Jon legitimacy foreshadowing ?

[xjlxking]

Without a doubt a foreshadowing

yes, it was most definitely meant for Jon

[darmody]

32 minutes ago, Thor Odinson said:

It is when it constitutes approximately one-third of your life, and everything you did in that time was in service of your one driving ambition. It's not like we're talking about a side hobby for Daenerys, here. This is her entire reason for being. She's wrapped her entire being around the notion that she's the rightful ruler of Westeros. Take away that desire and what's left of her character?

Not a damn thing.

 

Emilia Clarke has to be at least 30. I'm not up on the story timeline (and I don't think the show is, either), so I go by how the actors look. In that case, it's only 1/5 of her life, not 1/3. 

Is Book Dany only 18? That would explain a lot. 

[Pecan]

11 minutes ago, darmody said:

Emilia Clarke has to be at least 30. I'm not up on the story timeline (and I don't think the show is, either), so I go by how the actors look. In that case, it's only 1/5 of her life, not 1/3. 

Is Book Dany only 18? That would explain a lot. 

I could be wrong, but I don't think the show ever explicitly said how old she was in season 1, but in the books I believe she's 14 when she marries Drogo. For obvious reasons, that's not something that HBO would want front and center. For what it's worth, the character in the show is probably no younger than 23 at this point. To me, that seems like a reasonable assumption. 

[Thor Odinson]

23 minutes ago, darmody said:

Emilia Clarke has to be at least 30. I'm not up on the story timeline (and I don't think the show is, either), so I go by how the actors look. In that case, it's only 1/5 of her life, not 1/3. 

Is Book Dany only 18? That would explain a lot. 

Again, is it anything other than the one driving force in her life to which she's committed years of her life to? You're trying to claim that because it's a certain number of years, it's not as important. What's the exact cut off at which point it goes from all consuming obsession to just a phase?

[Thor Odinson]

29 minutes ago, darmody said:

Emilia Clarke has to be at least 30. I'm not up on the story timeline (and I don't think the show is, either), so I go by how the actors look. In that case, it's only 1/5 of her life, not 1/3. 

Is Book Dany only 18? That would explain a lot. 

And according to the wiki, she's 22.

[purple-eyes]

1 hour ago, Thor Odinson said:

And according to the wiki, she's 22.

the actress herself? she was born in 1986. 

or you are talking about Dany in show. 

[purple-eyes]

4 hours ago, Blueroses said:

I have never really understand how this point will be explained. May be it is different, somehow, to be legally married versus sleeping around with wowen, high and low born and fathering bastards. Ned had once a thought that he doesn't think Rhaegar had the habits to visit brothels.

Furthermore, it is said that, during the sack of King's Landing, Rhaenys was dragged from beneath her father's bed. Not her parents's bed. I always wondred what does that mean ? Is it the mediaval langage to refer to the "bed" as the hasband's only ? Or does it mean that, at some point, Rhaegar and Elia were not sharing bed anymore ?

This has been discussed before: 

1. history tells us generally royal couple have their own chambers and offices and meeting rooms, etc. it is actually quite rare to see they share one room/bed. 

2. Elia and Rhaegar's home is on DragonStone. Elia and children do not live in RK (They were only kept as hostage here after Rhaegar died). But obviously Rhaegar might need to keep his chambers in RK as crown prince who has to work in the court. 

 

 

 

 

[Wildling Queen]

3 hours ago, Pecan said:

I could be wrong, but I don't think the show ever explicitly said how old she was in season 1, but in the books I believe she's 14 when she marries Drogo. For obvious reasons, that's not something that HBO would want front and center. For what it's worth, the character in the show is probably no younger than 23 at this point. To me, that seems like a reasonable assumption. 

It's actually a violation of standards and practices to depict a character on television under the age of 16 having sex with an adult, regardless of the actress/actor's age. And Emilia Clarke is 30 years old.  

[Styl7]

Guys if Viserys was alive who do you think you have the best claim Viserys or Jon??

[JRRStark]

27 minutes ago, Styl7 said:

Guys if Viserys was alive who do you think you have the best claim Viserys or Jon??

Jon is the heir because Rheagar was Areys heir. Viserys was the younger son. He and Dany would be Jon's Uncle ands Aunt. If we take the principle that the heir goes with the eldest son (or eldest child). This assumes Jon was legit. Which if it is revealed soon it will be interesting to see if Dany bends the knee as she was so keen for Jon to do as she perceives herself to be the rightful heir.

[Styl7]

3 minutes ago, JRRStark said:

Jon is the heir because Rheagar was Areys heir. Viserys was the younger son. He and Dany would be Jon's Uncle ands Aunt. If we take the principle that the heir goes with the eldest son (or eldest child). This assumes Jon was legit. Which if it is revealed soon it will be interesting to see if Dany bends the knee as she was so keen for Jon to do as she perceives herself to be the rightful heir.

Ok, if Aegon was alive who would have the better claim between Jon Aegon and Viserys?

[LucyMormont]

6 minutes ago, Styl7 said:

Ok, if Aegon was alive who would have the better claim between Jon Aegon and Viserys?

If Aegon was alive, he would have the better claim as Rhaegar first male son. Second in line Jon (assuming he is legit). Third  Viserys

[Styl7]

1 minute ago, LucyMormont said:

If Aegon was alive, he would have the better claim as Rhaegar first male son. Second in line Jon (assuming he is legit). Third  Viserys

You miss one thing.. After Rhaegar's death Aerys named Viserys Lord of Dragonstone and heir of the Iron throne and had skipped over Aegon. 

[Blueroses]

1 hour ago, Styl7 said:

Guys if Viserys was alive who do you think you have the best claim Viserys or Jon??

Westerosi rules of succession says "The son of the first son comes before the second son"

21 minutes ago, Styl7 said:

You miss one thing.. After Rhaegar's death Aerys named Viserys Lord of Dragonstone and heir of the Iron throne and had skipped over Aegon. 

I may be very mistaking on this but I think we don't have a mention that says that Aerys explicitly named Viserys as his heir. Viserys is refered as Aerys heir in TWOIAF that he has been written years after the end of the war, at a time everybody knew/thought Aegon was killed in the sack... It doesn't mean that Aerys didn't want that Rhaegar "half-dornish" children to die anyway so Viserys could become the heir "after" he wins the war without having to disinherit Aegon and having the dornish and the small folk who loved Rhaegar against him.

[Styl7]

7 minutes ago, Blueroses said:

Westerosi rules of succession says "The son of the first son comes before the second son"

I may be very mistaking on this but I think we don't have a mention that says that Aerys explicitly named Viserys as his heir. Viserys is refered as Aerys heir in TWOIAF that he has been written years after the end of the war, at a time everybody knew/thought Aegon was killed in the sack... It doesn't mean that Aerys didn't want that Rhaegar "half-dornish" children to die anyway so Viserys could become the heir "after" he wins the war without having to disinherit Aegon and having the dornish and the small folk who loved Rhaegar against him.

It is referred that Aerys named Viserys his heir, and skipped Aegon. He didn't name Viserys his heir after Aegon's death.. The thing here is that Viserys claim was strong, since the king named him the heir, while Aegon's claim would be as strong since he is the firstborn son of the king's firstborn son, although Aerys skipped him.

[Krishtotter]

1 hour ago, LucyMormont said:

If Aegon was alive, he would have the better claim as Rhaegar first male son. Second in line Jon (assuming he is legit). Third  Viserys

Unless the annulment actually took place, in which case Aegon would have been deemed a bastard and removed from the line of succession, irrespective of whether he survived or not.

[WeKnowNothing]

1 hour ago, Krishtotter said:

Unless the annulment actually took place, in which case Aegon would have been deemed a bastard and removed from the line of succession, irrespective of whether he survived or not.

An annulment wouldn't have meant Aegon wasn't heir anymore. An annulment would only have dissolved his marriage with Elia, but not making his children bastards. The children would keep their spaces in sucession, only to be joined by any other children Rhaegar would have had with Lyanna. 

 

11 hours ago, purple-eyes said:

This has been discussed before: 

1. history tells us generally royal couple have their own chambers and offices and meeting rooms, etc. it is actually quite rare to see they share one room/bed. 

2. Elia and Rhaegar's home is on DragonStone. Elia and children do not live in RK (They were only kept as hostage here after Rhaegar died). But obviously Rhaegar might need to keep his chambers in RK as crown prince who has to work in the court. 

 

 

 

 

Eventhough this is what happens in history, GRRM doesn't seem to follow this in the books. All the married couples seem to sleep in one bed - Ned/Cat, Jon/Lysa, and even Robert/Cersei. Their are many others in ASOIAF history who slept in one bedroom/bed together, but it'll take ages to dig it all up from AWOIAF.

From the top of my head, the only couples who are described as not sharing a bed together/or had stopped sharing one after a while were: Aegon/Haelena, because she fell into madness so they stopped sharing a bed. Aerys/Rhaella had stopped because he fell into madness and courted other women for a long while. Aerys I and his wife, because he didn't seem to want to consummate his marriage in the first place and showed no interest in her. Aegon IV/Naerys rarely shared one because he hated her, they only had sexual relations rarely just to concieve their kids, and he had 9 other mistresses in his marriage to share his bed with.

so regarding Rhaegar/Elia, we know they must have shared a bed before the concievement of Aegon. But we also know that the Maesters told Rhaegar that Elia was barren after the birth of Aegon, and that another birth would definitely kill her. So if they decided to stop sharing a bed together, just so they can stop having sexual relations - then it's not unlikely that they followed this. 

In the red keep, it wouldn't be unusual for him to share a chamber or bed with Elia, since many other princes and kings and done so with their own wives. So the fact that Rhaenys was said to hide under 'Rhaegar's bed' and not her 'parents bed,' gives the impression that Rhaegar and Elia hadn't been sleeping together since Aegon's birth/concievement.

[Krishtotter]

1 hour ago, WeKnowNothing said:

An annulment wouldn't have meant Aegon wasn't heir anymore. An annulment would only have dissolved his marriage with Elia, but not making his children bastards. The children would keep their spaces in sucession, only to be joined by any other children Rhaegar would have had with Lyanna. 

 

Not right, unless the Westerosi understanding of annulment is a complete anomaly and virtually indistinguishable from divorce - in which case it wouldn't and shouldn't be called "annulment".

An annulment does precisely what it says on the tin: it declares that the marriage was never valid in the first place, thereby making any children born from it illegitimate bastards. The sex between the partners becomes, in retrospect, an extra or pre-marital liaison. It's as if the other party were never actually your spouse, merely a lover. A legal fiction in some or many cases, one might argue, but that's how it works. It's cruel in a society where illegitimacy was so highly frowned up and stigmatized but that's just how the cookie crumbled.

This is what happened during the Wars of the Roses when Richard IIII declared his brother's, King Edward's, marriage with Elizabeth Woodville annulled: his children with her became bastards and lost their royal titles. Richard had the marriage annulled precisely due to the fact that it would remove his nephews and nieces from the line of succession to the throne. Annulment could serve as a means to that end. At the very least, it was an unfortunate by-product for the poor children of the annulled union who went from being legitimate, true born heirs of their parents to become, legally speaking, their bastard offspring - like Jon Snow in reverse.

The exact same thing occured with Henry VIII's daughters to Catherine of Aragon and Anne Boleyn when his marriages to these women were annulled. They were declared to be bastards and lost their royal titles, claims to the throne etc. Only trueborn children of valid marriages can inherit, unless the occupant of the throne/earldom/fief says otherwise explicitly in his/her will.

An annulment is not a divorce. The medieval Church did not recognise divorce and re-marriage. Annulment was the recognition that a real marital union had never been contracted in the first place, due to some impediment that had only come to light after the exchange of weddings vows. It was the only way (and remains the only way) for a Catholic to validly re-marry, given that their doctrine holds marriage to be a perpetually binding sacrament once freely entered into.

How can you have legitimate, true born heirs from an annulled marriage which, under law, never actually existed in the first place at the time when the children were conceived? Either it was a valid marriage (in which case, no annulment and your union is for life whether you like it or not unless your society recognises divorce), or it wasn't a valid marriage (in which eventuality, you are free to re-marry and sire a true heir because you are deemed to have never been properly married).

It may be unpalatable to accept but if Rhaegar had his marriage to Elia annulled, then he automatically rendered the children he sired with her...bastards. Thus just like any other bastards, from the moment of the annulment, they were neither royals nor heirs any longer.

[Styl7]

I started the discussion with Viserys-Aegon claim because I want to conclude somewhere..

Just a few facts:

Aerys named Viserys his heir and skipped Rhaegar's son, Aegon. Queen Rhaella crowned Viserys after Aerys death. King Viserys later gave Daenerys the title "Princess of Dragonstone" a title given by the king to his heir. So Daenerys claim rest on Viserys being the heir that Aerys chose. Jon's claim require that Rhaegar married Lyanna (polygamy) but also rest on the Westerosi tradition of the firstborn son children are higher in the line of the succession and ignoring King Aerys decision about skip over Rhaegar's children.(again the Rhaegar-Lyanna marriage is a must).

So we have Daenerys claim that comes from King Viserys, and the decision of King Aerys, and Jon's claim that comes from the Westerosi tradition of him being a trueborn(if there was marriage)  son of the firstborn son and by ignoring King Aerys decision. 

(Ofc the claims means nothing if they don't have the iron throne)

Both claims are strong.. Can you recall a time when the king chose an heir other than his first son? An heir other of than the one the Westerosi tradition says? Rhaenyra and Aegon.. That was the cause of the Dance with Dragons... 

[WeKnowNothing]

1 hour ago, Krishtotter said:

 

Not right, unless the Westerosi understanding of annulment is a complete anomaly and virtually indistinguishable from divorce - in which case it wouldn't and shouldn't be called "annulment".

An annulment does precisely what it says on the tin: it declares that the marriage was never valid in the first place, thereby making any children born from it illegitimate bastards. The sex between the partners becomes, in retrospect, an extra or pre-marital liaison. It's as if the other party were never actually your spouse, merely a lover. A legal fiction in some or many cases, one might argue, but that's how it works. It's cruel in a society where illegitimacy was so highly frowned up and stigmatized but that's just how the cookie crumbled.

This is what happened during the Wars of the Roses when Richard IIII declared his brother's, King Edward's, marriage with Elizabeth Woodville annulled: his children with her became bastards and lost their royal titles. Richard had the marriage annulled precisely due to the fact that it would remove his nephews and nieces from the line of succession to the throne. Annulment could serve as a means to that end. At the very least, it was an unfortunate by-product for the poor children of the annulled union who went from being legitimate, true born heirs of their parents to become, legally speaking, their bastard offspring - like Jon Snow in reverse.

The exact same thing occured with Henry VIII's daughters to Catherine of Aragon and Anne Boleyn when his marriages to these women were annulled. They were declared to be bastards and lost their royal titles, claims to the throne etc. Only trueborn children of valid marriages can inherit, unless the occupant of the throne/earldom/fief says otherwise explicitly in his/her will.

An annulment is not a divorce. The medieval Church did not recognise divorce and re-marriage. Annulment was the recognition that a real marital union had never been contracted in the first place, due to some impediment that had only come to light after the exchange of weddings vows. It was the only way (and remains the only way) for a Catholic to validly re-marry, given that their doctrine holds marriage to be a perpetually binding sacrament once freely entered into.

How can you have legitimate, true born heirs from an annulled marriage which, under law, never actually existed in the first place at the time when the children were conceived? Either it was a valid marriage (in which case, no annulment and your union is for life whether you like it or not unless your society recognises divorce), or it wasn't a valid marriage (in which eventuality, you are free to re-marry and sire a true heir because you are deemed to have never been properly married).

It may be unpalatable to accept but if Rhaegar had his marriage to Elia annulled, then he automatically rendered the children he sired with her...bastards. Thus just like any other bastards, from the moment of the annulment, they were neither royals nor heirs any longer.

But this would only be IF GRRM has based annulment in the world of ASOIAF to real history. Which he doesn't seem to have done, as most of his customs and traditions in ASOIAF do not seem to go off real history. 

the only mention of annulment we have is of Robert and Cersei's marriage - Renly and the Tyrells were certain that he would put Cersei aside for Margeary - but the kids, unlike Cersei, do not have to be 'put aside' just because Robert annuls his marriage to their mother. The kids, particularly Joffrey and Tommen, would always remain Robert's heirs (this is if the Jaime-Cersei incest wasn't revealed) and would also remain higher up on sucession than any kids Margeary would give Robert.

so for Rhaegar and Elia's marriage, Rhaegar can declare his marriage invalid all he wants, but that wouldn't put his kids legitimacy in question at all. Aegon would just remain higher in succession than any sons Lyanna would have had with Rhaegar.