R+L=J v.164

[TMIFairy]

1 hour ago, Khal Pod said:

unless Jon was already born, and was a legitimate child of Rhaegar. The Crowned Prince's son comes before a second son, if I'm not mistaken.

Jon Snow is said to be about nine months older than Daenerys. I've seen it mentioned that "GRRM said so".

Daenerys was conceived about a fortnight before the Sack of Kings Landing, Aerys getting horny after burning his then Hand of the King.

So, at Aerys' death, Jon Snow probably had been alive.

However, I subscribe to the "even IF Jon is Rheagar's son, he is a bastard" school of thought.

[Khal Pod]

1 hour ago, TMIFairy said:

Jon Snow is said to be about nine months older than Daenerys. I've seen it mentioned that "GRRM said so".

Daenerys was conceived about a fortnight before the Sack of Kings Landing, Aerys getting horny after burning his then Hand of the King.

So, at Aerys' death, Jon Snow probably had been alive.

However, I subscribe to the "even IF Jon is Rheagar's son, he is a bastard" school of thought.

Fair enough, IMHO I don't think it will matter in the end whether he is (was) a bastard or a legitimate son.

[UnmaskedLurker]

1 hour ago, Khal Pod said:

Fair enough, IMHO I don't think it will matter in the end whether he is (was) a bastard or a legitimate son.

The reason it could matter is how Dany and Jon interact with each other. I personally doubt both will survive to the end -- so they will not have competing claims. But Dany has used her birthright as justification for claiming her right to rule Westeros. If she learns that Jon is legitimate and under her own arguments probably has a better claim to the throne -- how does she react? If Jon is a bastard -- then no conflict for Dany to resolve -- so not as interesting. If Jon arguably is legit -- then Dany has to deal with her own justification for being ruler if Jon is ahead of her in line (by her own rationale for being ruler). So the story simply has more interesting places to go with regard to the relationship between Dany and Jon if Jon is legit.

Now I think that the marriage is a polygamous marriage between Rhaegar and Lyanna -- so Dany might argue that the marriage was not legit. But the Targs had practiced polygamy. So again, how Dany deals with this information is what makes for interesting story telling. If Jon is unambiguously a bastard of Rhaegar and Lyanna -- then the story does not have an many places to go in terms of the interaction between Jon and Dany and Dany's inner struggles. So for that reason (as well as many others), Jon almost certainly is legit (or at least arguably legit, given a polygamous marriage).

GRRM is not that interested in the niceties of legal arguments for who is the "rightful ruler" -- but rather the inner struggles within an individual. And Jon as legit (or arguably legit) leads to much more room to explore those questions than Jon as bastard.

[Bael's Bastard]

It would be hypocritical for Dany to contest Jon's legitimacy because of polygamy, considering they and all other Targaryens except Maegor are descendants of Aegon's second wife Rhaenys.

[Lord Varys]

7 hours ago, Khal Pod said:

unless Jon was already born, and was a legitimate child of Rhaegar. The Crowned Prince's son comes before a second son, if I'm not mistaken.

Aerys II named Viserys his heir after the death of Rhaegar. He disinherited/passed over Aegon and Rhaenys in favor of Viserys already.

3 hours ago, UnmaskedLurker said:

The reason it could matter is how Dany and Jon interact with each other. I personally doubt both will survive to the end -- so they will not have competing claims. But Dany has used her birthright as justification for claiming her right to rule Westeros. If she learns that Jon is legitimate and under her own arguments probably has a better claim to the throne -- how does she react? If Jon is a bastard -- then no conflict for Dany to resolve -- so not as interesting. If Jon arguably is legit -- then Dany has to deal with her own justification for being ruler if Jon is ahead of her in line (by her own rationale for being ruler). So the story simply has more interesting places to go with regard to the relationship between Dany and Jon if Jon is legit.

Daenerys will already have to deal with this question when she faces Aegon. She won't have the magical proof to prove without the shadow of a doubt that Aegon isn't Rhaegar's son - and we can be reasonably sure that claiming he is a fake would be at least part of her strategy to discredit him.

If Dany doesn't buy the Aegon story he she sure as hell is not going to buy the Jon story unless she gets really good evidence. And even then - this is not going to make her back down. Even if she wanted to she most likely wouldn't be able to do it since she is going to head a vast movement at that point. Her Dothraki, Unsullied, sellswords, freendmen, etc. are not likely to care about Jon Snow. They will obey and follow her, not Jon Snow. And Jon is never going to get in a position to challenge the power of Dany's vast armies. 

3 hours ago, UnmaskedLurker said:

Now I think that the marriage is a polygamous marriage between Rhaegar and Lyanna -- so Dany might argue that the marriage was not legit. But the Targs had practiced polygamy. So again, how Dany deals with this information is what makes for interesting story telling. If Jon is unambiguously a bastard of Rhaegar and Lyanna -- then the story does not have an many places to go in terms of the interaction between Jon and Dany and Dany's inner struggles. So for that reason (as well as many others), Jon almost certainly is legit (or at least arguably legit, given a polygamous marriage).

That would only make sense if George wanted to give us a story of Dany having a rivalry for the Iron Throne with both Aegon and Jon. And I doubt that he is going to repeat this story with two (alleged) sons of Rhaegar.

The entire plot wouldn't make much sense if he intends to set them up for some sort of romance.

21 minutes ago, Bael's Bastard said:

It would be hypocritical for Dany to contest Jon's legitimacy because of polygamy, considering they and all other Targaryens except Maegor are descendants of Aegon's second wife Rhaenys.

The past is the past. It can be cited or ignored. I daresay half or even all of Westerosi nobility would have had some bastard ancestors that weren't legitimized - the Durrandon-Baratheons certainly have at least one of those.

And the Conqueror was a king who may have married his two sister-wives following rites, customs, and laws that aren't followed in Westeros. Polygamy was scarce even in Valyria but it was done, but it was never a popular thing in Westeros.

But it should be incredible easy to just deny the fact that Jon Snow is Rhaegar's son. Even if it came out (or was known) that Rhaegar Targaryen did marry Lyanna Stark this still doesn't prove that Jon Snow is their son. A majority of (Dany's) people would have to believe it for it become relevant, and that's not all that likely to happen. Especially not in the wake of the Aegon story. I mean, two secret sons of Rhaegar? Seriously? Even the peasants and lords of Westeros are not that gullible...

And depending how Aegon's reign turns out claiming to be a son of Rhaegar or associating yourself with him may actually make Jon (or anyone) increasingly unpopular.

[The Twinslayer]

5 hours ago, UnmaskedLurker said:

The reason it could matter is how Dany and Jon interact with each other. I personally doubt both will survive to the end -- so they will not have competing claims. But Dany has used her birthright as justification for claiming her right to rule Westeros. If she learns that Jon is legitimate and under her own arguments probably has a better claim to the throne -- how does she react? If Jon is a bastard -- then no conflict for Dany to resolve -- so not as interesting. If Jon arguably is legit -- then Dany has to deal with her own justification for being ruler if Jon is ahead of her in line (by her own rationale for being ruler). So the story simply has more interesting places to go with regard to the relationship between Dany and Jon if Jon is legit.

Now I think that the marriage is a polygamous marriage between Rhaegar and Lyanna -- so Dany might argue that the marriage was not legit. But the Targs had practiced polygamy. So again, how Dany deals with this information is what makes for interesting story telling. If Jon is unambiguously a bastard of Rhaegar and Lyanna -- then the story does not have an many places to go in terms of the interaction between Jon and Dany and Dany's inner struggles. So for that reason (as well as many others), Jon almost certainly is legit (or at least arguably legit, given a polygamous marriage).

GRRM is not that interested in the niceties of legal arguments for who is the "rightful ruler" -- but rather the inner struggles within an individual. And Jon as legit (or arguably legit) leads to much more room to explore those questions than Jon as bastard.

I don't see Jon's status as bastard or trueborn troubling Dany at all.  When Aerys died, Viserys was his heir before Rhaegar's children.  When Viserys died, Dany was his heir.  So Dany need not worry about whether another (secret) son of Rhaegar might have a better claim than her -- in her mind, no son of Rhaegar can possibly have a better claim than her.

The more interesting problem arises if Jon is indisputably a bastard at birth but Robb Stark issued a royal decree legitimizing him.  Does that make him legitimate as a Stark but not as a Targaryen?  Does it mean he is only legitimate if the North is an independent kingdom?  Would that mean that he can claim the throne of the King in the North but not the Iron Throne? Would he be willing to defer to Dany's claim to the Iron Throne in exchange for her agreeing to legitimize him as Rhaegar's son, in a political compromise that would mean he is only legitimate as long as she is recognized as the undisputed queen?  

Or would he try to claim that Robb's decree legitimizes him on both sides and gives him a claim to the Iron Throne?

Otherwise, it is hard to see what purpose any such decree from Robb would serve.  

[Lord Varys]

10 hours ago, The Twinslayer said:

I don't see Jon's status as bastard or trueborn troubling Dany at all.  When Aerys died, Viserys was his heir before Rhaegar's children.  When Viserys died, Dany was his heir.  So Dany need not worry about whether another (secret) son of Rhaegar might have a better claim than her -- in her mind, no son of Rhaegar can possibly have a better claim than her.

I guess there will be a moment in the books when the prospect of Aegon being truly her nephew and Rhaegar's is going to trouble her greatly. She would realize that if he is who he says he is he would have the better claim.

But she will deal with that, and should it ever come to Jon challenging her claim in any way he could at best be a weak echo of Aegon. Jon doesn't have the Targaryen looks, lacks a Targaryen name and the support of the Targaryen loyalists, and he does not follow the Seven. Even if Jon learned today that he was Rhaegar's trueborn son he wouldn't have the time or the opportunity to unite a huge chunk of the Realm behind him and use that that support to challenge Daenerys.

And if Daenerys established her power in Westeros before that revelation came out he would basically be little more than a rebel if he tried to challenge her claim. If you wear a crown and sit a throne you are the monarch, never mind the strength of your claim. Anyone challenging you would have to rise in rebellion against you since there the monarch's claim to his throne is not exactly a matter that is open to debate.

That is Aegon's advantage - he'll take the Iron Throne in Dany's absence, making her the Queen Who Came Too Late, but Jon is not going to be able to do anything of that sort. How could he?

10 hours ago, The Twinslayer said:

The more interesting problem arises if Jon is indisputably a bastard at birth but Robb Stark issued a royal decree legitimizing him.  Does that make him legitimate as a Stark but not as a Targaryen?  

Sure, if Jon's last will included a legitimization decree (which we don't know at this point) it would have legitimized 'Jon Snow, the natural son of Lord Eddard Stark and an unknown woman' as Jon Stark. Robb would never issue a sort of blank legitimization decree legitimizing Jon as the member of whatever noble/royal family he might be a part of. That idea is ridiculous. Robb wanted to make Jon his heir, and that means he would have wanted him to be a Stark.

10 hours ago, The Twinslayer said:

Does it mean he is only legitimate if the North is an independent kingdom?  

Most likely, since only kings can legitimize bastards. That would mean such a legitimization decree would be considered valid only in Robb's domains or, to be more precise, only by the people who still consider the Starks their kings. Those lords and people of Westeros who see Robb as a false king and traitor wouldn't accept any such legitimization decree nor Robb's last will itself.

10 hours ago, The Twinslayer said:

Would that mean that he can claim the throne of the King in the North but not the Iron Throne?

Most certainly - if he ends up claiming Robb's crown as Robb's half-brother and legitimized chosen heir then he cannot lay claim to the Iron Throne as Rhaegar's trueborn son by Lyanna. In fact, the public revelation of his true parentage should deal his kingship a huge blow, especially if there are any trueborn (male) children of Lord Eddard Stark are still around.

You can only have one identity. Now, there is a possibility that Jon learns the truth about his parentage precisely in a moment when he is plot-wise also in a position to claim the Iron Throne - then he could essentially drop the Stark robes and immediately take up the Targaryen robes, switching crowns in a moment - but that would be a very convenient and exceedingly unlikely plot development.

10 hours ago, The Twinslayer said:

Would he be willing to defer to Dany's claim to the Iron Throne in exchange for her agreeing to legitimize him as Rhaegar's son, in a political compromise that would mean he is only legitimate as long as she is recognized as the undisputed queen?

That is the most likely scenario, I think, if there is no Dany-Jon romance. Daenerys (or Aegon, if it came out much earlier) has to accept or confirm Jon's status as Rhaegar's son and a Targaryen prince (or legitimize him if he was born a bastard) since there is simply no one - especially not among her following - that would buy this story if she doesn't buy it.

And if Daenerys already wears a crown and sits the Iron Throne by the time she learns the truth about Jon then she will be in the stronger position, most likely not being willing to put Jon in a position where he could become a danger to him. To join House Targaryen and her court he would have to give up his claim to the Iron Throne - at least insofar as it is considered stronger than hers.

Now, if there were already in love or even married by that point it would not matter - it isn't a matter of the subjects of the Iron Throne who wears the pants in the royal marriage. We see that Dany is willing to give Hizdahr a lot of leeway and grant him a lot of power in ADwD. She could do the same with Jon.

10 hours ago, The Twinslayer said:

Or would he try to claim that Robb's decree legitimizes him on both sides and gives him a claim to the Iron Throne?

That would be somewhat schizophrenic and would most likely go against the written letter of Robb's last will.

10 hours ago, The Twinslayer said:

Otherwise, it is hard to see what purpose any such decree from Robb would serve.  

Well, I've thought about that. People make a fuzz about that, wondering what its purpose is, etc. but what if that's just a little realistic plot element there. Robb was riding off to war again, believed his siblings were all dead aside from Sansa whom he did not want to inherit while he had no children of his own. It is entirely realistic in this setting that he would name an alternative heir.

But the point of that last will could just as well be to confuse things even more instead of making them more simple down the road. Since, you know, Brandon and Rickon are still alive and have much stronger claims to Winterfell regardless whether Jon Snow is now Jon Stark or not. The point of that will could be to create potential for conflict in the North and for Jon, personally, when he learns about his true parentage. If he is finally Jon Stark that should be more than enough incentive to suppress any revelation that he is not, in fact, Eddard Stark's son, right?

[Juliet Burke]

On 23.08.2017 at 5:00 PM, Lord Varys said:

Since, you know, Brandon and Rickon are still alive and have much stronger claims to Winterfell regardless whether Jon Snow is now Jon Stark or not. The point of that will could be to create potential for conflict in the North and for Jon, personally, when he learns about his true parentage. If he is finally Jon Stark that should be more than enough incentive to suppress any revelation that he is not, in fact, Eddard Stark's son, right?

 

Why did you write about Jon Stark? 

[Lord Varys]

1 hour ago, Juliet Burke said:

Why did you write about Jon Stark? 

Because Jon Snow would be Jon Stark if Robb's last will had legitimized him.

[SFDanny]

On 8/22/2017 at 7:42 PM, The Twinslayer said:

I don't see Jon's status as bastard or trueborn troubling Dany at all.  When Aerys died, Viserys was his heir before Rhaegar's children.  When Viserys died, Dany was his heir.  So Dany need not worry about whether another (secret) son of Rhaegar might have a better claim than her -- in her mind, no son of Rhaegar can possibly have a better claim than her.

I see it as simpler than that. Dany will be more interested in who her dragons accept, than the legal questions of inheritance. If Jon, or Aegon, or someone else is accepted as a rider, then she won't give a damn about legitimate or illegitimate. She needs family, and family she trusts.

From a legal point of view, I agree Dany's claim is better than Jon or Aegon's because of Viserys, Aerys's named heir, has named her his heir. Although that was done without knowledge of any other family being alive, Viserys still has the right to name his heir. Does Aegon try to push his claim over hers without dragons to support him? It will be interesting to find out. I don't see Jon doing so.

[Lord Varys]

15 minutes ago, SFDanny said:

I see it as simpler than that. Dany will be more interested in who her dragons accept, than the legal questions of inheritance. If Jon, or Aegon, or someone else is accepted as a rider, then she won't give a damn about legitimate or illegitimate. She needs family, and family she trusts.

I'd agree that's likely to happen in relation to the dragonriders that are created in Slaver's Bay. Dany is looking for those two other dragon heads and she seems to believe that those two will be male she is supposed to be able to trust completely. Now, if the first riders of Rhaegal and Viserion turn out to be men like Tyrion, Victarion, or Brown Ben Plumm then Dany is most likely in for a (partial) bad surprise insofar as loyalty and trust are concerned. It is not unlikely that she is going to betrayed by all or at least some of those men.

Jon Snow is not going to claim some virgin dragon who has never been ridden before. If nobody claims Viserion and Rhaegal they will either be killed or remain in their lairs in Meereen. They have no reason to go anywhere. That means, that they are likely going to be brought to Westeros by those dragonriders. And if they fail or betray Daenerys then she will most certainly not just suddenly trust Jon Snow because he can claim one of those dragons, too.

She might also not believe his rather ridiculous story if he knows about his true parentage by then and rather prefer he is some Blackfyre descendant, too, or descended from some other bastard of Aegon IV.

Being a dragonrider does not make you a Targaryen prince of bastard - Hugh, Ulf, and Nettles are more than ample proof of that. And Brown Ben Plumm will remain a Plumm and is not going to be made a Targaryen, never mind that he actually pretty much is a Targaryen since the Plumms themselves are a pure-blooded, unofficial cadet branch of House Targaryen, founded by Aegon IV and Elaena Targaryen.

If Dany didn't want to buy Jon's story him claiming one of her dragons is not going to change that. And I very much doubt it will help him to convince her, especially if some of her other dragonriders already disappointed or betrayed her at that point in the story. For all we know she might see other dragonriders as potential rivals and threats just as Rhaenyra did later during her short reign.

15 minutes ago, SFDanny said:

From a legal point of view, I agree Dany's claim is better than Jon or Aegon's because of Viserys, Aerys's named heir, has named her his heir. Although that was done without knowledge of any other family being alive, Viserys still has the right to name his heir. Does Aegon try to push his claim over hers without dragons to support him? It will be interesting to find out. I don't see Jon doing so.

Aegon is likely going to do everything in his power to claim one of Dany's dragons. But, sure, he won't care about her claim since the common view in Westeros still is that males come before females in the succession. You can make a case that Aerys II disinherited Rhaegar's line by choosing Viserys III, and Viserys III then, in turn, chose Daenerys - but who in Westeros is going to care about the wishes of the Mad King and the Beggar King? They are all long dead.

The consensus seems to be that Aegon has the better claim - that's what Tyrion tells Aegon in ADwD and nobody has any issues with that.

If Dany and Aegon were to put forth their competing claims at the same time Dany most likely would win anyway, due to the fact that she has dragons and a confirmed Targaryen ancestry - while Aegon has neither. However, as things stand people are most likely going to prefer a Targaryen prince who may be fake to an absent Targaryen queen any day - especially in the situation the Realm is in right now.

And once Aegon is on the Iron Throne he won't let go of it, never mind whether he has dragons or not. He'll come up with a way to kill them if he can't ride one of them.

[Lady Darry]

On 8/23/2017 at 3:13 AM, Lord Varys said:

Aerys II named Viserys his heir after the death of Rhaegar. He disinherited/passed over Aegon and Rhaenys in favor of Viserys already.

Show spoiler (Eastwatch episode)

 

So when I was reading this for the first time in TWOIAF, I thought that Aerys disinherited Aegon because he thought Lewyn betrayed Rhaegar. But then the Eastwatch happened and we were told that in show universe, Rhaegar annulled his wedding to Elia. And if that is also a book thing it would explain this TWOIAF quote and presence of KG at the Tower of Joy. It would also explain why Aerys wanted to keep Elia as a hostage. Because after annulment Dornish wouldn't have any reason to side with Targs. 

But then that had to be a very secret annulment, which is historically unrealistic.  Because if it did happen it was a secret, since apparently no one knows about it.  JonCon and Aegon’s supporters don’t know about it. Tywin and Kevan as well...etc. Same with everyone in books calling Aegon and Rhaenys prince and princess and Elia Rhaegar’s wife. 

But if secrecy is not an issue with annulment (or polygamy) then annulment would explain everything even more so then polygamy. From why Viserys was a new heir after Trident to why there were 3 KG with Jon and not with Aegon, Rhaenys and Elia...

So what I am wondering is, what are arguments against it? We have Targs who did polygamy and Targs who did/wanted annulment...why do we believe more in polygamy when annulment would also make sense (perhaps even more so)?

[TMIFairy]

4 hours ago, Juliet Burke said:

Why did you write about Jon Stark? 

He was legitimised thus by Robb?

Everybody considers him to be a Stark bastard and treats him accordingly?

Jon being a Targaryen bastard is not certain?

21 minutes ago, Lady Darry said:

Show spoiler (Eastwatch episode)

  Reveal hidden contents

So when I was reading this for the first time in TWOIAF, I thought that Aerys disinherited Aegon because he thought Lewyn betrayed Rhaegar. But then the Eastwatch happened and we were told that in show universe, Rhaegar annulled his wedding to Elia. And if that is also a book thing it would explain this TWOIAF quote and presence of KG at the Tower of Joy. It would also explain why Aerys wanted to keep Elia as a hostage. Because after annulment Dornish wouldn't have any reason to side with Targs. 

But then that had to be a very secret annulment, which is historically unrealistic.  Because if it did happen it was a secret, since apparently no one knows about it.  JonCon and Aegon’s supporters don’t know about it. Tywin and Kevan as well...etc. Same with everyone in books calling Aegon and Rhaenys prince and princess and Elia Rhaegar’s wife. 

But if secrecy is not an issue with annulment (or polygamy) then annulment would explain everything even more so then polygamy. From why Viserys was a new heir after Trident to why there were 3 KG with Jon and not with Aegon, Rhaenys and Elia...

So what I am wondering is, what are arguments against it? We have Targs who did polygamy and Targs who did/wanted annulment...why do we believe more in polygamy when annulment would also make sense (perhaps even more so)?

Tsk tsk - this can get you banned. Check House Rules sticky ...

[Fire Eater]

15 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I'd agree that's likely to happen in relation to the dragonriders that are created in Slaver's Bay. Dany is looking for those two other dragon heads and she seems to believe that those two will be male she is supposed to be able to trust completely. Now, if the first riders of Rhaegal and Viserion turn out to be men like Tyrion, Victarion, or Brown Ben Plumm then Dany is most likely in for a (partial) bad surprise insofar as loyalty and trust are concerned. It is not unlikely that she is going to betrayed by all or at least some of those men.

Jon Snow is not going to claim some virgin dragon who has never been ridden before. If nobody claims Viserion and Rhaegal they will either be killed or remain in their lairs in Meereen. They have no reason to go anywhere. That means, that they are likely going to be brought to Westeros by those dragonriders. And if they fail or betray Daenerys then she will most certainly not just suddenly trust Jon Snow because he can claim one of those dragons, too.

She might also not believe his rather ridiculous story if he knows about his true parentage by then and rather prefer he is some Blackfyre descendant, too, or descended from some other bastard of Aegon IV.

Being a dragonrider does not make you a Targaryen prince of bastard - Hugh, Ulf, and Nettles are more than ample proof of that. And Brown Ben Plumm will remain a Plumm and is not going to be made a Targaryen, never mind that he actually pretty much is a Targaryen since the Plumms themselves are a pure-blooded, unofficial cadet branch of House Targaryen, founded by Aegon IV and Elaena Targaryen.

If Dany didn't want to buy Jon's story him claiming one of her dragons is not going to change that. And I very much doubt it will help him to convince her, especially if some of her other dragonriders already disappointed or betrayed her at that point in the story. For all we know she might see other dragonriders as potential rivals and threats just as Rhaenyra did later during her short reign.

The only reason Jon would come to her is for aid against the Others (likely after the Wall falls). He is also LC of the NW, and has legitimate concerns.  

The problem with not believing his story is the Starks have no blood of the dragon. Howland Reed, who was at the Tower of Joy, along with Wylla would likely vouch for him. Howland Reed has no ravens at Greywater Watch, and with no means of communication to the Wall with someone he never met, it would be difficult to argue that he concocted a plan to have Jon pose as Rhaegar's son given the lack of communication. If Ashara Dayne is also there, her story would be believed given she comes from a family of Targaryen loyalists with her brother having been Rhaegar's closet friend. 

Finally, there is precedent for dragons being used as to prove identity. Addam of Hull mounted Seasmoke, and it was accepted that he was a Velaryon. If Jon mounts a dragon, he would be proving his Targaryen heritage. The Starks have no blood of the dragon, and it would be incredibly difficult to argue his mother was some Dornish servant like Wylla. Aegon IV isn't recorded as having fathered any bastards in Dorne where he only went to fight, and no Blackfyre has ever visited Dorne or the North. There is more evidence to support his story than any other alternative. Also, denying him wouldn't silence whispers. 

Also, it is more likely Oakenfist was the father of Elaena's children. I wouldn't call them pure-blooded since the Plumms likely intermarried with other noble houses. 

[Lord Varys]

1 hour ago, Fire Eater said:

The problem with not believing his story is the Starks have no blood of the dragon.

We actually don't know that since we have no information on the ancestry of most of the females that married into House Stark. We have no idea whether, say, Melantha Blackwood or Lorra Royce had some Targaryen ancestors. In addition, we have no idea whether all the Stark sons we know from the family tree are actually the seed of their legal fathers - for all we know Beron Stark could have been one of Aegon IV's bastards, fathered on Alys Karstark by the king rather than Brandon Stark.

In addition, Jon Snow is a skinchanger. Him claiming a dragon could have been explained without using the 'the blood of the dragon' narrative. Instead the bond he might establish with one of the dragons might be the same as the bond between Jon and Ghost.

But the really important point here is that Jon's mother - if we go with the official story that he is Ned's son - is unknown and could thus very well be descended from a (prominent) bastard of Aegon the Unworthy (or some other noble family which has confirmed Targaryen blood - Plumms, Penroses, Martells, Tarths, etc.).

Jon could very well become a dragonrider and still be Eddard Stark's bastard son.

1 hour ago, Fire Eater said:

Howland Reed, who was at the Tower of Joy, along with Wylla would likely vouch for him. Howland Reed has no ravens at Greywater Watch, and with no means of communication to the Wall with someone he never met, it would be difficult to argue that he concocted a plan to have Jon pose as Rhaegar's son given the lack of communication.

But it is still some sort of cock-and-bull story, not something that's easy to believe. Dany could also believe the story of Aegon's parentage because Jon Connington, Lemore, Haldon, Varys, Illyrio, etc. vouch for him. If she doesn't believe his story why should she believe Jon's? How likely is it that she is going to buy it if she doesn't have a strong personal incentive to do so - like being in love with him or being strongly urged by the people around her to believe it?

Howland Reed is a known Stark loyalist and could have some sort of agenda of his own there. He is not someone Dany and her people are likely to trust.

But even if she did - where is the proof that Jon Snow (the sixteenish boy who is the Lord Commander of the Night's Watch) actually is the child Howland and Wylla have seen at the tower of joy? They weren't with the boy the entire time, right? Rhaegar's son could have died or been given to somebody else while Eddard Stark raised his own bastard as his own bastard.

1 hour ago, Fire Eater said:

If Ashara Dayne is also there, her story would be believed given she comes from a family of Targaryen loyalists with her brother having been Rhaegar's closet friend.

Well, Ashara is at least officially dead. And Dany doesn't know her either - and even if she did the problem of the proof remains. The child at the tower of joy brought to Starfalls does not have to be Jon Snow.

1 hour ago, Fire Eater said:

Finally, there is precedent for dragons being used as to prove identity. Addam of Hull mounted Seasmoke, and it was accepted that he was a Velaryon.

No, Addam and Alyn of Hull were legitimized as Velaryons by Rhaenyra's decree because the queen was convinced by people she trusted - her son Jacaerys Velaryon and her father-in-law Corlys Velaryon - that Marilda of Hull, the mother of the boys, was speaking the truth. The fact that Addam claimed a dragon had nothing to do with his legitimization. Else whatever stories Hugh, Ulf, or Nettles may have told or not told about their own Targaryen ancestors would have led to their legitimization as well.

1 hour ago, Fire Eater said:

If Jon mounts a dragon, he would be proving his Targaryen heritage.

Definitely not. A dragonrider doesn't have to be a Targaryen. Just as Aegon claiming a dragon is not proving his ancestry - neither his Targaryen nor his Blackfyre ancestry. He could just as well have the blood of the dragon through some Lysene whore with no blood connection to the Targaryens.

1 hour ago, Fire Eater said:

The Starks have no blood of the dragon, and it would be incredibly difficult to argue his mother was some Dornish servant like Wylla. Aegon IV isn't recorded as having fathered any bastards in Dorne where he only went to fight, and no Blackfyre has ever visited Dorne or the North. There is more evidence to support his story than any other alternative. Also, denying him wouldn't silence whispers.

Dany could ignore all that. It is up to her to decide what she is going to believe publicly. Just as the Tyrells decided to publicly not believe Stannis' claims about Cersei's children while in private they were much do. 

Dany doesn't have to give an explanation as to why Jon Snow is able to claim a dragon. She could just refuse to buy the story that he is Rhaegar's son, or that he is Rhaegar's legitimate son.

1 hour ago, Fire Eater said:

Also, it is more likely Oakenfist was the father of Elaena's children. I wouldn't call them pure-blooded since the Plumms likely intermarried with other noble houses. 

No, Oakenfist was long dead when Elaena agreed to marry Ossifer Plumm. He was over a year lost at sea when she agreed to marry another man.

I daresay Brown Ben could be as pure-blooded a Targaryen ancestor as Daenerys Targaryen herself. Lord Viserys Plumm had two Targaryen parents, and Brown Ben might be his grandson or great-grandson, considering his advanced age. Mariah Martell, Dyanna Dayne, and Betha Blackwood very much diluted the Targaryen bloodline.

Brown Ben could be pretty much in the same position as Aegon and Daenerys insofar as the purity of his blood is concerned, and in an even better position than Jon Snow and Tyrion who both have another non-Targaryen parent.

[IceFire125]

R+L=J!!!!!!  

[J. Stargaryen]

How's everyone doing? Haven't been here in a while. Long month. I know I kind of abandoned that discussion about Jon's real name, but I got tired of going in circles. Just thought I'd drop in and say hi. 

Remember, don't get yourself in trouble from talking about the show. Let's keep it to the books. 

[Lady Beyond the Wall]

14 hours ago, Fire Eater said:

Finally, there is precedent for dragons being used as to prove identity.

I believe this to be how Aegon is discredited. Dany gets his army

[Ygrain]

2 hours ago, J. Stargaryen said:

How's everyone doing? Haven't been here in a while. Long month. I know I kind of abandoned that discussion about Jon's real name, but I got tired of going in circles. Just thought I'd drop in and say hi. 

Remember, don't get yourself in trouble from talking about the show. Let's keep it to the books. 

Long time no see, indeed :-)

How about starting a RLJ thread in the show section, like we used to? Only, I haven't watched the last episode yet, so it would be weird for me to start it.

[Khal Pod]

I think it's pretty well established by Nettles and others in The Princess and the Queen, as well as The Rogue Prince, that dragon riding does not prove heritage. I don't need to beat this dead horse, as Lord Varys has already made this point IMO.

In my last post I said that I didn't think Jon's legitimacy or lack thereof would matter, what I mean is that I don't think he will have any time to concern himself with the power struggle in the south, as he will have a far more important struggle on his mind. I do however believe it would matter to him as he deals with the inner struggle of who he is and his identity.

I also think it goes without saying that the dragons will be used against the Others in the Battle for the Dawn. So if Jon still lives by the time Dany joins the fight, then I think there is a chance they will have romantic relationship, potentially before any of his parentage is even revealed. And who's to say that his parentage will be revealed to anyone other than us the readers? I would personally like Jon to know who his parents are, but I certainly think it's possible that Bran is the only person who ever knows the truth. However, I only think this works if things end well for Jon. If things go poorly for Jon, and he dies with out ever knowing who he truly is, then I think it would be a waste.