Blueroses

Jon legitimacy foreshadowing ?

202 posts in this topic

6 minutes ago, ShadowKitteh said:

Either way, it's GRRM's world, and his rules. If he says they're legally married, then they are.

Of course. But so far, he has said nothing of the sort. Nor would he say it unless it makes sense by the rules of the world he has built. Polygamy was a thing that was tolerated for the Targaryens, because it was understood that making a stink about it would lead to a short stop and a sudden drop. But in recent decades (or centuries even? I'm hazy on when polygamy stopped), it was not done, even by the King.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, ShadowKitteh said:

why would she suddenly become some 20th Century Earth uneducated child who demands to play QUEEN, because that's who she's believed she is for so long?

For this very reason - but fair point regarding Rhaegar, if anything can get her to snap out of the "I am the Queen, and all must obey me" track she's currently running on repeat, it's that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Mikkel said:

Of course. But so far, he has said nothing of the sort. Nor would he say it unless it makes sense by the rules of the world he has built. Polygamy was a thing that was tolerated for the Targaryens, because it was understood that making a stink about it would lead to a short stop and a sudden drop. But in recent decades (or centuries even? I'm hazy on when polygamy stopped), it was not done, even by the King.

You're ignoring the three Kingsguard, including The Lord Commander, Gerold Hightower, who fought to the death. GRRM wrote that.

To the death. That would never have happened if Jon were a bastard.

As for polygamy, this is a fun read: AWOIAF - Polygamy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, ShadowKitteh said:

You're ignoring the three Kingsguard, including The Lord Commander, Gerold Hightower, who fought to the death. GRRM wrote that.

To the death. That would never have happened if Jon were a bastard.

As for polygamy, this is a fun read: AWOIAF - Polygamy.

I'm not ignoring them, I'm just saying that they're not a case of GRRM saying "Jon is legitimate". They are circumstantial evidence at best - really, all they are is a sign that there's something more going on than meets the eye, but that's not the same thing.

I'm not saying Jon cannot be legitimate, but there are other explanations possible so you cannot take that as Word of God that R and L were legally married, or that their marriage would be considered legitimate (the real question is: legitimate by who?).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding Jon's appearance, i.e., Jon looks like a Stark and not like a Targaryen and therefore he cannot actually be Rhaegar's son.

This is nonsense. Stop using this line of reasoning. For proof of what I'm saying, look up Baelor Breakspear in the wiki. It's entirely possible that George created this character and described his distinctively non-Targaryen appearance so that we know that not all Targaryens look like Targaryens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Mikkel said:

I'm not ignoring them, I'm just saying that they're not a case of GRRM saying "Jon is legitimate". They are circumstantial evidence at best - really, all they are is a sign that there's something more going on than meets the eye, but that's not the same thing.

I'm not saying Jon cannot be legitimate, but there are other explanations possible so you cannot take that as Word of God that R and L were legally married, or that their marriage would be considered legitimate (the real question is: legitimate by who?).

The presence of the Kingsguard doesn't necessarily mean that Rhaegar and Lyanna were married. But it does mean that Jon was legitimate - somehow. There's no other reason for the Kingsguard to be there unless they are guarding the heir or the King. You can argue that this isn't actually definitive proof and well, okay, fine. But this isn't actually the real world and the standard of proof we would use in the real world doesn't apply. This is a novel, and this is a clue that George put in there for a reason. He's telling us, loudly, that the Kingsguard were there doing their duty. What do you think that duty is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Pecan said:

But it does mean that Jon was legitimate - somehow

Off the top of my head - Maybe Rhaegar intended to make things right and solve baby Jon's bastard status when he returned from the Trident, after all he intended to do something about Aerys after the battle, too. But as we know, he ran into a warhammer-shaped problem and, well, those plans came to nothing.

13 minutes ago, Pecan said:

He's telling us, loudly, that the Kingsguard were there doing their duty. What do you think that duty is?

The Kingsguard present were following Rhaegar's orders, and it's entirely conceivable that they were there because their duty was obeying the crown prince's orders. I'm not saying this has to be the case, I'm just saying that it's going too far to consider "the Kingsguard's presence" as "canonical proof that Jon is legitimate".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours 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. 

How is Jon being the true heir/King cliche? This is a fantasy medieval story, so all cliches fit right in here. And anyway, we don't yet know if GRRM will break this cliche or not - he did seem to break his other fairytale cliche, which was Robert's rebellion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, purple-eyes said:

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.  

 

But as we see for other couples in the story, they do NOT sleep in different chambers/beds. They only sleep apart if they have problems or difficulties in between them. Having sex is a whole different matter - it can mean that some of them visit each other to have sex, instead of sleeping in one bed. Whilst others share a bed and chamber together instead, so they don't have to visit each other.

Also, the AWOAIF specificly states when a couple do and do not have sex, and if they sleep in one bed or not - e.g: Aerys/Rhaella slept apart but he visited her occasionally, and this was perhaps the same case for Aegon/Naerys. Aegon/Haelena used to sleep together in one bed and shared a chamber to have sex, but had stopped sharing either of these when she became mad. Even Robert/Cersei used to sleep together in one bed, and this wasn't always just to have sex. Ned/Cat shared one bed and one chamber, and there isn't any mention of them visiting each other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, LucyMormont said:

All we have to support this statement, is a line of Maester Yandel in TWOIAF; book that he finished during the reign of Tommen , being his sources some ancient manuscripts of another Archmaester, and for the recent events documents, letters, and hearsay of other maesters in the Citadel. His book by no means has exhausted the research, there is still  material that can bring things to light... and guess who is right now  searching in and  reading all those thousand of letters and papers.

In addition, if  Viserys was the heir, WHY Jon had 3 Kingguards with him, and Viserys none?

Because Viserys was Aerys heir.. But that doesn't mean that everyone would support his claim.. Aerys chose an heir that is different that the one the tradition would choose. Just like Viserys chose Rhaenyra over his firstborn son.. What I am trying to say is that both of them have claims.. It's just the way you want to see it.. Viserys II decision divided the half kingdom.. If Jon decide to claim the Iron Throne (he won't since the throne has zero importance now.. and he is the one who truly know that) Dany will support her claim..(anyway this is not gonna happen). There is also the thing that they first need to do.. Conquer the Iron Throne... Danerys claim to be the rightful queen because she call Robert a Userper and don't accept that Robert had the throne with the right of Conquest..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, WeKnowNothing said:

How is Jon being the true heir/King cliche?

It IS a cliche (and a whole family of loosely related tropes over on tvtropes), but that does not mean it's wrong to use it. Cliches and tropes are not inherently bad, even if labeling something a cliche often carries with it a certain level of implied criticism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dany is a noble woman who live in a medieval time world. She knows son always goes before daughter and she is very ok with it. The reason she calls herself queen is that there is no other male Targ left, not because she believes woman power. Once she knows Jon is true Targ, she will happily let him get iron throne, no matter she loves him romantically or not. This is just the way it is supposed to be. 

For example, Sansa said to Bran that he is the only true born son and he is the lord of winterfell after she saw Bran back. She is not going to say: I am elder daughter and I am a better ruler than you so I should be lady of winterfell. 

There will not be Daenerys I, unless Jon dies without male issue.  

Share this post


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

Ned/Cat shared one bed and one chamber, and there isn't any mention of them visiting each other.

 

Quote

Of all the rooms in Winterfell’s Great Keep, Catelyn’s bedchambers were the hottest. (AGOT)

 

They had separate chambers, it is definitely mentioed in the books - and they had a loving marriage. Cat's chamber was the warmest of all, and Ned always had to open the window because he was hot there. 

It might be different in the show, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, hallam said:

 

There is nothing other than Jon's looks against it and we know looks are mutable. 

 

There is. He has a direwolf, just like the other Starks. A son of Rhaegar and Elia would not have one, let alone become a strong warg, as Jon is in the books.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, purple-eyes said:

She knows son always goes before daughter and she is very ok with it

Perhaps. She did play with the thought of usurping Viserys, though obviously his particular brand of incompetence and madness made that understandable (and soon enough, irrelevant). Still, it's proof that Dany is not exactly a hardliner when it comes to the line of succession (unless she's at the top of it, obviously).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Arya Targaryen said:

There is. He has a direwolf, just like the other Starks. A son of Rhaegar and Elia would not have one, let alone become a strong warg, as Jon is in the books.

Damn... good point. That is a very sharp knife into the heart of R+E=J. 

Unfortunatley that corpse is probably going to be resurrected more that Berric. 

Share this post


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

R+E=J

I'm assuming this only came about out of some need to be contrary to "conventional wisdom" in the first place though (it's fine, but really!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Lurid Jester said:

Damn... good point. That is a very sharp knife into the heart of R+E=J. 

Unfortunatley that corpse is probably going to be resurrected more that Berric. 

How exactly did Elia gave borth to Jon when she was a prisoner in Kings Landing? I mean how do the fans of this theory explain this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Styl7 said:

How exactly did Elia gave borth to Jon when she was a prisoner in Kings Landing? I mean how do the fans of this theory explain this?

No idea. I started reading one theory but it lost me at some blood magic explanation that I, admittedly, couldn't really follow. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If/when there is solid proof that Jon is the rightful heir, how does this affect Cersei/Jaime? Will they accept it? Jaime as a Kingsguard is sworn to protect the king. He might do so but end up against Cersei.

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