Erkan12

Mad King is Jon's Grand Father

29 posts in this topic

What would Jon think about that ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"To get vengeance for my grandfather, Rickard Stark, I swear to the Old Gods that I will wipe out the entire line of his murderer Aerys Targ—wait, that's my other grandfather, isn't it… oh crap"

*stabs himself*

But seriously, once he learns he's a Targaryen, he knows he's heir to all those Targaryen kings, some very good, some very bad. It comes with the territory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I will not punish a son for the sins of his father."

Being a blood relative doesn't automatically make you like someone, especially if you never met the person and have no relation with them.
He can still hate his grandfather for killing his other grandfather, we don't get to chose our parents and grandparents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, MinscS2 said:

"I will not punish a son for the sins of his father."

Being a blood relative doesn't automatically make you like someone, especially if you never met the person and have no relation with them.
He can still hate his grandfather for killing his other grandfather, we don't get to chose our parents and grandparents.

Yea this.

Although more importantly he should look on the bright side and think a.) this is awesome Aegon the Conqueror is my ancestor b.) sweet can i ride Rhaegal now? and c.) this means Dany and I are 100% perfect for each other

Whats interesting about c. though is that the first known source of R + L = J made this exact point back in 97.

"4. Jon Snow's parent. It is wholely consistent that Jon Snow is the offspring of Rhaegar Targaryen and Lyanna Stark. Ned probably keep this a secret because Rober Baratheon is obsess with killing off all Targaryen, especially any offspring of Rhaegar.

5. If Jon Snow is a Targaryen, then by tradition, he is the most likely mate to Daenery, being that she is his aunt..."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and his childhood heroes were aemon the dragonknight, and the dareon the young dragon. did i spell that right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Graydon Hicks said:

and his childhood heroes were aemon the dragonknight, and the dareon the young dragon. did i spell that right?

Great point. And another Aemon Targaryen is probably one of the three people he looked up into most in his life.

By the way, it's Daeron. GRRM explained (I think at a con panel, but I can't find it in the SSM search) that he tries to put an "ae" or a "ys" into every Targaryen name; that's how he makes them feel distinctive without having to invent a Valyrian language. So, whenever you can't remember how to spell one of those Targ names, but you know there's an "a" somewhere and an "e" somewhere, try putting them together as "ae": Daeron, Daemon, Elaena, Rhaenyra, Maelor, etc. Naerys and Daenerys have one of each, Daenaera has a double, and of course Jaehaerys has the hat trick, and wins for most Targaryen name of all time until someone has a kid named Daenysaerys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/21/2017 at 8:31 AM, Graydon Hicks said:

and his childhood heroes were aemon the dragonknight, and the dareon the young dragon. did i spell that right?

And the two were cousins, like Robb and Jon were.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

how close of cousins? i dont have my world book in front of me, and given how convoluted the targaryen family tree is, im a little lost on how closely related they were? were they even alive at the same time?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Graydon Hicks said:

how close of cousins? i dont have my world book in front of me, and given how convoluted the targaryen family tree is, im a little lost on how closely related they were? were they even alive at the same time?

Aemon: born 136 AC. Daeron: Born 143 AC. Aemon was the second son of Viserys II, Daeron the first son of Aegon III. Aegon III and Viserys II were brothers. Aemon served in the Kingsguard from Aegon III to Aegon IV, where he lost his life in 178 AC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Graydon Hicks said:

how close of cousins? i dont have my world book in front of me, and given how convoluted the targaryen family tree is, im a little lost on how closely related they were? were they even alive at the same time?

First cousins. They share Rhaenyra and Daemon as grandparents; Aemon was the son of Daeron's uncle Viserys. And they were definitely alive at the same time—Aemon was about 7 years older than Daeron, and he fought for him in the Dornish Conquest, took a poisoned arrow meant for him, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it'd certainly cause political strife in the north. the north remembers, and all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 19/09/2017 at 7:14 PM, Erkan12 said:

What would Jon think about that ?

Initially, I think he'll be more distracted with the fact that he banged his aunt to get that far back. Once he starts to try and reason out his existential crisis over his identity and who he is, I expect he will be horrified by the knowledge that his maternal grandfather murdered his paternal grandfather and uncle because his parents were complete idiots.

But Jon is his own man and he's not going to stop being Jon because Bran saw a vision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Offhand, my personal headcanon was that Jon, regardless of whether R+L=J, is still a bastard. In my eyes, he's still a bastard because Rhaegar already had an heir in Aegon. It was sloppy on the writers' part to name him Aegon and Rhaegar to have made his own children with Elia bastards.

Share this post


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

Offhand, my personal headcanon was that Jon, regardless of whether R+L=J, is still a bastard. In my eyes, he's still a bastard because Rhaegar already had an heir in Aegon. It was sloppy on the writers' part to name him Aegon and Rhaegar to have made his own children with Elia bastards.

He didn't make his children with Elia bastards. Annulment doesn't do that, certainly not in real life, and from all evidence we have not in the Westeros of either the novels or the show either.

On top of that, already having an heir certainly doesn't make further marriages illegal, nor does it make children of those marriages bastards. We've seen many people in-story remarry despite having kids from a first marriage.

The fact that a small group of fans are intentionally misunderstanding what annulment means so they can find something to complain about does not mean the writers are sloppy, it means those fans are sloppy.

Actually, it's not even sloppy, it's wilfully ignorant. Linda, the first person to publicly make that mistake, went and did some research, discovered she was wrong, and corrected herself the next day, much to her credit. Anyone who's continuing to insist otherwise weeks later isn't just too sloppy to find the truth, they're intentionally refusing to accept it because it get in the way of them believing what they want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 03.10.2017 at 0:52 AM, falcotron said:

He didn't make his children with Elia bastards. Annulment doesn't do that, certainly not in real life, and from all evidence we have not in the Westeros of either the novels or the show either.

The fact that a small group of fans are intentionally misunderstanding what annulment means

http://catholicexchange.com/children-after-annulment

https://forums.catholic.com/t/status-of-children-after-annulment/96756

"The marital status of the parents does not affect the status of the children."

"A bastard is an illegitimate child of two people who are not married to each other civilly. Legitimacy has to do with civil law, not Church law. Therefore, the children of a marriage that was celebrated civilly are legitimate and always remain so, even if their parents should later divorce or if the Church later declares the marriage to be invalid (canons 1137-1140). Much of the confusion stems from the fact that many people do not understand the Church’s teaching regarding the validity of marriage, which has nothing to do with the children produced by that marriage."

But in the world of Planetos, there's only one form of marriage law, not two like in our world (civil and Church). So if Rhaegar's marriage with Ellia was annuled, it was TOTALLY nullified. Thus their children became bastards.

"When the Church finds and concludes that a marriage was not entered into validly, she is only speaking about the marriage itself, not the children that have come from the union. Children cannot be wiped out. They are a reality. We are confusing civil law with Church law when we think otherwise. A declaration of nullity or invalidity is not a Catholic divorce! It is a judgment about a particular “marriage.” Neither of the two parties are found guilty of anything. It merely decides if marriage ever really came into existence. Marriage in the eyes of the Church is not the same as marriage in the eyes of the civil law."

But in the world of Planetos civil law and church law is the same thing.

"We must realize also that even though children are without a doubt a great blessing, it is not they who make the marriage. Marriage is brought about by the man and woman. Therefore, when the tribunal conducts its investigation, it is the marriage that is judged, not the children."

According to our Church laws, even if marriage is annuled, it doesn't change status of children from that marriage. But only because, according to our Church laws, all children are blessings from God. Thus it isn't right to take away their legitimate status, even if marriage of their parents was annuled.

But even in our world there were instances when after annulment of marriage, the child from that marriage became illigitimate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_I_of_England

"In early 1533, Henry married Anne Boleyn, who was pregnant with his child, and in May Thomas Cranmer, the Archbishop of Canterbury, formally declared the marriage with Catherine void, and the marriage to Anne valid. Henry broke with the Roman Catholic Church and declared himself Supreme Head of the Church of England. Catherine was demoted to Dowager Princess of Wales (a title she would have held as the widow of Arthur), and Mary was deemed illegitimate. She was styled "The Lady Mary" rather than Princess, and her place in the line of succession was transferred to her newborn half-sister, Elizabeth, Anne's daughter. Mary's own household was dissolved; her servants (including the Countess of Salisbury) were dismissed and in December 1533 she was sent to join the household of the infant Elizabeth at Hatfield, Hertfordshire."

GRRM based Westeros on Medieval Europe, War of Roses between England and France, and other events and places from Europian history.

"In 1536, Queen Anne fell from the king's favour and was beheaded. Elizabeth, like Mary, was declared illegitimate and stripped of her succession rights. Within two weeks of Anne's execution, Henry married Jane Seymour, who urged her husband to make peace with Mary. Henry insisted that Mary recognise him as head of the Church of England, repudiate papal authority, acknowledge that the marriage between her parents was unlawful, and accept her own illegitimacy. She attempted to reconcile with him by submitting to his authority as far as "God and my conscience" permitted, but she was eventually bullied into signing a document agreeing to all of Henry's demands. Reconciled with her father, Mary resumed her place at court."

"In 1543, Henry married his sixth and last wife, Catherine Parr, who was able to bring the family closer together. Henry returned Mary and Elizabeth to the line of succession, through the Act of Succession 1544, placing them after Edward. However, both remained legally illegitimate."

 

 

Based on all of that, it isn't clear whether annulment of Rhaegar's marriage with Ellia, also made their children illigitimate, i.e. bastards. But what does become clear, is that we can't cross out this possibility, just because in our world, in current times, annulment of marriage doesn't affect status of children. Different worlds, different marriage/church/civil laws, different time eras.

Also there's one small hint in the books, that prove that Ellia's children became illigitimate -> after Rhaegar's death, Mad King Aerys declared Prince Viserys as his heir. If he knew about annulment, and that annulment made Rhaegar's children from Ellia bastards, then it's logical that Aerys made Viserys his heir, and not Aegon Martell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

33 minutes ago, Megorova said:

But in the world of Planetos, there's only one form of marriage law, not two like in our world (civil and Church). So if Rhaegar's marriage with Ellia was annuled, it was TOTALLY nullified. Thus their children became bastards.

No, that's a random guess on your part, completely unmotivated by anything.

First, French civil law and English common law agree with Catholic canon law on the consequences of annulment. This is not a matter of the church insisting that the children are legitimate while the state insists that they aren't; everyone agrees that they are.

Of course you're right that we Westerosi law differs from European law in some ways, which means we can't know that it's the same in every other instance that isn't mentioned, which means that it's not impossible that it happens to be completely the opposite here. But "it's not impossible" isn't a reason to believe in something. GRRM—or, more likely, D&D—used annulment without giving us a discourse on Westerosi annulment law because they wanted us to assume it works the same way as European annulment.

To argue that it must work differently because we aren't told otherwise is ridiculous. It would be simpler to just argue that we don't know that annulment in Westeros means the marriage is voided instead of meaning the two people involved are now legally fish rather than humans. That's exactly as well motivated, and it makes it even easier for show haters to call the scene stupid, so why not?

33 minutes ago, Megorova said:

But even in our world there were instances when after annulment of marriage, the child from that marriage became illigitimate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_I_of_England

Declaring Mary and Elizabeth illegitimate required a special decree, separate from the annulment. And even after writing that decree, and having Parliament certify it, Henry still wasn't sure whether it was legal. This is the same Henry who defied the Pope and set up his own religion, he wasn't sure whether his religion or his crown could legally declare a child of an annulled marriage illegitimate. So he spent years negotiating with both of them to get them to declare their own illegitimacy, believing that they would otherwise be his heirs if he couldn't produce a son.

33 minutes ago, Megorova said:

GRRM based Westeros on Medieval Europe, War of Roses between England and France, and other events and places from Europian history.

The War of the Roses was not a war between England and France, it was a series of succession wars between two rivals English houses claiming the Plantagenet heritance. If you don't even know the basic schoolboy facts of what you're talking about, how can you be so confident that you know the details?

33 minutes ago, Megorova said:

Also there's one small hint in the books, that prove that Ellia's children became illigitimate -> after Rhaegar's death, Mad King Aerys declared Prince Viserys as his heir. If he knew about annulment, and that annulment made Rhaegar's children from Ellia bastards, then it's logical that Aerys made Viserys his heir, and not Aegon Martell.

That makes no sense, given that Aerys did not know about the secret annulment.

But if it did make sense, it would argue against your own position. If Aegon were illegitimate, Viserys would automatically be the legal heir, and Aerys wouldn't have to declare him so. So the very fact that he did means that he thought baby Aegon was his heir.

ETA: Also, of course, there's a very good chance there is no annulment in the books, and GRRM is relying on Targaryen bigamy instead.

Edited by falcotron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

2 hours ago, falcotron said:

To argue that it must work differently because we aren't told otherwise is ridiculous.

I'm arguing that it works differently, based not only on fact that it wasn't told otherwise, but also because 1. Aerys passed in succession line Rhaegar's children from his marriage with Elia, and 2. it was specifically stated that Rhaegar annuled his marriage, and not divorced. And why is that? What could be the difference between divorce and annulment? Why Rhaegar specifically chosen to annul his marriage? Maybe because in case of divorce his children with Elia, were still considered as legal. But if their marriage was annuled, in this case their children became illegitimate.

2 hours ago, falcotron said:

The War of the Roses was not a war between England and France, it was a series of succession wars between two rivals English houses claiming the Plantagenet heritance. If you don't even know the basic schoolboy facts of what you're talking about, how can you be so confident that you know the details?

Well, sorry, actually meant to write both of them, instead wrote them as one. War of the Roses AND Hundred Years' War between England and France. GRRM used both wars as source for his inspiration.

http://www.westeros.org/Citadel/SSM/Entry/Influence_of_the_Wars_of_the_Roses

"Is it true that you based A Song of Ice and Fire off the War of Roses?

No, not really. Certainly I wanted to give my series a strong grounding in real medieval history, rather than in other fantasy novels, but I drew on a whole number of sources and periods. The Wars of the Roses, yes, but also the Hundred Years War, the Crusades, the Norman Conquest... you name it."

2 hours ago, falcotron said:

That makes no sense, given that Aerys did not know about the secret annulment.

What if he knew?

Base:

Spoiler

http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Rhaegar_Targaryen#Robert.27s_Rebellion

"Some believe that Rhaegar spent the beginning of Robert's Rebellion, also known as the War of the Usurper, with Lyanna Stark at the tower of joy in the Red Mountains of Dorne. Aerys sent Gerold Hightower, the Lord Commander of the Kingsguard, to retrieve Rhaegar. Leaving Gerold, Arthur Dayne, and Oswell Whent at the tower, Rhaegar returned to the crownlands and took command of the Targaryen army after the defeat of his friend Jon Connington in the Battle of the Bells".

http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Battle_of_the_Bells

"Prince Rhaegar Targaryen returned from the tower of joy and advised his father to seek assistance from Lord Tywin Lannister. Aerys instead trusted in Lords Qarlton Chelsted and Rossart. Having survived Stoney Sept, Robert Baratheon eventually slew Rhaegar in the Battle of the Trident and was crowned after Aerys's death in the Sack of King's Landing."

http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Battle_of_the_Trident

"When King's Landing learned of Prince Rhaegar's death, King Aerys II Targaryen sent the pregnant Queen Rhaella with Prince Viserys to Dragonstone. Aerys kept Elia Martell and her children at the Red Keep as a threat against Doran Martell, Prince of Dorne, since the Mad King thought he had been betrayed by Prince Lewyn at the Trident."

http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Viserys_Targaryen

"Viserys was only a young boy at the time of Robert's Rebellion, and Queen Rhaella sheltered him from King Aerys's madness as much as she could. When his brother Rhaegar was killed at the Battle of the Trident, Viserys was named his father's heir, passing over Rhaegar's infant son Aegon. Viserys was sent with the pregnant Rhaella to the fortified island of Dragonstone. After news of Aerys's death and the deaths of Rhaegar's children in the Sack of King's Landing reached Dragonstone, Viserys was declared king."

Rhaegar was absent for nearly a year. Wouldn't it be logical, that when he and Aerys finally met again, Aerys asked his son where he was, and why people say that he kidnapped Lyanna Stark? So Rhaegar told him everything - that he didn't kidnapped Lyanna, she went with him willingly; he annuled his marriage with Elia, and married with Lyanna. Thus either the sole fact of annulment made his children from Elia illegitimate, or upon hearing about annulment, and after Rhaegar's death, Aerys declared his son Viserys as his heir, because in his eyes, as result of that annulment, Aegon Martell became illegitimate.

Edited by Megorova

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Megorova said:

'm arguing that it works differently, based not only on fact that it wasn't told otherwise, but also because 1. Aerys passed in succession line Rhaegar's children from his marriage with Elia, and 2. it was specifically stated that Rhaegar annuled his marriage, and not divorced. And why is that? What could be the difference between divorce and annulment? Why Rhaegar specifically chosen to annul his marriage? Maybe because in case of divorce his children with Elia, were still considered as legal. But if their marriage was annuled, in this case their children became illegitimate

1. If the annulment illegitimized Aegon, and it weren't secret, Aerys wouldn't have to explicitly name Viserys his heir over Aegon, because it would be automatic. So your scenario argues against your own theory.

2. The reason D&D made it an annulment instead of a divorce is pretty obvious: There's no mention of divorce anywhere in the story, and people watching a faux-medieval show will be expecting that faux-medieval kings get annulments rather than divorces because it's a standard plot point, even if they don't understand why. They didn't do it because they wanted people to think about the differences between annulment and divorce. But, even if they did, delegitimizing the children is not one of the differences between annulment and divorce in the first place, so, again, your scenario argues against your own theory.

We've never seen any indication, in books or in show, that annulment works differently than it does in real life and in dozens of historical and fantasy shows. If D&D wanted it to work differently, they wouldn't have just assumed everyone would guess that it works differently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, falcotron said:

1. If the annulment illegitimized Aegon, and it weren't secret, Aerys wouldn't have to explicitly name Viserys his heir over Aegon, because it would be automatic. So your scenario argues against your own theory.

No, it doesn't.

Rhaegal told only to his father. And King Aerys didn't revealed this information to anyone else. Because at this point in rebellion, it didn't mattered what sort of relationship was between Rhaegar and Lyanna, either way the catastrophe already happened.

Also it wasn't benefitual to reveal to Elia's relatives about her Ex-status. Otherwise he would've lost their support, and their troops. That's why he didn't let Elia and her children to go to Dragonstone, together with his wife and Viserys. He was keeping them as hostages to ensure support of Dorne. While dornish people thought that Elia's children are heirs to Iron Throne, they supported Aerys. But if they discovered, that Elia's children were deprived of their successive rights, that would also mean that Aerys has no right to keep them with him. And thus dornish people would've also attacked Aerys, instead of aiding him against Robert. 

So if Aerys kept Rhaegar's marriage with Lyanna, as a secret, and didn't told anyone about annulment of marriage with Elia, then to make Viserys his heir, Aerys had to specifically bypass over Aegon.

1 hour ago, falcotron said:

2. The reason D&D made it an annulment instead of a divorce is pretty obvious: There's no mention of divorce anywhere in the story, and people watching a faux-medieval show will be expecting that faux-medieval kings get annulments rather than divorces because it's a standard plot point, even if they don't understand why. They didn't do it because they wanted people to think about the differences between annulment and divorce.

That's only your speculation. We don't know the reason.

1 hour ago, falcotron said:

But, even if they did, delegitimizing the children is not one of the differences between annulment and divorce in the first place, so, again, your scenario argues against your own theory.

Queens of England, Mary and Elizabeth became illegitimate, as result of annulment of marriages between their father and mothers. If GRRM used history of medieval Europe as his inspiration/source material, then it's very likely that he made Rhaegar to annul his marriage with Elia, to make his children from that marriage illegitimate, and make Jon his rightful successor, even though he wasn't his firstborn.

1 hour ago, falcotron said:

We've never seen any indication, in books or in show, that annulment works differently than it does in real life and in dozens of historical and fantasy shows. If D&D wanted it to work differently, they wouldn't have just assumed everyone would guess that it works differently.

Previously I already encountered instances, when if first marriage was annuled, firstborn child lost right of succession, and instead it passed to child from new marriage. Don't remember where exactly it was, but there was several cases in other historical fiction. I'll write them if I'll remember.

Share this post


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

Rhaegal told only to his father. And King Aerys didn't revealed this information to anyone else. Because at this point in rebellion, it didn't mattered what sort of relationship was between Rhaegar and Lyanna, either way the catastrophe already happened.

Also it wasn't benefitual to reveal to Elia's relatives about her Ex-status. Otherwise he would've lost their support, and their troops. That's why he didn't let Elia and her children to go to Dragonstone, together with his wife and Viserys. He was keeping them as hostages to ensure support of Dorne. While dornish people thought that Elia's children are heirs to Iron Throne, they supported Aerys. But if they discovered, that Elia's children were deprived of their successive rights, that would also mean that Aerys has no right to keep them with him. And thus dornish people would've also attacked Aerys, instead of aiding him against Robert. 

So if Aerys kept Rhaegar's marriage with Lyanna, as a secret, and didn't told anyone about annulment of marriage with Elia, then to make Viserys his heir, Aerys had to specifically bypass over Aegon.

Think about what you're saying here. Aerys kept the annulment secret from the Dornish so they wouldn't know their grandkids had been disinherited. And then he had to publicly disinherit their grandkids in favor of Viserys because he'd kept the annulment secret. How does that make any sense to you?

5 hours ago, Megorova said:

Queens of England, Mary and Elizabeth became illegitimate, as result of annulment of marriages between their father and mothers. If GRRM used history of medieval Europe as his inspiration/source material, then it's very likely that he made Rhaegar to annul his marriage with Elia, to make his children from that marriage illegitimate, and make Jon his rightful successor, even though he wasn't his firstborn.

If you're not even going to read anything I say in reply to this and just post it again, what's the point of me replying to it yet again?

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