Jump to content

Jon Is No Longer Stark Or Snow: Implications For Many People


Iron Mother

Recommended Posts

  • Do you actually understand why roberts rebellion happened? Lyanna "kidnapped" by Rhaegar...proven to be wrong.
  • Do you actually know why Eddard took part? Robert and Eddard grew up together as best friends, Robert loved Lyanna
  • Do you actually know what would have happened if he let Jon be a Targaryen? Robert would have ordered him killed, Eddard, by honor, would have been forced to defend his nephew.

Instead,  he lied.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Noneofyourbusiness said:

Mirri didn't kill Drogo, though. She kept him alive but brain dead, and in the process killed Dany's unborn child, who (all prophecies aside) had harmed no one. Wanting Mirri to suffer for that is entirely reasonable on Dany's part. The main reason Dany used fire, though, was to animate the dragons, not because it was more painful than beheading. She said herself, "I don't want your screams, only your life."

Drago had a minor flesh wound, had he been treated by a Dothraki healer he would have lived, she deliberately infected him.  We know the Dothraki can heal effectively because they have cripples.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, tugela said:

Marriages were presided over by Septons, not the Maesters, so this annulment is not official. In order to be official it would require the agreement of the king, otherwise Rhaegar would be committing treason and whatever he did would be invalid. There is no way the king would have agreed to something like that with a rebellion under way when he would have needed Dornish troops on his side.

I believe that Gilly said that High Septon Maynard performed the annulment and marriage. The maester only recorded what happened -- but the annulment and marriage were done by the High Septon, so presumably Aerys approved of the action (which actually is somewhat consistent with how much he hated the Dornish and thought they were betraying him). Now, in the books I think that there will not be an annulment at all -- but rather polygamy -- or bigamy, if one prefers to call it here. But apparently D&D did not want to go into the Targ/polygamy issues -- so they made Rhaegar an annuller rather than a bigamist (if my prediction about the books is correct). But in any event, I think that the show-annulment was official given that the High Septon approved it -- making the marriage to Lyanna legit (and more clearly legit than in the books, where people can challenge whether Rhaegar can have two wives).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, disgustipated said:
  • Do you actually understand why roberts rebellion happened? Lyanna "kidnapped" by Rhaegar...proven to be wrong.
  • Do you actually know why Eddard took part? Robert and Eddard grew up together as best friends, Robert loved Lyanna
  • Do you actually know what would have happened if he let Jon be a Targaryen? Robert would have ordered him killed, Eddard, by honor, would have been forced to defend his nephew.

Instead,  he lied.

1) Aerys murdering Ned's father and brother, and asking Ned's and Robert's heads, had something to do with it,  don't you think?

2) Answered in 1)

3) At the moment Ned found out that he had a Targaryen nephew, war was over and Robert was the king. After all the deaths and suffering, he would have had to begin another civil war to protect his nephew. That would have been just insane; Westeros could not afford another civil war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, UnmaskedLurker said:

I believe that Gilly said that High Septon Maynard performed the annulment and marriage. The maester only recorded what happened -- but the annulment and marriage were done by the High Septon, so presumably Aerys approved of the action (which actually is somewhat consistent with how much he hated the Dornish and thought they were betraying him). Now, in the books I think that there will not be an annulment at all -- but rather polygamy -- or bigamy, if one prefers to call it here. But apparently D&D did not want to go into the Targ/polygamy issues -- so they made Rhaegar an annuller rather than a bigamist (if my prediction about the books is correct). But in any event, I think that the show-annulment was official given that the High Septon approved it -- making the marriage to Lyanna legit (and more clearly legit than in the books, where people can challenge whether Rhaegar can have two wives).

As you say the annulment is credible, because the show portrayed it as credible. We could argue that its treason etc etc. But the show would not have said it if it was to made not true, questioned etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

34 minutes ago, disgustipated said:
  • Do you actually understand why roberts rebellion happened? Lyanna "kidnapped" by Rhaegar...proven to be wrong.
  • Do you actually know why Eddard took part? Robert and Eddard grew up together as best friends, Robert loved Lyanna
  • Do you actually know what would have happened if he let Jon be a Targaryen? Robert would have ordered him killed, Eddard, by honor, would have been forced to defend his nephew.

Instead,  he lied.

LOL 

at the time they didnt know, and still to this day.

9 minutes ago, LucyMormont said:

1) Aerys murdering Ned's father and brother, and asking Ned's and Robert's heads, had something to do with it,  don't you think?

2) Answered in 1)

3) At the moment Ned found out that he had a Targaryen nephew, war was over and Robert was the king. After all the deaths and suffering, he would have had to begin another civil war to protect his nephew. That would have been just insane; Westeros could not afford another civil war.

Thank you for kindly educating @disgustipated

56 minutes ago, disgustipated said:

Can we dispense of the notion of Ned as an honorable courageous man?  Denied his nephew his birth right as King, knowing full well albeit after the fact that Robert's Rebellion and supporting the Baratheon line even after Robert died.

Now you see how ridiculous your questions look now????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, LucyMormont said:

1) Aerys murdering Ned's father and brother, and asking Ned's and Robert's heads, had something to do with it,  don't you think?

2) Answered in 1)

3) At the moment Ned found out that he had a Targaryen nephew, war was over and Robert was the king. After all the deaths and suffering, he would have had to begin another civil war to protect his nephew. That would have been just insane; Westeros could not afford another civil war.

I will add one more issue regarding item 3) above. I think we will find out (likely on the show and almost certainly in the books) that Lyanna made Ned promise ("promise me") to raise Jon as Ned's son and not reveal Jon's true parentage. Presumably, Lyanna fears for Jon's life if the truth came out. Honoring this promise is an act of an honorable man.

11 minutes ago, Samwell_Tarly said:

As you say the annulment is credible, because the show portrayed it as credible. We could argue that its treason etc etc. But the show would not have said it if it was to made not true, questioned etc.

Presumably, the High Septon would not perform the annulment and marriage without the King's agreement. So treason is unlikely.

As I noted above, I think that the situation in the books is likely to be more complicated and interesting. If the High Septon performed the annulment and marriage with the consent of Aerys, then Jon's claim is quite strong. Dany might still have arguments, but she has always indicated a blood claim to Westeros, which becomes much weaker if Jon is unambiguously the legit son of Rhaegar. Dany could still argue that Viserys was crowned by their mother and Dany is his heir -- but under normal Targ rules, Jon's claim would be much stronger than Dany's even under that situation. There is a suggestion in WoIaF that Aerys named Viserys heir to the throne after Rhaegar's death -- but not clear that development will be part of the show -- and in Targ history attempts of the King to make such a declaration out of normal order has not generally been respected or gone well (see Dance of Dragons 1.0 -- the King's official pick of his daughter was not respected and not acknowledged historically in the official Targ line of succession). So in the show, Jon's claim is fairly obviously superior to Dany's -- based on the very criteria Dany has been using to argue that she is the rightful Queen.

What will make the situation more complicated in the books is that Rhaegar will not annul his marriage to Elia -- but will have a secret second marriage to Lyanna (at least all the available evidence suggests as much). If that ends up being how the events develop in the books, then the legitimacy of the marriage to Lyanna is open to attack. While I think the arguments in favor of the marriage are stronger (Targ history of polygamy -- Targ incest being permitted), the case is not 100% clear.The issue of Aerys naming Viserys as heir also might play into the analysis and further complicate arguments regarding the line of succession.

But the show does not seem to want to wade into these complications. The only complication the show seems to want is a complication for Dany -- that Dany believes she is the rightful heir to the Targ throne -- and by the very arguments she has made, she will be confronted with the reality that Jon is the true heir to the Targ dynasty. The potentially weaknesses in his claim that might be explored in the books do not appear to be relevant on the show.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, UnmaskedLurker said:

I will add one more issue regarding item 3) above. I think we will find out (likely on the show and almost certainly in the books) that Lyanna made Ned promise ("promise me") to raise Jon as Ned's son and not reveal Jon's true parentage. Presumably, Lyanna fears for Jon's life if the truth came out. Honoring this promise is an act of an honorable man.

Presumably, the High Septon would not perform the annulment and marriage without the King's agreement. So treason is unlikely.

Thats what I meant the show would not bring it up etc for it not to be credible or questioned. Treason was an example.

4 minutes ago, UnmaskedLurker said:

But the show does not seem to want to wade into these complications. The only complication the show seems to want is a complication for Dany -- that Dany believes she is the rightful heir to the Targ throne -- and by the very arguments she has made, she will be confronted with the reality that Jon is the true heir to the Targ dynasty. The potentially weaknesses in his claim that might be explored in the books do not appear to be relevant on the show.

There will be no complications within the show, theres no time to delve into this further. They have stated there was an annulment and re marriage. And thats as simple as that. There will be no bigamy, potential disinheritance etc. Jon's claim will be better than Daenerys. 

But to me, Jon being a the better claimant to the throne will not matter, for a boat load of reasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'Now you see how ridiculous your questions look now????'

Nope, perhaps you don't understand the repercussion of this one lie,  and how inconsistent it is with Ned's sense of honor.  Lying about John's birthright was a rationalization but nonetheless a betrayal of that honor.  It is this original sin that created this story arc.  If anything you proved my point of Ned's responsibility to protect his family's honor in response to the murder of his father and brother, that doesn't weaken my point only bolsters it.   

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, disgustipated said:

'Now you see how ridiculous your questions look now????'

Nope, perhaps you don't understand the repercussion of this one lie,  and how inconsistent it is with Ned's sense of honor.  Lying about John's birthright was a rationalization but nonetheless a betrayal of that honor.  It is this original sin that created this story arc.  If anything you proved my point of Ned's responsibility to protect his family's honor in response to the murder of his father and brother, that doesn't weaken my point only bolsters it.   

LOL

Im not going to argue any further, I dont have a clue what your on about. Youve gone from saying ned was not honourable or courageous to actually honorable. You didnt have a clue why roberts rebellion started, didnt know why Eddard took part and couldnt understand why he denied him his birthright.......

So for that reason Im out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

His lie was a failure to do the same for Jon. Right, Lyanna played no role whatsoever.  ...course maybe this is wrong ....

Abduction of Lyanna Stark

An unknown amount of time later, Lyanna Stark was seemingly abducted by Prince Rhaegar Targaryen. Her brother, Brandon Stark, was on his way to Riverrun to wed Catelyn Tully, when the news reached him. Brandon rode at once to King's Landing with his companions: Ethan Glover, Brandon's squire, Elbert Arryn, nephew to Lord Jon Arryn and the heir of the Eyrie, Kyle Royce, and Jeffory Mallister.[11]

 

Gee why was Brandon and and Lord Rikard there to begin with.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Samwell_Tarly said:

Thats what I meant the show would not bring it up etc for it not to be credible or questioned. Treason was an example.

There will be no complications within the show, theres no time to delve into this further. They have stated there was an annulment and re marriage. And thats as simple as that. There will be no bigamy, potential disinheritance etc. Jon's claim will be better than Daenerys. 

But to me, Jon being a the better claimant to the throne will not matter, for a boat load of reasons.

On the show -- yes -- no time or inclination.

My point was that in the books I think it will be a different matter -- with more time taken to explore the implications of which has the stronger claim. I agree that in the end it won't matter as the war against the Others will take precedence and I highly doubt both will survive that war. But the books allow for some intrigue and debate about the issue of who has the stronger claim. On the show, however, once the facts come out, Dany -- by her own standards -- should acknowledge Jon as the legit heir to the Targ Dynasty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, disgustipated said:

'Now you see how ridiculous your questions look now????'

Nope, perhaps you don't understand the repercussion of this one lie,  and how inconsistent it is with Ned's sense of honor.  Lying about John's birthright was a rationalization but nonetheless a betrayal of that honor.  It is this original sin that created this story arc.  If anything you proved my point of Ned's responsibility to protect his family's honor in response to the murder of his father and brother, that doesn't weaken my point only bolsters it.   

 

 

One can lie for honorable reasons.  For example, to protect an innocent baby from infanticide due to his bloodline.  And to the extent of his honor, he raised that child as his own, even to the scorn and jealousy of his wife.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, ThePukwudgie said:

Are people actually assuming both Jon and Dany will both survive long enough to rule over Westeros together . . . seriously?

One of them is sure to die (or die again).  I have my theories on who it's going to be, though it shifts periodically.  

We should start a dead pool. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

" One can lie for honorable reasons. "   That is exactly the rationalization.  Ned had the child under his protection. Instead of telling the truth of his nephew's parentage, he concealed it.  We don't know the Lyanna's request of Ned, only that she asked for Ned's promise to protect him from Robert.  Ned reasoned that if Robert knew the true parentage of Jon, Robert would order the child's death. Further, it would be Ned's responsibility to defend his nephew, which he was not willing to do. How do we know?  Because he feared the consequences and chose a path of lies and concealment. Harsh as it is, this was an act of cowardice for someone so bound by honor.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, disgustipated said:

" One can lie for honorable reasons. "   That is exactly the rationalization.  Ned had the child under his protection. Instead of telling the truth of his nephew's parentage, he concealed it.  We don't know the Lyanna's request of Ned, only that she asked for Ned's promise to protect him from Robert.  Ned reasoned that if Robert knew the true parentage of Jon, Robert would order the child's death. Further, it would be Ned's responsibility to defend his nephew, which he was not willing to do. How do we know?  Because he feared the consequences and chose a path of lies and concealment. Harsh as it is, this was an act of cowardice for someone so bound by honor.    

It's not cowardice to be glared at by your wife for 16 years for an affair you never had because you promised to protect your nephew from sure death.  There would be repercussions that extended beyond him personally if Robert found out about Show Aegon.  As has been written, honor would have dictated him to defend the child as promised, and that would have led to another war, thousands dead.  But concealing the child's identity is somehow dishonorable and cowardly?  Honor is doing the right thing for the right reasons, and I have zero doubt that Ned did the right thing for the right reasons here.

 

But by all means, the honorable and courageous thing to do would have been to lay waste to Westeros AGAIN by announcing the existence of a Targaryan in a case where no one needed to be the wiser.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, disgustipated said:

'Now you see how ridiculous your questions look now????'

Nope, perhaps you don't understand the repercussion of this one lie,  and how inconsistent it is with Ned's sense of honor.  Lying about John's birthright was a rationalization but nonetheless a betrayal of that honor.  It is this original sin that created this story arc.  If anything you proved my point of Ned's responsibility to protect his family's honor in response to the murder of his father and brother, that doesn't weaken my point only bolsters it.   

No, it was the right thing. When Jon answered Aemon "he (Ned) would do the right thing" Ned wasn't just honorable, he was the one who would do the right thing. That is one of the greatest themes here. Honor or love? Or something else? That is how we got to the fact that honor, as noble as it is, is not always the right thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...