. Who would have foreseen that Joffrey would be killed by the Tyrells and Littlefinger when reading AGoT and ACoK? Who thought it would be the Freys and Boltons who would kill Robb? Who thought Robert would be killed by a boar and Viserys be crowned with molten gold?

We all have reason to believe that there is a core group of character which will live until the final battle (not just the ones George mentioned in the original outline but also, I think, people like Sansa, Brienne, and Davos - and possibly even Asha, Arianne, and Jaime) but there are no good arguments allowing us to make an educated guess who might sit on the throne in the end or even survive the series.

We can say some of the characters will survive but there surely will be major losses amongst the heroes, especially those who will shoulder the burden of the physical fight against the legions of the Others. I mean, Dany is likely to fly Drogon into battle, but Jon Snow is set up as an actual fighter. He will not just see his dragon (if he gets one) rain fire on the enemy but also lead his men into battle, personally. That gives him a much larger chance to actually die in such a battle.

And George is repeatedly telling us that his characters die because they make mistakes. That's also the reason Jon was killed, by the way.

I never said anything about mindless. I used the term 'undead' or 'zombie' colloquially to point out that Jon would be a creature who was revived (and possibly kept alive) by some form of magic. That is neither natural nor a state a person is likely to enjoy.

Jon's body will most definitely be revealed to be dead meat in the next book. But he himself is only dead if you would also say that Varamyr is now dead. And he isn't. Not completely. He has begun his second life. That's what Jon is going to do, too. And if you live a second life then you aren't dead, right?

Can you lay out how Jon commanding the forces of the living and the wiping out part is going to happen? Jon is stuck at the Wall. Nobody is going to buy any crazy stories about the Others or him being resurrected until it is too late. The North doesn't have the men to convince anyone of the threat of the Others nor is winter making it very likely that anybody would send any men up north.

Only the Wall stands between the Others and Jon, and when it falls he will either die for good or retreat. Telling the guys down south then 'I tried to tell you...' is not going to make him their leader.

I know that some people have heard about Jon Snow. He is the Lord Commander of the Night's Watch. But people know a lot of names in this world. Oh, and by the way - Cersei planned to send assassins after him. That never happened. He wasn't exactly at the top of her list of priorities. Osney Kettleblack was supposed to take a contingent of men to the Wall after Margaery was dealt with. But as you know he is still stuck in the Great Sept of Baelor.

I never said Jon has no chance to become king. He has. But not by his own merit or by virtue of his 'legitimate birth'. 

Jon Snow was a Stark bastard, the son of the Lord of Winterfell and brother to a self-styled King in the North. He was the chosen successor of Lord Commander Mormont, the youth he was grooming to one day succeed him. He was still somewhat young but it is no surprise that he became Lord Commander.

Becoming king is a completely different thing, though. The men at the Watch either knew Jon, personally, or had heard of him (and what he had pulled off during the recent battles). And they knew what Mormont wanted for him. There is a longstanding tradition of Stark relatives holding high offices in the Watch.

Sorry, that's not an argument. A story with magic and dragons does not have to follow a trivial and clichéd pattern.

Perhaps Jon is also elected Pope by acclamation? Come on. There should be quite a few characters living to the very end of this series who could be better kings than Jon. A Great Council is called when the succession is unclear but we can be pretty clear that if the wars kill all the Targaryen descendants than whoever will be the most powerful guy left standing will take the throne by the right of 'I say so'. There is no reason to discuss this with anyone as if they were all best friends. They aren't, especially not after all those civil wars.

I don't think anybody can steal Dany's thunder. She is riding the largest dragon in the world.

And I'm pretty sure these two will hook up, anyway, so there is no potential for conflict there. That is how I see Jon could become king, after all (assuming I'm totally wrong about that resurrection transformation thing). He will enter Dany's circle, they will fight the Others together, and then they might even rule together. Somebody has to rebuild that world.

However, if somebody has to die then Jon is the best candidate for that - because he already died once in ADwD, and may lose even more of his humanity along the way. Defeating the Others is not going to be easy. But perhaps his undead semen is going to quicken in Dany's womb. Who knows.

Yeah, there is no great dissent there. I think the political plot of this story culminates in a Targaryen restoration of one sort or another. If Aegon is going to be taken from the board (in this or that fashion) then the center of that thing will be Daenerys, with Tyrion (as her half-brother) and Jon gather around her. They will be the three heads of the dragon leading the good guys against the Others (or 'the virtuous into battle', as Yandel said Hyrkoon the Hero did).

Jon and Dany will hook and if Dany dies (which certainly is a possibility) then Jon could very well become king after her. In fact, they might all three become kings the same way Aegon and his sister-wives were a trinity of co-rulers.

If both die then Tyrion could take over in their stead. But I honestly think the chances for Tyrion to die are much larger since the man has to pay for the murder of Shae and the way he treated Tysha. There are a lot of unresolved issues in his story.

But still, the idea that we are getting a King Jon of the Smoking Wounds is still very odd to me. By the way, do those people resurrected by fire magic even die of natural causes? If not then Jon the Zombie could rule Westeros forever, not exactly a very promising idea...

Never thought about that this way. Could very well be the case. I think it was always pretty evident that Dany and Jon will eventually hook up and be (sort of) happy, at least for a time. But if you consciously or unconsciously think a certain character is unworthy of your favorite then the reactions can be pretty mean.

A lot of ideas are tossed around how Jon could become king without Dany's help or without ever being drawn into her circle. I don't think this makes any sense in light of the prophecies nor in light of threat the Others pose.

The overwhelming theme of this story is that the people who should see the common enemy that is plotting to destroy them all are not seeing it. Unless a group of people are going to unite them in time they will all die. That's the overall plot.

Yes, the story grew in the telling but the seeds of the story were planted in AGOT and those seeds will come to fruition. You seriously can't be comparing Jon's one observation of Jamie being kingly to all the nuggets indicating that Jon is the hidden prince. In fact, Jamie was outed as scum pretty early in the story. And yes, hidden princes/heirs (for example Luke Skywalker, Aragorn) have joined monk-like or other orders whose purpose is service to the realm/humanity. And Jon's arc follows Aragorn's story more than Frodo's. Aragorn was the poster child for a humble/reluctant king/hero. 

Even if Aegon is proved fake that does not naturally conclude that high lords and the common folk won't accept Jon. And I don't believe that Jon's dragon riding abilities or lack thereof will decide if he is a Targ or not, and besides I'm pretty sure that most people in Westeros are unaware of their history and have not even heard of Nettles or Ulf.

I agree no one can predict who will sit the IT in the end. But you make this statement and your posts are full of predictions that suit your narrative. For example, you keep stating with a great deal of certainity that Dany will be the one to give Jon legitimacy and that it will be her eventual entry into the war with the WW that will save Westeros. You can't have it both ways. We are all just theorizing here and people who support Jon's legitimacy and eventual destiny to save Westeros and rule it have enough plausible arguments for their theories. I've seen Jon detractors argue that Jon's dreams of holding a flaming sword and fighting the WW as not being evidence of him being AA because he read about it and then dreamt of it (which btw I think is absurd). So, while I agree with you that all we can do at this point is theorize, there are some theories, considering the hints in the books, that are more plausible than others. 

As for your argument that Jon has a greater chance to die because he is fighting with a sword than Dany who is flying a dragon, again, I say this is wishful thinking on your part. At this point we don't even know how effective dragons will be against the WW or in winter. Just as know one can say with certainity who sits the IT in the end or who saves Westeros, no one can say which of the central characters will survive or how the end battle will play out.

Jon's body may not "definitely be dead meat" as you say. Bran's fall should certainly have killed him but the writer had him in a coma. Jon may end up being in a coma just like Bran and his consciousness could still be in Ghost. He doesn't have to be dead for this to happen. And even if Jon's dead as  Varamyr as you say, GRRM need not write him as the zombiefied human that you so desperately want him to become. Jon could come back changed in disposition but he could still be a eating, shitting, procreating human. 

Yes I agree no one in the South (not even Dany) is going to be aware of or care about the threat of the WWs until it's too late. For all we know the second dance with dragons will wipe out a significant pupulation of the south. Teora Toland's dream indicates as much. As for who will back Jon? He will have the North (I'm one of those that believe in the GNC), and probably the Vale through Sansa and may even the Riverlands through the Stark/Tully loyalists.  Jon is not stuck to the Wall as you seem to believe. I suspect he'll be in Winterfell commanding the Northern forces by the middle/end of Winds. As you said Jon and his Northerners may just end up being pushed furthur South and the reason the Southern lords will rally behind Jon is because they are a depleted force after the second dance and Jon and his forces are the only ones who have any experience fighting the WWs.

You keep stating that Jon and others like Tyrion will follow Dany as her posse. Others like myself feel that Dany and others will follow Jon's lead if she were ever to join the fight against the WWs. The fault I find with your arguments are that you are married to the idea that Dany is central to the story and everything Jon and others do will be under her, and any recognition or legitimacy Jon receives in the story will be due to Dany's benevolence and command. In the same vein, you can fault my argument about Jon's primacy among the central characters. We are not going to agree and until the books are out we won't know who leads, who dies, who is proclaimed a hero, etc. While I appreciate your extensive knowledge of the books, your arguments on Jon, IMO, are always biased and one sided, and they do not seem objective to me. 

[Son of Man]

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

Yup.  I agree completely.  Even if Rhaegar was the father and he had it in his mind to un-bastard his bastard, Rhaegar didn't have the authority to do it.  Aerys would not approve of his enemy's grandson to inherit his throne and therefore would have no interest in making any such bastard legitimate.

Robb was not a legitimate king.  He was a rebel who wanted to be king.  He didn't have the authority to make a bastard legitimate. 

[Lord Varys]

9 hours ago, Ralphis Baratheon said:

I'm not sure if I'm ready to put Jon into the Frodo category either. As you said he's been set up as a fighter who would likely lead men into battle on the field. If someone had to be compared to Frodo wouldn't it be Bran?
 

Well, Jon is the only character in this series whose best friend is guy named Sam. Just saying. 

However, I never said that Jon and Frodo are basically the same characters. Just that Jon just has the ungrateful job of dealing with the others while other characters gain fame and glory in the real world.

15 hours ago, The Weirwoods Eyes said:

I'm going to make it really simple, Bring me text proof that Rhaenys & Maegor's wives were officially seen as not real wives. Until then basically, everything you are saying is just your opinion. Just because you talk about your opinions as though they are facts that doesn't make it so. 

You will get such textual evidence in 'The Sons of the Dragon'. At least for Alys and Maegor.

In Westeros the Faith defines what a marriage in the eyes of the Faith is. The Faith conducts marriages amongst the Andals, and the Targaryens do, too, since both Aenys and Maegor married Alyssa and Ceryse in septs. Your personal opinion about your polygamous marriage (or your own esoteric definition of a marriage) is irrelevant if the High Septon of the Faith does not recognize your marriage as a marriage.

And while the Targaryens later disarmed the Faith there is no indication that the Faith ever changed its concept of marriage, including polygamy. A marriage is still between one man and one woman during the reigns of Robert and Joffrey.

Now, nobody doubts that somebody could try to get away away with polygamy - what we doubt is that they would get away with it if they tried.

The arguments from your side of the discussion sound pretty much ridiculous because you actually want us to take your view that people would have to share Rhaegar's mad view on marriage no matter what just because there were some obscure Targaryen precedents (and First Men kings precedents in the even more distant past) some centuries ago.

If you ask yourself honestly about this you will realize that this is the same as if we would be marrying each other together, in addition to spouses we already have (I have none, but ignore that for a moment) citing some bible characters or medieval bigamists as 'precedents'. We could take that guy, for instance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_I,_Landgrave_of_Hesse

15 hours ago, The Weirwoods Eyes said:

ETA: anyway forget all that, cos we've had that argument before and no way will you ever change my mind without the textual proof I've asked for. But seriously tell me more about this Maidenpool idea of yours. Because that I AM interested in.

That isn't all that fanciful. My take on the whole Rhaegar-Lyanna thing is that it is a crucial mystery and one of the central events in the past that shaped the events that are, in turn, shaping the story.

Now, George's usual method to unravel such mysteries is to constantly add more and more layers so that we get an ever more complete picture of what actually transpired. We basically get a new layer each book. That is not just the case with Rhaegar-Lyanna but also, say, Brandon Stark, Joanna Lannister (and Aerys), Jaime's checkered past, prophecy stuff, etc.

A crucial problem I see the 'orthodox view' on the Rhaegar-Lyanna thing (as you can read in the posts of Ygrain or MtnLion) is that they fell prey to theories they developed without taking the big picture into acoount. Many of the theories . There is basically a consensus that Jon Snow is Rhaegar's son by Lyanna. Only fools (or people who want to have fun) doubt that. However, we have to admit that we don't have all the pieces of the puzzle as of yet.

The way I try to build theories is not only to take all the information we have on a subject but also including the possibilities of new revelations into the whole thing. I ask myself where we still lack knowledge, where the blank spots in a theory are.

Now, that doesn't work everywhere. Many people (myself included) saw Aegon coming, but not that he would invade Westeros without Dany and the dragons. I also did not see Jon's assassination coming, or the revelation that Barristan had the hots for Ashara, that she had a stillborn daughter (either by Ned or Brandon).

I also have no idea what information exactly we are missing in the whole Rhaegar-Lyanna mystery. But I can point at the blank spots.

1. The whole prophecy angle. A long time people only looked at Aemon and Rhaegar for that but since ADwD and TWoIaF it is quite clear that Jaehaerys II, Aerys II, Rhaella, Rhaegar, and Viserys were all part of that thing, not just Aemon and Rhaegar. The Ghost of High Heart made the prophecy that prompted Jaehaerys to marry Aerys to Rhaella, meaning that their life was ruled even more by prophecy than Rhaegar's. Why is it that they tried to have more children as desperately as they did? Who was it who showed little Rhaegar the prophecy that apparently declared that he was this promised prince guy? Who was the first one to declared that Rhaegar was the promised prince because of the smoke of Harrenhal and the salt of the tears of survivors?

Those are all very important questions whose answers most likely play a very crucial roles during the reign of Aerys II right up to Harrenhal.

2. Then there is, of course, Rhaegar's change of heart about himself, the comet, the birth of Aegon, his new belief about Aegon being the promised prince, Harrenhal, the political situation at court and the false (and correct) assumptions various factions were making etc. There are still a lot of blank spaces there, too.

3. The really important points are connected to Harrenhal and its aftermath. Since we don't know any details about Rhaegar and Lyanna at Harrenhal as well as about the aftermath, the eventual abduction, its aftermath, and the trials against the Starks my take on that is that you have to keep an open mind how details involving all those blank spots might look like.

4. The other important points are the aftermath of the whole thing. Why does Ned have to hide Jon the way he does? Would Robert really kill Ned's bastard nephew (and Lyanna's son)? Why can't he share the truth with Cat and Jon himself?

That leads me to the assumption that the outbreak of the Rebellion wasn't just caused by the events we already know about - the abduction and the execution of the Starks and Aerys' command to Jon Arryn - but that the abduction was more than a simple abduction. Rhaegar might actually have taken Lyanna to marry her, following in the footsteps of Prince Duncan and his own grandparents, ignoring the fallout that would follow. What did follow was Aerys II denouncing Rhaegar as a traitor, calling for his head (which then resulted in Rhaegar and Lyanna's disappearance - for which we have as of yet no explanation whatsoever). Brandon and Rickard completely misjudged the situation, unwilling to believe that Aerys would think they were accomplices of Rhaegar (as Aerys also believed at Harrenhal) when they were going to KL to demand satisfaction from Rhaegar.

Perhaps the abduction itself was also enough for Aerys to kill the Starks as traitors but I'm not sure about that.

There is also no good reason to believe that a man like Rhaegar - if he intended to take Lyanna as a second wife - would not marry her publicly. A secret wedding somewhere in the wild would just complicate things. After all, what would he do if the world (the court and Faith) would simply choose not to believe his claim that he and Lyanna were married and that all witnesses Rhaegar may cite were people he bribed? It cannot have been enough for Rhaegar and Lyanna to be married in their hearts if the way they accomplished this would still make Lyanna publicly a whore.

So my idea is that they went from Harrenhal to Maidenpool and had a wedding there. Afterwards they had to run away and hide, possibly even by ship, because Aerys was calling for their heads.

He would only change his mind on that after he realized (around the time he exiled Merryweather) that he had been wrong the entire time, and that Rhaegar and the rebels were not in cahoots.

In fact, it might even be that his fear of a Rhaegar-led rebellion was what triggered his command to kill Ned and Robert. Going after Ned is sort of understandable (he had just killed his father and brother) but targeting Robert, too, makes little sense. The man was just Lyanna's betrothed, not her husband nor any blood relation of hers.

But if Aerys - in his paranoia - actually thought Rhaegar and the Starks were in the midst of a conspiracy against him and Lyanna was only the glue these men used to seal their alliances - rather than a girl at least two men were madly obsessed with on a romantic and/or sexual level - then it actually makes sense to assume that he might have believed Rhaegar, Robert, and Ned (as well as Rickard, Brandon, and their companions) would all make common cause against him.

[Lord Varys]

9 hours ago, teej6 said:

Yes, the story grew in the telling but the seeds of the story were planted in AGOT and those seeds will come to fruition. 

Some will, others will not. Some already did not.

9 hours ago, teej6 said:

You seriously can't be comparing Jon's one observation of Jamie being kingly to all the nuggets indicating that Jon is the hidden prince.

The idea is that Jon seeing Jaime as kingly was a hint to the original plan (as per the original outline) that Evil Jaime would be king. There are also hints that Joffrey and Robb would clash again later in life (the entire exchange in the practice yard is foreshadowing this).

And then there are the hints that Tyrion will be king one day. Only very few people ever cite those. But 'Tyrion Lannister standing as tall as a king' is a very important scene.

9 hours ago, teej6 said:

In fact, Jamie was outed as scum pretty early in the story. And yes, hidden princes/heirs (for example Luke Skywalker, Aragorn) have joined monk-like or other orders whose purpose is service to the realm/humanity.

You are not really suggesting George is stealing from Star Wars, right? Luke Skywalker never became a king, anyway. Nor was he anybody's heir.

9 hours ago, teej6 said:

And Jon's arc follows Aragorn's story more than Frodo's. Aragorn was the poster child for a humble/reluctant king/hero.

Nope, if there is an Aragorn character in ASoIaF (which I actually doubt because Aragorn isn't much of a character) then it is Daenerys, not Jon. Jon is a nobody, and Aragorn is a powerful warrior and hero who essentially gives away his identity during his first meeting with the Hobbits (when he shows them the shards of Narsil).

Just as Aragorn Dany is originally without an army, crown, or powerful weapons, but she knows who she is and what that means. The same is true for Aragorn. Neither of them has to prove their worth or their identity to anyone. The truth is in their blood, in their faces, and in their props (special swords; dragons).

9 hours ago, teej6 said:

Even if Aegon is proved fake that does not naturally conclude that high lords and the common folk won't accept Jon.

But it greatly reduces the probability that the 'Rhaegar's son' ploy is going to convince many people. If you don't see this you are blind. It has already been done in the books once already, when Littlefinger's men spreading the tale about Selyse beat Davos at some places. If the well is poisoned nobody will drink from it. And Aegon sure as hell is going to poison the 'There is a hidden son of Prince Rhaegar out there' well.

That is why you most likely don't like the Aegon plot all that much, no? Because you know where this is, most likely, going to lead.

9 hours ago, teej6 said:

And I don't believe that Jon's dragon riding abilities or lack thereof will decide if he is a Targ or not, and besides I'm pretty sure that most people in Westeros are unaware of their history and have not even heard of Nettles or Ulf.

That isn't the point. The point is that nobody thought that Hugh and Ulf (the former was actually a bastard, too) were hidden Targaryen princes just because they claimed some Targaryen dragons. People don't have to know about these historical figures to not do homage to Jon just because some people spread fancy tales about him and he ends up claiming a dragon (which I think he will). 

9 hours ago, teej6 said:

I agree no one can predict who will sit the IT in the end. But you make this statement and your posts are full of predictions that suit your narrative. For example, you keep stating with a great deal of certainity that Dany will be the one to give Jon legitimacy and that it will be her eventual entry into the war with the WW that will save Westeros. You can't have it both ways.

But there are so many strong hints that it will be Dany who leads an army against the Others. Back in AGoT where you say are so many hints foreshadowing the future. She has a dream fighting against men in ice armor at the Trident, equating herself with Rhaegar. That may be one of the most crucial prophetic dreams in the entire series. Jon Snow never has such prophetic dreams. Nor is he surrounded by and the obvious object of prophecy.

Dany has already fulfilled all the prophecy surrounding the promised prince. She was born (and reborn) amidst smoke and salt (on Dragonstone and in the pyre), she woke dragons from stone (drawing them from the fire as Azor Ahai did with Lightbringer). She sacrificed three people she loved (Viserys, Rhaego, Drogo) for three ultimate lightbringing weapons.

It can't be much clearer than that.

I'd sing the Jon Snow song all day long if Jon had had a House of the Undying experience. If he had hatched a dragon egg. If he were constantly visited by some masked sorceress in his dreams.

I'm not saying he is unimportant. I think he is one of the three dragon heads and I think there is actually no promised prince(ss) but three. There is not one savior and some companions, but three. And it is not going to work if they are not working together.

Marwyn has warned the gang about prophecies. The huge mistake is going to be to look just for one savior (as the red priests were doing). You have to search for three. 

9 hours ago, teej6 said:

We are all just theorizing here and people who support Jon's legitimacy and eventual destiny to save Westeros and rule it have enough plausible arguments for their theories.

I don't think they are good enough to justify this narrative or the 'great superhero Jon'. 

9 hours ago, teej6 said:

I've seen Jon detractors argue that Jon's dreams of holding a flaming sword and fighting the WW as not being evidence of him being AA because he read about it and then dreamt of it (which btw I think is absurd). So, while I agree with you that all we can do at this point is theorize, there are some theories, considering the hints in the books, that are more plausible than others. 

It is actually nowhere prophesied that the reborn Azor Ahai (which is the promised prince character) is supposed to have a literal Lightbringer. The mythical hero has such a sword in the stories, and that's why Melisandre thought her Azor Ahai should have such a sword, too. But Benerro and Moqorro's reborn Azor Ahai (Daenerys) doesn't have a burning sword, nor does anything we know about the prophecy of the promised prince indicate that he is supposed to have magical sword.

I'm very much of the opinion that Targaryen blood and Valyrian steel weapons will become important in the war against the Others.

The short version is that Targaryen blood imbued with fire magic - through, say, a resurrection spell done with fire magic - is going to be able to literally ignite Valyrian steel weapons in the same way Beric Dondarrion could ignite common steel using his blood.

I think Beric came back from the dead because he had a drop of dragonlord blood, and with Jon having much more Targaryen blood he might come back in a much better shape.

But that doesn't mean that Jon is going to make himself some super special sword and naming it Lightbringer. That is just ridiculous. The Others won't be stopped because somebody waves a burning sword in their direction.

9 hours ago, teej6 said:

As for your argument that Jon has a greater chance to die because he is fighting with a sword than Dany who is flying a dragon, again, I say this is wishful thinking on your part. At this point we don't even know how effective dragons will be against the WW or in winter. Just as know one can say with certainity who sits the IT in the end or who saves Westeros, no one can say which of the central characters will survive or how the end battle will play out.

But we can say that a person like Jon is more likely to die in a physical combat or a battle than Daenerys (who simply is no warrior). Dany can be assassinated, poisoned, fall off her dragon, go down with some ship, die by accident, etc. and in Jon's case we can add to all those possible ways of death also death in battle or single combat,. That is just a fact.

The other aspect is that Jon might also be willing to sacrifice himself for/to save mankind. If there is a heroic kind of character willing to do that it is him - even more so, if his resurrection changes him considerably. And this is not the kind of Hollywood movie where the hero would survive such a sacrifice.

Unless the dragons are all dying before the war against the Others we can reasonably sure they will play a role during that war. The original outline already essentially confirmed that. It would be very odd from a storytelling point of view if those growing dragons played no role in that war. I'm not saying they will decide it. I'm not even sure I think a huge battle is going to decide the war against the Others. But the dragons will play some part.

9 hours ago, teej6 said:

Jon's body may not "definitely be dead meat" as you say. Bran's fall should certainly have killed him but the writer had him in a coma.

Bran obviously landed on his feet/legs and back, resulting in him becoming a cripple. He should have been dead had he fallen on his head.

9 hours ago, teej6 said:

Jon may end up being in a coma just like Bran and his consciousness could still be in Ghost. He doesn't have to be dead for this to happen. And even if Jon's dead as  Varamyr as you say, GRRM need not write him as the zombiefied human that you so desperately want him to become. Jon could come back changed in disposition but he could still be a eating, shitting, procreating human. 

Again, I never said Jon would be zombiefied in any real sense. It is just that I find every character who comes back from the dead qualifies as a weirdo undead creature. He can smell good all day long there would be still something fishy about such a character.

If George had gone down the 'very bad injury' road he could easily enough have given us a version of the Victarion or Drogo story (a wound gone bad) or even something more conventional (him getting infected with a mortal illness). He could even have somebody poison him.

Instead we get a pretty good ripoff of Caesar's assassination, with Bowen Marsh featuring as Brutus. While I agree that Jon may not have been dead when he closed his eyes in ADwD he was dying, and everything indicates that Marsh and his buddies had enough time to finish their work.

9 hours ago, teej6 said:

Yes I agree no one in the South (not even Dany) is going to be aware of or care about the threat of the WWs until it's too late. For all we know the second dance with dragons will wipe out a significant pupulation of the south. Teora Toland's dream indicates as much.

I does? Where the dragons dance, people die? It is stretch that this means hundreds of thousands or even millions of people (and we would have to talk about such numbers to refer to significant portions of the population).

I agree that there will be war but it is also effectively already confirmed that Daenerys will conquer Westeros. That was supposed to be the topic of the second book, A Dance with Dragons, in the original outline. So we can safely say that she will lead Westeros against the Others after her conquest of the continent, not somebody else. That she will survive this conquest of hers is also already confirmed because we know she will live until the very end of the series, alongside Jon, Tyrion, Bran, and Arya.

9 hours ago, teej6 said:

As for who will back Jon? He will have the North (I'm one of those that believe in the GNC), and probably the Vale through Sansa and may even the Riverlands through the Stark/Tully loyalists.  Jon is not stuck to the Wall as you seem to believe. I suspect he'll be in Winterfell commanding the Northern forces by the middle/end of Winds. As you said Jon and his Northerners may just end up being pushed furthur South and the reason the Southern lords will rally behind Jon is because they are a depleted force after the second dance and Jon and his forces are the only ones who have any experience fighting the WWs.

Even if Dorne, the Reach, the Westerlands, the Crownlands, and the Stormlands lost two thirds of their population Dany is still likely to come with millions (or at least hundreds of thousands) of Dothraki to Westeros. The people of Westeros can die, it won't affect her power base all that much (even less so if she is also taking her freedmen, sellswords, reformed Ghiscari, etc. with her).

The idea that Aegon, Euron, Cersei, Stannis, whoever else is going to play at war before Dany even comes to Westeros won't also continue to deplete the strength of the Riverlands, North, and Vale (not to mention the Vale and the Riverlands actually joining one of the new pretenders, most likely Aegon) also doesn't hold much water. The story has to continue, after all. Dany is not going to come to Westeros soon.

And the Second Dance of the Dragons might also involve all of Westeros, just as the first one did.

As for the North - they have to deal with Stannis, the Boltons and Freys, the Weeper's army, and the Others. They won't have the time to gather enough strength to even think of threatening anybody south of the Neck.

9 hours ago, teej6 said:

You keep stating that Jon and others like Tyrion will follow Dany as her posse. Others like myself feel that Dany and others will follow Jon's lead if she were ever to join the fight against the WWs. 

Can you base that on anything besides your feelings?

9 hours ago, teej6 said:

The fault I find with your arguments are that you are married to the idea that Dany is central to the story and everything Jon and others do will be under her, and any recognition or legitimacy Jon receives in the story will be due to Dany's benevolence and command.

No, I say that his role and identity as a Targaryen prince is dependent on him being adopted into the Targaryen family by a Targaryen (either Dany or Aegon, I'm not insisting on Dany there - although I find her more likely). That would be necessary for him to be able to play the Targaryen card in the political arena.

Jon certainly can become a hero independent of Dany (he already is) and people can even look to him as some sort of a great military leader and war hero, etc. But those are likely going to be only very few people - people who won't sway an entire continent to see anything more in him than some Stark bastard who did a good job at dealing with (imagined) demons.

But, yeah, Dany really is central to the story. Jon, too, but Dany really looms a feet taller than anybody else insofar as 'prophetic importance' is concerned. I'm not making it so, I'm just seeing that.

9 hours ago, teej6 said:

In the same vein, you can fault my argument about Jon's primacy among the central characters. We are not going to agree and until the books are out we won't know who leads, who dies, who is proclaimed a hero, etc. While I appreciate your extensive knowledge of the books, your arguments on Jon, IMO, are always biased and one sided, and they do not seem objective to me. 

I believe this story doesn't have a clear-cut hero. It has an ensemble of heroes. The three core heroes who are the topic of prophecy are Dany, Jon, and Tyrion, but there are many more crucial heroic people like Bran, Brienne, Davos, possibly Jaime, Samwell, Sansa, etc.

I don't think one should play Dany against Jon or vice versa. There is a reason that he is male and she is female. They will hook up. They are not enemies.

And I think you know that there is a reason why the Targaryen incest marriage custom has been introduced to this series.

One can wildly speculate how Jon is going to rule Daenerys as the manly man that he is, etc. but the thing is that Daenerys really is the head of House Targaryen, plain and simple. Aegon could challenge that claim because people will want to believe that he is Rhaegar's son - a son they knew actually existed (unlike Jon Snow, who would be a prince out of thin air, basically). But once he is dealt with she will decide who is a Targaryen and who isn't. And both Jon and Tyrion should (more or less) gladly accept her lead if that leads to them getting what they want in return (which in Jon's case is most likely going to be her assistance in the fight against the Others and a lot of good sex).

[Ralphis Baratheon]

I'm not sure if I'm ready to put Daenerys in the same category as a Aragorn yet.

[SFDanny]

2 hours ago, Ralphis Baratheon said:

I'm not sure if I'm ready to put Daenerys in the same category as a Aragorn yet.

Aragorn brings to the fight the Flame of the West in the reforged shards of Narsil. So, Anduril, a very nice sword, versus the only three known dragons in her world. Sounds like Dany doesn't do badly in at least this comparison.