Jump to content

Jon legitimacy foreshadowing ?


Blueroses

Recommended Posts

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. 

 

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.

Another poster has detailedly provided information on annulment so I would not repeat. 

As for bed thing, I feel like you are confusing "share a bed/have sex" and "live in one room with one bed". 

Rhaegar must have had sex with Elia at least twice. So this means they slept in one bed at least twice. But this does not mean they lived in one chamber. The situation is, they live in their own chambers, and Rhaegar visited his wife's chamber when he wanted to have sex. 

I do not think there is proof that Aegon II/AerysI/AeryII/Robert lived in one chamber with their wives in the first place. In fact, the fact that Aerys visited Rhaella's chamber (Aerys II did not visit Elaenor's chamber/Aegon did not visit Harrena's chamber) proved that royal couples indeed have their own chambers. When they want to have sex, they visit each other's room. If they love each other, they visit more frequently, if not, then less frequently.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, WeKnowNothing said:

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.

 

I will concede that GRRM could have determined something different for Westerosi annullments but in general, real world "civil and common law" understood children of annulled marriages to be retrospective bastards. Martin often said that Westeros was an enlarged, continental-sized "fantasy" version of medieval England.

We know that English custom in the Middle Ages deemed bastards from annulled unions, most particularly those born of royal marriages, to be illegitimate based upon the historical case studies. Unlike civil law, which granted bastards certain rights, English common law was the harshest I think in Europe: it treated them almost as persons outside the law and left their care to poorhouses. At common law bastards had no right to inherit property from their mother or father except by specific designation (e.g., in a will). Westerosi society appears to have derived its vehemence for bastardy from medieval England.

If a society is going to have (admittedly ridiculous and morally wrong) laws pertaining to illegitimacy in matters of succession, it doesn't make sense to me to declare a marriage null and void (basically saying it had never happened) but legitimizing the offspring, which makes it look as if it had been valid. Henry VIII was determined to have his children publicly proclaimed as bastards so as to remove a doubt about the status of his annulled marriages. I just don't understand that, if you get my drift, on the level of logical consistency. 

The Church didn't really have the concept to the same extent (the canon law emphasised the "good faith and intent" of the parties even though their marriage wasn't valid) because "bastardy" was a secular custom to do with inheritance and lineage as opposed to religious in origin (theologically, children do not bear the blame for the mistakes or sins of their parents) so the canon law appears to have been more lenient with children from annulled unions and perhaps ASOIF's Faith of the Seven (which GRRM said he based upon medieval Catholicism) took the same approach. But bastardy mattered a great deal in the secular and certainly royal succession laws, which did not recognise children of annulled marriages to be legitimate so far as I've been able to tell.

I will need to look into this further in terms of the ASOIF "in-universe" perspective but thank you for the information!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, WeKnowNothing said:

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.

"put aside" is a very different term from ""annul".

Queen Naerys has asked Aegon IV to allow her to join Faith after she gave him a son Daeron.

This means she asked him to "put aside" her, therefore Aegon becomes single and can freely marry other woman, but Daeron remained as heir to iron throne. Their marriage was still valid.

This is probably the similar thing Renly wanted to do with Cersei.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not very aware of mediaval English history, but doesn't annulmenr requires a legal reason ? A justification ? As far poeple have been theorizing that Sansa and Tyrion could have their marriage annuled because it was never consummated...

Is it enough reason for the crown prince to annul his marriage because his wife could not give hil any more children (sons), and one son is not enough (very ugly reason I know, but it is not the discussion here...) ? In that case, may be the annulment effect would begin after Elia was declared to be to fragile to get pregnant again ?

But I'd repeat myself once again:

21 hours ago, Blueroses said:

[... ] if the show wants/needs Jon to be trueborn, it will find a way, whatever the viewers like it or not specially if it's important for the story endgame, that D&D said they will not change...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Blueroses said:

I am not very aware of mediaval English history, but doesn't annulmenr requires a legal reason ? A justification ? As far poeple have been theorizing that Sansa and Tyrion could have their marriage annuled because it was never consummated...

Is it enough reason for the crown prince to annul his marriage because his wife could not give hil any more children (sons), and one son is not enough (very ugly reason I know, but it is not the discussion here...) ? In that case, may be the annulment effect would begin after Elia was declared to be to fragile to get pregnant again ?

But I'd repeat myself once again:

1) why does Jon has to be trueborn? How this will help?

2) King Aerys could do that because he thought the Martells betrayed the Crown and Rhaegar..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Styl7 said:

1) why does Jon has to be trueborn? How this will help?

That's why I said "IF", we don't know IF it is important or not... relevant or not... or even just for "dramatic effects".

Personnally, it won't bother me IF he is, it won't bother me IF he is not, but I don't write the show scripts, nor the books. It is only about what the show has been suggesting...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Styl7 said:

1) why does Jon has to be trueborn? How this will help?

Err... you haven't been watching the show this whole time? It's been explained since the pilot that bastards have no inheritance rights. A trueborn son, however, has a claim to inherit lands and titles from their father. If Jon is a bastard, then it doesn't really matter who his father is. If Jon is the trueborn son of Rhaegar Targaryen, however, then he's the rightful king of the Seven Kingdoms, with a stronger claim to the Iron Throne than Daenerys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Aerys named Viserys his heir and skipped Rhaegar's son, Aegon. Queen Rhaella crowned Viserys after Aerys death.

This doesn't matter because Viserys is dead and had no offspring.

Jon still comes before Dany because he's still Rhaegar's son. Aerys is dead. Just because he skipped infant Aegon, doesn't mean Jon isn't still in line. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Thor Odinson said:

Err... you haven't been watching the show this whole time? It's been explained since the pilot that bastards have no inheritance rights. A trueborn son, however, has a claim to inherit lands and titles from their father. If Jon is a bastard, then it doesn't really matter who his father is. If Jon is the trueborn son of Rhaegar Targaryen, however, then he's the rightful king of the Seven Kingdoms, with a stronger claim to the Iron Throne than Daenerys.

I have watched the show mu friend, but I have also discussed this many times.. See my post above.. I explained that both Jon's and Dany's claim are strong..

One question, have you read the books? If yes, who do you think had the best claim Rhaenyra or Aegon II?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Styl7 said:

1) why does Jon has to be trueborn? How this will help?

Because it's the entire plot of the story. There's only one person in the entire story who is both Ice and Fire, and that's Jon.

If Jon is a bastard, then half the story never happens.

  • Three Kingsguard are never at the Tower of Joy with a dying Lyanna Stark. When Rhaegar got called up to join the war, Dayne would have taken her to Starfall for safe keeping, and they would have then joined Rhaegar at the Trident. No reason to guard Lyanna Stark or anyone else carrying Rhaegar's bastard. They certainly would never have fought to the death over Rhaegar's bastard.
  • If Lyanna Stark gave birth at Starfall, she'd likely be alive, because there would have been a Maester handy.
  • If those three Kingsguard were at the Trident, Rhaegar might have killed Robert, and now be on the Iron Throne.
  • Dany would never have been married to Khal Drogo, and would never have received three petrified Dragon Eggs as a wedding gift.
  • Ned would never have lost five of his men at the Tower of Joy, even if there were Kingsguard there (doubtful), because there's no point in fighting. They'd have handed Lyanna and the baby over, and said, "nice journey."
  • Ned would never have lied to Catelyn. He could have told her the truth, then they could have told everyone else Jon was Lyanna's bastard by anyone but Rhaegar to appease Robert. Because the child was Lyanna's, he'd likely be safe, because Robert loved her, and a bastard isn't a threat to Robert. Or Ned could have said Jon was one of his bannermen's bastards and he felt obligated to take the boy in because his father saved Ned's life. 
  • Jon would have known who his mother was, and even though a bastard, Catelyn wouldn't have hated him. 
  • There would never have been a war of Five Kings, because Robert would never have been king.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Blueroses said:

I am not very aware of mediaval English history, but doesn't annulmenr requires a legal reason ? A justification ? As far poeple have been theorizing that Sansa and Tyrion could have their marriage annuled because it was never consummated...

Is it enough reason for the crown prince to annul his marriage because his wife could not give hil any more children (sons), and one son is not enough (very ugly reason I know, but it is not the discussion here...) ? In that case, may be the annulment effect would begin after Elia was declared to be to fragile to get pregnant again ?

But I'd repeat myself once again:

I agree that it looks like they just need Jon to be trueborn for whatever reason. 

In book Martin introduced polygamy for it (because he knows it is technically impossible for Rhaegar to annul his marriage) . 

In show they do not want to add polygamy so they use annulment any way. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2017. 08. 10. at 3:32 AM, hallam said:

No. Not at all. R+L = J is just a stupid theory.

*snip*

 

LOL. It"s hilarious.

Jon has the Stark look. Would be interesting, if Lyanna is not his mother.

He also has a direwolf. In the books he is a strong warg - an abiity that is only runs in First Men's blood. If Jon is R+E, he wouldn't have the blood of the First Men.

Are you a book reader? There's been a lot written about Lyanna's tomb and what might be hidden there. 

yes, but I have no idea what you might be refferring to. Jon's deams about the crypt? But Lyanna's tomb is on the upper level, and Jon has to go down deeper to reveal what is hidden there. That has nothing to do with Lyanna.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The presence of the KIngsguard at the TOJ confirms, at the very least, that they perceived baby Jon as the true heir to the throne. This was confirmed way back at the beginning of the series, in AGOT, over 20 years ago in our time. Implicitly, this requires that somehow, someway, they viewed him as legitimate and not as a bastard. 

So far as I can tell, there are only a few ways for Jon to have been legitimate at birth:

1) R and L were married following an annulment

2) R and L were married following a divorce

3) R and L were married as part of a polygamous arrangement that included Elia Martell.

4) Aerys signed a proclamation declaring Lyanna's unborn child as legitimate

5) Members of the Kingsguard agreed to help Rhaegar overthrow his father, after which Rhaegar would take over as either Regent or King. At this point, Rhaegar issues a proclamation declaring Lyanna's offspring as his legitimate and chosen heir. But for this to work, I think we would have needed more than just the Kingsguard involved. Maybe some sort of secret council of prominent nobles? 

Whatever the specific pathway to legitimacy, the one thing we know for sure is that those Kingsguard were at the Tower of Joy for a reason. GRRM put them there to communicate to the reader that Lyanna's offspring is the legitimate heir to Iron Throne. That's a fact and it's central to everything. So no, Jon is not and never has been a bastard. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Arya Targaryen said:

yes, but I have no idea what you might be refferring to. Jon's deams about the crypt? But Lyanna's tomb is on the upper level, and Jon has to go down deeper to reveal what is hidden there. That has nothing to do with Lyanna.

The theory is that there's something hidden in her tomb that shows she was actually married to Rhaegar, probably the Targaryen marriage robe. I doubt it will come into play in the show. I don't know how that squares with his dream of going deep into the crypts, to the lower levels. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ShadowKitteh said:

This doesn't matter because Viserys is dead and had no offspring.

Jon still comes before Dany because he's still Rhaegar's son. Aerys is dead. Just because he skipped infant Aegon, doesn't mean Jon isn't still in line. 

King Aerys put aside the children of Prince Rhaegar and instead make Viserys his new heir. Viserys was then crowned by his mother in Dragonstone. Later, Viserys named Daenerys Princess of Dragonstone and his heir. Daenerys claim come from King Viserys, and the decision that King Aerys made to name Viserys his heir. On the other hand Jon's claim is based on him being a trueborn son of Rhaegar, the firstborn son of Aerys. For me the question isn't exactly who has the better claim since they both have strong claims. It depends to how you want to see this. Will you respect the will of the King and take the heir he chose as the rightful king/queen(Viserys and then Daenerys), or will you stay at the Westerosi tradition that says that the children of the older son come before a second son.

This kind of thing happened in a similar way in the past. This is what caused the Dance with Dragons. The Half kingdom(Starks,Arryns, Martells, Greyjoys, Tarlys..) chose the heir that the King wanted, Rhaenyra, and the other half chose Aegon II since he was his firstborn son.

This also contributed/caused the Blackfyre rebellions. King Aerys IV (in some way)chose (gave him a sword..) his bastard son instead of his firstborn trueborn son.. That lead once again to divide the Seven Kingdoms..

As George RR Martin said

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Pecan said:

Whatever the specific pathway to legitimacy, the one thing we know for sure is that those Kingsguard were at the Tower of Joy for a reason. GRRM put them there to communicate to the reader that Lyanna's offspring is the legitimate heir to Iron Throne. That's a fact and it's central to everything. So no, Jon is not and never has been a bastard. 

 

This. 

Some people argue that  Arthur Dayne and Oswell Whent were Rhaegar's men (they both dissappeared at the time Rhaegar and Lyanna did), and they would have followed his orders no matter what Lyanna "status" was. But the presence of the Comander of the Kingsguard Gerold Hightower, who was totally Aerys' man, is the strongest indication that when Ned arrived, the three of them were there just doing their duty of guarding the king. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LucyMormont said:

This. 

Some people argue that  Arthur Dayne and Oswell Whent were Rhaegar's men (they both dissappeared at the time Rhaegar and Lyanna did), and they would have followed his orders no matter what Lyanna "status" was. But the presence of the Comander of the Kingsguard Gerold Hightower, who was totally Aerys' man, is the strongest indication that when Ned arrived, the three of them were there just doing their duty of guarding the king. 

Gerold Hightower was Aerys man.. But Aerys named Viserys his heir and skipped over the children of Rhaegar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Pecan said:

The presence of the KIngsguard at the TOJ confirms, at the very least, that they perceived baby Jon as the true heir to the throne. This was confirmed way back at the beginning of the series, in AGOT, over 20 years ago in our time. Implicitly, this requires that somehow, someway, they viewed him as legitimate and not as a bastard. 

So far as I can tell, there are only a few ways for Jon to have been legitimate at birth:

1) R and L were married following an annulment

2) R and L were married following a divorce

3) R and L were married as part of a polygamous arrangement that included Elia Martell.

4) Aerys signed a proclamation declaring Lyanna's unborn child as legitimate

5) Members of the Kingsguard agreed to help Rhaegar overthrow his father, after which Rhaegar would take over as either Regent or King. At this point, Rhaegar issues a proclamation declaring Lyanna's offspring as his legitimate and chosen heir. But for this to work, I think we would have needed more than just the Kingsguard involved. Maybe some sort of secret council of prominent nobles? 

Whatever the specific pathway to legitimacy, the one thing we know for sure is that those Kingsguard were at the Tower of Joy for a reason. GRRM put them there to communicate to the reader that Lyanna's offspring is the legitimate heir to Iron Throne. That's a fact and it's central to everything. So no, Jon is not and never has been a bastard. 

 

The only reason why GRRM (D&D too) tried this hard to make Jon Snow a trueborn is that the core prophecy said "prince that was promised". If he was born as a bastard, then this is a false prophecy. In order to achieve this, GRRM decided to introduce polygamy. D&D decided to use annulment. 

Honestly I think this is a bad writing. A poor bastard boy eventually found himself a lost prince and heir to throne? So cliche. 

I would prefer jon is son of Ashara and Ned. He should have been a true stark if Brandon and Lyanna did not behave stupidly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, purple-eyes said:

The only reason why GRRM (D&D too) tried this hard to make Jon Snow a trueborn is that the core prophecy said "prince that was promised". If he was born as a bastard, then this is a false prophecy. In order to achieve this, GRRM decided to introduce polygamy. D&D decided to use annulment. 

Honestly I think this is a bad writing. A poor bastard boy eventually found himself a lost prince and heir to throne? So cliche. 

I would prefer jon is son of Ashara and Ned. He should have been a true stark if Brandon and Lyanna did not behave stupidly. 

Actually, no, we don't know how GRRM will do it since that hasn't been revealed in the books yet. Annulment may be coming in the show, or it may have been leaked purposely as misdirection. 

But in both cases, something will be revealed. We know that for sure.

In some ways, I actually kind of agree with you with respect to George's use of the one true heir/king in hiding fantasy trope. I think a more interesting story would have Jon sort of rising on his own merits to lead the north and then becoming an ally and perhaps more to Dany, which yes, is what's happening, but we also know there's a reveal coming.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 09/08/2017 at 10:32 PM, hallam said:

There is also a character called Jon Con who drops a red herring, he has it fourth hand that the maesters told R+E that Ellia could not have another baby. That is absolutely the only evidence against R+E = J and it is no evidence at all, not least the name of the character tells us that it is a red herring.

Well, this and the fact that Jon Snow looks like a Stark. So much so that various characters comment on it, including those who have no wish to see it (i.e. Catelyn). Arya is so concerned that she might be a bastard because she looks like Jon and not her other siblings that she had to go to Jon for reassurance. Tyrion sees that Jon has more of the North in him than his siblings. Catelyn does too, which upsets her greatly. Where would the son of Rhaegar Targaryen and Elia Martell get the Stark look from?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...