andy_wan_kenobi

The Child of Rheagar and Lyanna

243 posts in this topic

IIRC a legitimised son would still come after the trueborn children, even if he's older.

Share this post


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

IIRC a legitimised son would still come after the trueborn children, even if he's older.

I think it's one of those gray areas that fuel eventual succession wars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Ferocious Veldt Roarer said:

I think it's one of those gray areas that fuel eventual succession wars.

Definitely. The Blackfyre rebellions are the perfect example for that. Bastard sons being legitimised (and a valyrian steel sword) were the reasons for those rebellions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, maudisdottir said:

Can you provide this "fucking evidence"? Preferably in point form. I imagine it must be pretty convincing if it made you change your mind about RLJ.

You claim you didn't invent a new Dany yet at the end of the same paragraph you talk of a baby swap. Not sure what that's all about but again, some evidence would be good. Something other than "it's possible".

No, as I said I'm not going to list all the fucking evidence in this thread. I don't have the time or the desire to do so. That would be a rather large post. I don't care if people don't believe me, I just want people to stop being assholes.

Share this post


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

What would be Ned's reasoning for sending Lyanna's child to Darry and Viserys? If it's the Targaryen look, then he could have pretended it was his and Ashara's bastard. And what exacty did he promise Lyanna then? It couldn't be to keep the baby safe, because sending a baby to an uncertain future in exile with people he didn't know is the opposite of keeping it safe. He wouldn't be able to have any influence in keeping the child safe when it's across the world. And all those years when Robert sent his "knifes" after them. Why did he just sit in Winterfell?

By your theory, Ned didn't trust anyone, not even Jon himself, with Jon's real identity (B+A). But apparently he trusted a man he didn't know with the secret child of his beloved sister, a child who's life is depending on the secrecy of it's identity. That's not logical at all. That would be a total betrayal to Lyanna. Why would he send Lyanna's secret child to Dragonstone? He had no way of knowing if Darry, or anyone involved there, would want to keep the child safe, considering it's Lyanna's. The Starks where on the side of the usurper and their enemies. There was no way of knowing if they would prioritize it's safety over Viserys or Rhaella, even if the father was Rhaegar. 

I think he gave Dany to Ashara and I don't know for sure exactly how things played out after that. I doubt "fake" Dany was ever on DS. And Robert was not sending assassins after them all the time. He only sends the one assassin in AGOT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

1 hour ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

I think he gave Dany to Ashara and I don't know for sure exactly how things played out after that. I doubt "fake" Dany was ever on DS. And Robert was not sending assassins after them all the time. He only sends the one assassin in AGOT.

But there's still so many logical holes and questions in that theory.

1. Why would Ned hand her over to Ashara and take Ashara's actual child? And why would Ashara agree to that?

2. Why would Ned trust Ashara with the safety of his sister's child? He didn't even trust Catelyn or with Jon's identity after 15 years of marriage (or Jon and anyone for that matter). At 18-19 he can't have known Ashara that well considering they lived at different ends of Westeros.

3. Let's say hypothetically that Ashara had her for a while in Dorne, and then handed over her to Darry. Or maybe Ashara died for some reason.  Why didn't Ned do anything when "Dany" was taken to exile with Darry, a man he didn't know, and Viserys? Did he just sit in Winterfell and hope that she would be kept safe?

4. For what reason did Viserys have to lie to "Dany" about her identity? Even if he didn't know who her parents were, he would definitely know she wasn't his sister. 

5. What reason did Darry have to lie to "Dany" about her identity?

5. And at last, the biggest gaping hole of logic about this theory: If you wan't to keep the child's identity secret because it's a Targaryan princess, why pose it as another Targaryan princess? What exactly would be the reasoning for that? 

 

 

Edited by GhostNymeria

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4. Because he wanted the throne for himself. He didn't want her in the picture except as a bargaining chip to get an army or to rape her when she was old enough to bear children.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

5 minutes ago, Angel Eyes said:

4. Because he wanted the throne for himself. He didn't want her in the picture except as a bargaining chip to get an army or to rape her when she was old enough to bear children.

So Rhaegar and Lyanna married? Any answers on the other points?

Edited by GhostNymeria

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't know. But I'm saying why Viserys would keep Daenerys in the dark if she was actually Rhaegar's child with Lyanna and had a stronger claim due to even possibly being the child of his elder brother.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, The Doctor's Consort said:

They also said that all of Cat's children are bastards because Ned was married with Ashara and their son Jon is the only trueborn. Both of the Tullys brothers knew about the secret marriage but Hoster forced Ned to marry Cat and this is why Blackfish abandoned him and went to the Vale.

ROFLMAO, that's beyond ridiculous.

17 hours ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

Agreed, this has been discuss to death. Yes, you could hypothetically grow lemons in Braavos, but we have a very specific reference to the implausibility of having lemons in the riverlands, which is south of Braavos. I see no good reason to think the the lemon tree in Dany's memory, or the grass beneath her feet as she ran toward the house with the red door, were in Braavos.

Which passage do you mean, the BwB guy fancying lemons? That proves neither disproves anything - apparently, neither Braavos nor Riverlands are a natural climate for lemons, but that doesn't mean lemons wouldn't grow there with proper care. Where I live, figs or almonds don't grow naturally, but can be grown under certain circumstances.

17 hours ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

Who says a legitimized bastard can't come before other people? Ramsay claims to be the heir to the Dreadfort himself, before all other relatives and the future children of Fat Walda. If you want to claim legitimized bastards can't be above others in succession, you need to come up with a quote to back your claim. ;) 

Ramsay can become the heir to Dreadfort only after he kills Walda's children, as Roose kindly informs us:

If she pops out sons the way she pops in tarts, the Dreadfort will soon be overrun with Boltons. Ramsay will kill them all, of course. That’s for the best. I will not live long enough to see new sons to manhood, and boy lords are the bane of any House.

In other words, Fat Walda's sons would inherit before legitimised Ramsay.

17 hours ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

I;m not saying Ned's relationship to Dany changed drastically during AGOT. But his actions as HotK actually have a direct affect on Dany, who is in danger, while Jon is safe at the Wall and Ned cannot do anything for Jon, nor does he need to. For some reason Ned keeps thinking about his promise to Lyanna, and it would make infinitely more sense if he can take actions that actually affect said promise.

Ned keeps thinking about the promise to Lyanna ever since his first chapter in AGOT when Jon was safe at Winterfell and Ned couldn't do anything else for him than he had already done, and it is way before Dany is discussed in his PoV for the first time. He also thinks about the price that he has paid to keep the promises to Lyanna - what price did he pay by speaking for Dany, arguing with a friend who had disappointed him and giving up Handship that he never wanted in the first place? - BTW, what lies had he been living for fourteen years?

17 hours ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

Yes Jon's existence would not prevent the Tully alliance, but I'm saying Ned would have been trying to mitigate the future risks of Jon by just claiming Jon as his own bastard.

"no-one would ever do a thing" -I'm not sure I understand your point.

Well, if people were afraid to make alliances because someone's bastard might be legitimized in the future, no alliances would be ever made because practically everyone has a bastard or two.

Besides, the Freys allied with Roose even though Roose was knows to have an adult bastard son, so do you have a quote of an alliance being ever prevented by someone having a bastard?

 

17 hours ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

We don't know how long the war lasted exactly. I haven't read anything that would make it impossible for the TOJ to take place 17 months into the war.

The war lasted for about a year, that covers something like 10-14 months. 16-17 months are not "about a year", that's a year and a half. A SSM pins the duration of the war as about a year, another pins Aegon's age as about a year when he was murdered. 

17 hours ago, LiveFirstDieLater said:

First, I think we've discussed before but wether it's remotely possible to have flowers grass a lemon tree and big carved wooden beams with the house with the red door Dany remembers and have it in Braavos, I guess, conceivably...

but that's not how one writes a story. It's a detail not only which has stuck out for years, but was doubled down on in newer books. Dismissing it as childhood confusion is being intentionally blind. 

She only moved a lot after leaving the house with the red door, which is why she thinks of it as home. Not surprisingly it is also associated with Westeros.

And what exactly prevents one from writing a character obsessing over a childhood memory, to find this memory incorrect?

 

3 hours ago, maudisdottir said:

IIRC a legitimised son would still come after the trueborn children, even if he's older.

You do, see above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, GhostNymeria said:

If you wan't to keep the child's identity secret because it's a Targaryan princess, why pose it as another Targaryan princess? What exactly would be the reasoning for that?

It's darkest under the candlestick :P No-one would every expect a Targaryen princess to be another Targaryen princess, no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ygrain said:

It's darkest under the candlestick :P No-one would every expect a Targaryen princess to be another Targaryen princess, no?

The child would still be at great risk because of the Targaryen name. Of all the things they did to keep the child safe from Robert, why would they name her Targaryen? Why not pretend she's a Dayne bastard? Or any other option than pretending she's a Targaryen?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, GhostNymeria said:

The child would still be at great risk because of the Targaryen name. Of all the things they did to keep the child safe from Robert, why would they name her Targaryen? Why not pretend she's a Dayne bastard? Or any other option than pretending she's a Targaryen?

I should have used the sarcastic font :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Ygrain said:

I should have used the sarcastic font :-)

Haha sorry, I didn't read your other posts before:) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

 ?

Edited by LiveFirstDieLater

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

1 hour ago, Ygrain said:

Which passage do you mean, the BwB guy fancying lemons? That proves neither disproves anything - apparently, neither Braavos nor Riverlands are a natural climate for lemons, but that doesn't mean lemons wouldn't grow there with proper care. Where I live, figs or almonds don't grow naturally, but can be grown under certain circumstances.

Ramsay can become the heir to Dreadfort only after he kills Walda's children, as Roose kindly informs us:

If she pops out sons the way she pops in tarts, the Dreadfort will soon be overrun with Boltons. Ramsay will kill them all, of course. That’s for the best. I will not live long enough to see new sons to manhood, and boy lords are the bane of any House.

And what exactly prevents one from writing a character obsessing over a childhood memory, to find this memory incorrect?

You are doing mental gymnastics now to try and explain why repeatedly the places in this fictional world that do and do not grow lemons are talked about... it is clearly intentional.

Inheritance isn't a clear cut question. But that quote does not state what you say... usually a legitimized bastard is legitimate and thus would take the usual place in the inheritance chain for a legitimate son... see blackfyre... Ramsey would kill the other kids because they are a threat and he is Ramsey.

I don't know what your last paragraph means... you think the "remember who you are" and repeated discrepancies serve what purpose? You really trust Viserys and Illyrio more than Dany's own PoV?

Edited by LiveFirstDieLater

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

You have not shown me "all due respect". You are kind of being a dick. I did not start this thread, and I never had any intention to fully detail an entire in depth argument for R+L=D and B+A=J. I am not "cherry picking dates and evidence" to fit my theory or ignoring things that are "inconvenient". I believed R+L=J for a long time. My mind was changed by the fucking evidence. You are welcome to disagree with my conclusions, and I wouldn't bother posting on this forum at all if everyone agreed with me about everything. But please do not insult me by assuming that I have some sort of irrational emotional desire to be right about a crackpot theory that can't be true.

I don't "want" Brandon to be Jon's father. I think the evidence points to Brandon being Jon's father, therefore Jon probably would have had to have been conceived in the black cells for the timeline to work, and therefore Ashara must have been able to get her way into the black cells, even though we have no evidence for it directly. And I don't think Ashara was impregnated at Harrenhal, so that point of yours makes zero sense. Again, I'm not "ignoring evidence".

I didn't "invent" a new child to take Dany's place. I think Dany was born at the TOJ, therefore the story of the "real" Dany was either somehow fabricated (like it was actually a stillbirth or something), or there was a baby swap at some point. Again, not ignoring evidence.

Everyone please try to stop being so condescending. I'm not some ignorant noob, I have been on this forum for years and read the main series 5 times. I do not participate on this forum to have people act like assholes toward me. I like to have rational, friendly debates. Time to lighten the mood again with smiles :);):D:D:P 

Can we stop with playing the victim here? I've called you no names, or attacked you personally. What I have done is strongly criticized the methods you have shown for supporting your ideas and the lack of evidence for them. One doesn't equal the other. You have ideas you think are valid, so support them with the evidence that changed your mind.

What I see in the above is only further proof you start from a preconceived idea and move to suppositions with no evidence to support them. So, when you say, "I think the evidence points to Brandon being Jon's father" without providing that evidence it is just a further example of how you reach the conclusion before looking at the evidence. Or when you state "I think Dany was born at the TOJ" without showing what evidence makes you think so, again puts the cart before the horse. It is not condescending to point any of this out. Nor is it being an "asshole" to argue against such methods.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, LiveFirstDieLater said:

You are doing mental gymnastics now to try and explain why repeatedly the places in this fictional world that do and do not grow lemons are talked about... it is clearly intentional.

Ah. So almonds and figs growing hundreds of kilometres north of where they normally grow are mental gymnastics? And that they grow in, er, former "gardens of the mighty" is mental gymnastics? And that the mighty of Braavos have trees in their yards? And keep velociraptors which normally don't live in Braavos, too?

I do agree, though, that the lemon tree is intentional and screams "Dorne" wide and far - but a way simpler explanation is that it hints at the secret pact signed by Oberyn and Darry and witnessed by the Sealord.

31 minutes ago, LiveFirstDieLater said:

Inheritance isn't a clear cut question. But that quote does not state what you say... usually a legitimized bastard is legitimate and thus would take the usual place in the inheritance chain for a legitimate son... see blackfyre...

I never said that a legitimized bastard doesn't enter the succession, I said that he doesn't jump the legitimate heirs. Not legitimized bastards don't get to inherit at all.

31 minutes ago, LiveFirstDieLater said:

Ramsey would kill the other kids because they are a threat and he is Ramsey.

Then you need to re-read the quote. If Ramsay was Roose's heir regardless of the children the Fat Walda might bear, it would make no sense for Roose to speak about boy lords. That makes sense only if Fat Walda's trueborn children are ahead of Ramsay.

31 minutes ago, LiveFirstDieLater said:

I don't know what your last paragraph means... you think the "remember who you are" and repeated discrepancies serve what purpose? You really trust Viserys and Illyrio more than Dany's own PoV?

I merely think that those discrepancies don't mean what you think, and that faulty memories from the age of 3-4 don't mean that the person is not who she thinks she is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

20 hours ago, JNR said:

Oh, I dunno, RLJ supporters are constantly telling us that the theory isn't obvious. 

It's not at all obvious or these kinds of threads wouldn't attract so many visitors!

Quote

If that's true, then one litlte dream involving dragons... buried in five huge books... wouldn't give away the whole game, I'm sure.

Come now -- be honest -- just one lil' bonafide dragon dream would've broken many a heretic heart!  ;)

Quote

I think GRRM finished writing AGOT twenty years ago... long, long before he had any remote clue there would ever be any forums about these books.

Sorry, I was being facetious.  Quite apart from the forums, surely you'll admit GRRM is by nature a coyly evasive personality who is famously reluctant to offer a simple yes-no answer in confirmation or negation of anything.  Let's just say he prefers leaving things open-ended strategically in order to cultivate the suspense.  

Quote

But really, for fans to make the case that Jon must have had dragon dreams, because Tyrion had dragon dreams and Jon says he did not... and then he never does, once, in thousands of pages!... is hilarious.

That's not how my reasoning proceeded.  At the first mention of dragon dreams, Jon reacts 'suspiciously,' defensively -- that emotional hyperarousal needs to be explained.

Even if you discount that reasoning, and conclude, taking Jon and GRRM at their word that no dragon dreams exist in Jon's case, that still doesn't rule out Jon being part Targaryen.   Above, I offered LynnS a possible explanation for why Jon unlike Dany doesn't dream dragon dreams, despite possibly harboring Targaryen blood.  Note that Dany only started dreaming dragon dreams after coming into possession of a dragon's egg.  According to the 'epigenetic' theory which has been proferred, whereby certain magical genes only switch on in response to certain environmental cues such as a dragon's egg or the 'gift' of a direwolf pup, the relative presence or absence of such would explain the different trajectories of magical expression in the case of Dany and Jon respectively.

Quote

Also, quite frankly, it's a crazy leap for fans to believe Jon's parents are the central mystery of this series in the first place.  

It's one of the mysteries.  The central mystery is the origin of the Long Night and the Others.  Personally, 'the oft-repeated tale that doesn't bear repeating' I'm most keen to understand (and have repeated) is how, when and why Brandon the Builder learnt the 'song of the earth' and, more importantly, what exactly he did with this euphemistic 'song' once he'd mastered it.

Quote

GRRM has certainly never said any such thing.  There is far, far more going on in these books, that don't even have a protagonist, than the relatively simple puzzle of Jon's parents.

Nevertheless, it's still quite indicative how passionate and worked up it still makes people, including a sober-minded individual as yourself!  ;)  I see you were also moved to comment on the R+L=J v. 163 thread last night as well, so, judging from that, you're obviously rather invested in this peripheral mystery for some unfathomable reason...

Quote

That's certainly true.  :D  Get back to me when TWOW is out; I'll have more to say then.

I look forward to being enlightened.  :)

Edited by ravenous reader

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Ygrain said:

Ah. So almonds and figs growing hundreds of kilometres north of where they normally grow are mental gymnastics? And that they grow in, er, former "gardens of the mighty" is mental gymnastics? And that the mighty of Braavos have trees in their yards? And keep velociraptors which normally don't live in Braavos, too?

I do agree, though, that the lemon tree is intentional and screams "Dorne" wide and far - but a way simpler explanation is that it hints at the secret pact signed by Oberyn and Darry and witnessed by the Sealord.

I never said that a legitimized bastard doesn't enter the succession, I said that he doesn't jump the legitimate heirs. Not legitimized bastards don't get to inherit at all.

Then you need to re-read the quote. If Ramsay was Roose's heir regardless of the children the Fat Walda might bear, it would make no sense for Roose to speak about boy lords. That makes sense only if Fat Walda's trueborn children are ahead of Ramsay.

I merely think that those discrepancies don't mean what you think, and that faulty memories from the age of 3-4 don't mean that the person is not who she thinks she is.

Just because it's conceivable doesn't make it likely... and it's not just the lemon tree, it's the grass on her bare feet, the carved wooden beams in the shape of animals, and even the red door doesn't fit in Braavos. 

Lemons associated with Dorne, on that we agree! But Dany wasn't included at all in the marriage pact signed by Darry and Oberyn in Braavos. So that makes no sense...

if the legitimized son is older they should inherit... not always the case of course because inheritance is messy, and like we see with the Blackfyre's men like Bloodraven may try and skip over them anyway. But the quote you listed doesn't imply what you are saying no matter how many times I read it, maybe if you go back and look at the context it will help. Roose doesn't expect Ramsey to live, but even so there would clearly be a conflict between Ramsey and he "boy lords", Roosevelt is turning up his nose at both options.

Disagreement is ok... but I'm not sure why you think her memory would be faulty. Is there any other example of a character's pov remembering things wrong?

Meanwhile we factually know that multiple parts of Viserys story are contradicted by facts including the "hired knives" and the escape to dragonstone.

 

 

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.