Jon Snow marries Daenerys Targareyen

[nothatso]

It remains dubious how he could achieve this, all things considered. Between Roose supporters, Stannis, the stabbing, the oathbreaking, the undead-ness, the northern support for Rickon, the probable entrance of Sansa in the game, the knowledge Bran is alive, the war having depleted the current resources and foremost his own reluctance to assume any title especially when his sibling are indeed alive (he did state that Winterfell was Sansa's, unequivoqually), he's not likely to garner that much support, even with a paper shield. We know what paper shields do: they don't really work.

He's not even a Targaryen, so far. The rest is pure speculation, not only for the readers, but even more for the characters. Dany has the dragons, lawfulness comes from their throats, blazing hot. As "Aegon" will surely notice... Since he is supposedly the actual rightful king. How to detect Aegon is fake? You don't detect that, you just burn him to a crisp when he doesn't kneel to you.

I hardly find it dubious. Jon relies on Stannis for support, if Stannis were to fail, what would he have? If you take the HotU prophecies for what the general consensus agrees for them to mean, Stannis's lie will be slain. What then, will Jon do for support? Bemused mentioned something in another thread which I thought very interesting. We didn't see what Jon and Tormund talked about for those two hours before Jon presented the letter. Bemused contended that Jon was intending to go to Winterfell because if he succeeded, the lords of the North would be indebted to him and more inclined to assist him. I'd say any similar act of endearment could lay the foundation of a support base. If the wall falls and Jon is the person defending people as they flea south, he'd similarly garner massive amounts of political capital. It's a theme with Jon's story - the deeds of the man are what make people follow him, rather than Daenerys expecting people to follow her primarily because of her claim.

As to your response to Fire Eater, there are a few ways to detect or at least raise suspicion of Aegon's legitimacy. Keep in mind Barristan fought Maelys and the Golden Company some 40 years prior to the books and surely this kid invading with the Golden Company will raise his eyebrows. Beyond that, there's always the Dragons. We don't know how much Targaryen blood is left in Aegon, so they might react to him differently. (if he's not who he claims)

Why does everyone assume that Jon would *want* to be king, anyway? After five books of putting his all into the Night's Watch, I don't see him throwing it all away. If this comes up, I think it'll mirror his choice about Winterfell.

This is an argument I've had dozens of times. Pursuing a claim does not equate to an abandonment of duty. His primary duty is to protect the realm. So if he sees taking a seat of nobility as the best way to protect the realm, why would he refuse it and let everybody die? Do you really think he's so attached to his vows that he would refuse to save the realm because he thinks taking lands would be dishonorable?

You assume Dany will rule Westeros.

Also an excellent point. The fact that Dany desires the Iron Throne more than anything may be a big red flag that she'll never obtain it, or at least not in the capacity that she envisions herself doing so.

[Errant Bard]

You assume Dany will rule Westeros.

The only assumption is that she will rule the Targaryen house, and her dragons, and that she will invade. I consider those safe bets.

[Dragons and Direwolves]

I like the interpretation of A Song Of Ice And Fire being like a dance between Dany and Jon, sexual, romantic, emotional, fraternal or not, god knows. But there is that sense of doom to both characters that binds them together and must bring them together. After reading all this I must admit that I doubt they will get married but something that involves the two of them is certainly happening. Jon, for now, is my greatest anticipation for the next book. His battle with Ramsay, the stabbing, his lineage, the Night's Watch, absolutely everything about him. I know nothing, Jon Snow.

[Dragons and Direwolves]

WRT Robb's wish to see Jon as his successor, it also emanated from the fact that he thought Bran and Rickon were dead. So half a Stark over no Stark. Particularly because Arya was considered dead and Sansa's claim was tied to that of the Lannisters. While there is undeniable brotherly love between Jon and Robb, I don't think Robb would promote Jon over Rickon and Bran, if he knew they were alive. Jon claims the North with the help of wildlings after the death of Stannis Baratheon, finds his part Targareyen lineage, claims the Iron Throne and reclaims winterfell for little brother Rickon. Sounds plausible. Sansa's repulsion turning to affection could prove pivotal, the vale could decide the battle. Roose Bolton and Ramsay Snow should die terrible, terrible deaths which they won't. Ofcourse or hero will just take their heads off in a single Stark blow.

Riddle me this, what if Jon dies?

I know, I know. But what if he does? I just simply would not even begin to start giving the thought a chance that Lord Eddard would. You never know with GRRM.

[Errant Bard]

I hardly find it dubious. Jon relies on Stannis for support, if Stannis were to fail, what would he have?

Isn't this typical circular logic? You're supporting the idea that he must have a significant power base with the idea that he must have a significant power base. It find this wholly unconvincing.

If Stannis fails, Jon has exactly what he had before: friends in the watch, friends in the wildlings, and an enemy that can force people to band together, plus a desperate need of men and power, and this is where his siblings and Dany come into play. WHy would he need to have it all for himself, when it's natural for the soon to be powers in the North to be sympathetic to his cause?

(Besides, he'll be undead, and

Stannis will probably survive

)

As to your response to Fire Eater, there are a few ways to detect or at least raise suspicion of Aegon's legitimacy. Keep in mind Barristan fought Maelys and the Golden Company some 40 years prior to the books and surely this kid invading with the Golden Company will raise his eyebrows. Beyond that, there's always the Dragons. We don't know how much Targaryen blood is left in Aegon, so they might react to him differently. (if he's not who he claims)

I'm wary of any targ-detector ability, not only because it provably didn't really work with people who actually had certifiably Targ blood in them (both in history and for quentyn) while the dragons apparently took a shine on one who probably had about zero point zero one targ blood in him, but also because, simply, dragons cannot speak. It's the same old thing, where the heroes are expected to understand animals and make the right, but utterly illogical decision to interpret a reaction in a total overblown way that one time while ignoring them the rest of the time. (I could probably do some sort of simile involving a Brain and Penny in inspector Gadget, thinking of that. Or Flipper and whoever stood on the pontoon. It always was hilarious.)

For the rest, all you're saying is that Dany should trust Barristan's hunch over Connington's testimony. Despite having lived herself under the exact same condition Aegon is supposed to have lived (one loyalist escaping and raising him away from home). That's not proof, that's just bias... which actually reinforces what I've been saying: the truth doesn't matter. After all, you are saying right here that it's ok to discard the word of witnesses like Connington, right? So how in hell would an hypothetical Howland Reed be more believable, hmm?

Again, seems to be the old trope where the heroes make totally unbelievable guesses and always end being right, without any explanation, or indeed even acting in character. It's the same train of thought that claims Sansa should love Tyrion, or Catelyn should not suspect Tyrion, in a way: after all the readers know he's mostly innocent, so why can't the wenches mind-read it? (insert appropriate "Stupid/useless/emotional X, I hate her" after that)

[nQthing]

I think Jon, dany and bran are the 3 headed dragon. But I think Jon and dany will die, while bran has a fate like bloodraven. I don't want them to die, but I think they might

[nothatso]

Isn't this typical circular logic? You're supporting the idea that he must have a significant power base by the idea that he must have a significant power base. It find this wholly unconvincing.

If Stannis fails, Jon has exactly what he had before: friends in the watch, friends in the wildlings, and an enemy that can force people to band together, plus a desperate need of men and power, and this is where his siblings and Dany come into play. WHy would he need to have it all for himself, when it's natural for the soon to be powers in the North to be sympathetic to his cause?

You can find it as unconvincing as you like, but that's clearly a major motivation for some of his decisions. It's only circular logic if you ignore the details and reasoning behind it.

Why tell Stannis how to capture the North if he didn't have a vested interest in it? Why repeatedly mull over the idea that he simply doesn't have enough men to defend the wall, while simultaneously having to deal with the ignorance of southern lords who refuse to send help, if he didn't need that support?

Why send that letter warning Stannis of the Karstark treachery if he had no reason to support Stannis?

Simply put, in his mind, he needs more resources than he currently has.

Your spoiler also relates to an event that happens in the immediate future, I was not referring to the same event, but rather the ultimate fate of the character whether that be decided there or sometime after.

I'm wary of any targ-detector ability, not only because it provably didn't really work with people who actually had certifiably Targ blood in them (both in history and for quentyn) while the dragons apparently took a shine on one who probably had about zero point zero one targ blood in him, but also because, simply, dragons cannot speak. It's the same old thing, where the heroes are expected to understand animals and make the right, but utterly illogical decision to interpret a reaction in a total overblown way that one time while ignoring them the rest of the time. (I could probably do some sort of simile involving a Brain and Penny in inspector Gadget, thinking of that. Or Flipper and whoever stood on the pontoon. It always was hilarious.)

For the rest, all you're saying is that Dany should trust Barristan's hunch over Connington's testimony. Despite having lived herself under the exact same condition Aegon is supposed to have lived (one loyalist escaping and raising him away from home). That's not proof, that's just bias... which actually reinforces what I've been saying: the truth doesn't matter. After all, you are saying right here that it's ok to discard the word of witnesses like Connington, right? So how in hell would an hypothetical Howland Reed be more believable, hmm?

I'm not saying that Dragons are a flawless "targ-detector" (though certainly the're better than nothing?) or that Barristan is infallible, but Connington didn't even know Aegon until age 5 and has no attachment to Daenerys whatsoever. Certainly she'd take the word of Barristan over somebody she's never met. Regardless, we simply don't know what kind of proof there might be in favor of R+L=J, or Aegon being legitimate or illegitimate. It seems kind of stupid to just naturally assume that whatever there is must not be significant enough for anybody to care. Proof of a claim would only be used as a foundation anyway. Ultimately support would be needed to enforce the claim, which goes back to the whole argument of how and why support could be gathered.

edit: removed, moved, and added some things

[ARYa_Nym]

They are going to fuck imo. They're meant for each other. But they need to provide Rhaegar with a legitimate grandchild or I'm going to be pissed.

On the S2 finale Dany finds what she thought she had lost after she went to the Wall.

EDIT: Dany lost a son. She needs to bear a living child. Jon specifically wished for a son and said since he joined the NW he didn't dare dream of it.

In ADWD Dany says she would have married Aegon not Viserys had he lived because they were closer in age. Jon is even closer to her age.

Dany fantasizes about a man she can't see. IMO that's Jon.

Val's hair looks silver in the moonlight. Yes Dany's hair is silver-gold but her hair has been called silver before. Val is misdirection. He considered Val as his wife but she will not be. Dany is the bride of fire.

She hears a wolf howl in the distance and feels lonely. That's because her mount to love is Ghost/Jon. They are Luthien/Huan. Dany is the most beautiful woman in the world. Luthien was the most beautiful among her people.

How do we know that Jon is even opposed to incest? When Ygritte asked him if he would fuck his sister he showed no disgust and didn't deny it. He just ignored the question. Not normal imo. He compared Ygritte to Arya and wondered what her body looked like in the same sentence. He did this twice and the second time as after he was already starting to desire Ygritte. Again not normal imo.

I can't wait until Jon gives Dany the Lord's Kiss. Only this time it can be called a Dragon's Kiss from nephew to aunt. :drool:

[Winterfellian]

I'm not sure what relevance the wildlings have. They have no monarchy or concept of marriage alliance to begin with. I also wouldn't put it past somebody like Daenerys to take advantage of the situation to force a marriage, i.e. marry to preserve her realm if Jon wants her help.

The point I was trying to make with the wildings is that they are forced to make an alliance with an eternal foe- The Night's Watch- in view of an even greater threat. This may be applicable to Jon and Dany. Even if they hate each other the strenght of a greater enemy might bring them together without resorting to a marriage.

As for the bold part, the point of a political marriage is usually to solidify your power or gain power. That is why as things are so far I don't see the need for a political marriage between them.

Jon is not seeking power or the Iron Throne. His concern is to defend ''the realms' of men'' As for Dany, she already has dragons and an unsully army, what political advantage can her marriage to Jon bring her? None I think.

Even if R+L=J is true, in the eyes of Westeros he's still a northern bastard.

Jon's assets here, at least so far, are mostly his knowledge of winter, the North and the threat the Others represent but he cannot bring her the north or a firm political base.

As for forcing Jon to marry to preserve her realm, am sorry but I really don't see it happening. Firstly because like I explained above there is no political gain from a marriaege with Jon and also Dany may have tons of faults but she wants to be a savior even if she stumbles about this. If she sees her realm is in danger I don't see her putting conditions like ''you need to marry me or else I won't help you save the realm''. The threat endangering what she perceives as her realm and her people will be enough to assure her help even if she hates Jon or considers him the son of a usurper.

[Neo]

A Jon/Dany marriage is too soppy for GRRM.

Sorry to upset all the butthurt, childish, Twilight fans, but it won't be happening.

[nothatso]

...

Winterfellian, the points you raised were more or less addressed in my other posts. If you don't find them to your satisfaction, then that's fine. Obviously the concept of a marriage with Jon being a political advantage depends on future events unfolding that would place him in a position of greater political power. I'm simply saying: its far from impossible.

It seems like people argue against Jon and Dany marrying because they don't like it. I don't like it either, but I can certainly see how GRRM could make it work.

[Winterfellian]

Snip

I think we will just have to agree to disagree :)

[Bushido]

A Jon/Dany marriage is too soppy for GRRM.

Sorry to upset all the butthurt, childish, Twilight fans, but it won't be happening.

I am not a Twilight fan,but I do find your post sad.

[SkyBry]

^{and than what? thwy can't get any children right, dany can't?}

^{no heir... hat would happen next to Westeros? yet ANOTHER war?}

[Faint]

They might very well marry and complete prophecy and all that, and Daenerys might even bear Jon's child, but I doubt they'll both be alive when the story ends.

[Errant Bard]

You can find it as unconvincing as you like, but that's clearly a major motivation for some of his decisions. It's only circular logic if you ignore the details and reasoning behind it.[...]

I feel we are talking past each other here. I know I was talking about possibilities, not about will.

But if we speak about will, to me, it's not because a character decides he wants something that he gets it. Hence why I find a a "king/<insert title> Jon" development that would warrant, let alone allow a political marriage, as I said, dubious, under the circumstance I already mentioned.

It seems kind of stupid to just naturally assume that whatever there is must not be significant enough for anybody to care.

You are (purposefully?) mischaracterising what I'm saying. I'm not saying nobody would care, I'm saying the truth is irrelevant, as there is no way to ascertain it. Most people care, often half behind one pretender and half behind another. Dany would certainly care, but that's not the same thing as believing, just as believing is not the same thing as knowing the truth.

But very well. Name one thing that can be used as significant proof, that will not have been used to prop "Aegon", that cannot be manufactured no matter what "truth" there is.

[nothatso]

But very well. Name one thing that can be used as significant proof, that will not have been used to prop "Aegon", that cannot be manufactured no matter what "truth" there is.

I don't even know why you're trying to compare the two to begin with.

I'll point to Apple Martini's thread on the ToJ. "They" found Ned holding Lyanna, which at the very least says there were multiple people who witnissed what happened there. This would mean that there are several people (assuming they're alive) that were there at or around the time that Jon was born. Who this includes might be Howland Reed, Ashara Dayne, Wylla, any other attendants to Lyanna, etc. People saw him with his mother, guarded by kingsguard, at the place built and owned by Rhaegar, during or shortly after his birth. Who can corroborate Varys' story that Aegon was switched? Somebody who didn't know the kid until he was 5 years old? No. (unless they're lying, which is certainly a possibility, yet again I don't know why you're comparing them)

Beyond that there could be plenty of unforseen twists of the story. (and pardon me while I get into crackpottery, but you asked for it) We don't know where the sword Blackfyre is. It's assumed to be with the Golden Company, and yet the last person to wield it was Maelys Blackfyre, who was slain by Barristan. Did Barristan and his men then just leave the sword on Maelys? That would seem an odd decision. Perhaps the sword was taken to Summerhall, a place that Rhaegar took great interest in, and was recovered some time after the tragedy there. Maybe the sword is in Lyanna's tomb? Again, it may be just another crackpot theory, but while the sword isn't proof, it is a symbol of the monarchy strong enough to inspire three wars in attempt to take the Iron Throne.

[Errant Bard]

I don't even know why you're trying to compare the two to begin with.

Because their situations are pretty comparable and there were discussion about people making Jon their king based on hearsay?

I'll point to Apple Martini's thread on the ToJ. "They" found Ned holding Lyanna, which at the very least says there were multiple people who witnissed what happened there. This would mean that there are several people (assuming they're alive) that were there at or around the time that Jon was born. Who this includes might be Howland Reed, Ashara Dayne, Wylla, any other attendants to Lyanna, etc. People saw him with his mother, guarded by kingsguard, at the place built and owned by Rhaegar, during or shortly after his birth. Who can corroborate Varys' story that Aegon was switched? Somebody who didn't know the kid until he was 5 years old? No. (unless they're lying, which is certainly a possibility, yet again I don't know why you're comparing them)

Seems to me you are using honest to god speculation about what did go on with Jon to prop your case. One could do the same for Varys' "switch": throw in helpers, a wetnurse or two, sailors, attendants, that would be coincidentally similarly missing from the current story.

Varys could produce such guys easily.

But as it happens, assuming whatever version of the theory is currently in fashion is true, whoever passed by saw only a baby. As it happens a lot of people also saw baby Aegon and can corroborate that a baby Aegon was born. Yet apparently Aegon is to be slain as a lie.

And of course, seeing a baby is not seeing who the father is, nor seeing any prior marriage. As the sisteron guy can attest. He saw a baby, he attributes it to a fisherwoman. Truth? Heh.

We don't know where the sword Blackfyre is. It's assumed to be with the Golden Company, and yet the last person to wield it was Maelys Blackfyre, who was slain by Barristan. Did Barristan and his men then just leave the sword on Maelys? That would seem an odd decision. Perhaps the sword was taken to Summerhall, a place that Rhaegar took great interest in, and was recovered some time after the tragedy there. Maybe the sword is in Lyanna's tomb? Again, it may be just another crackpot theory, but while the sword isn't proof, it is a symbol of the monarchy strong enough to inspire three wars in attempt to take the Iron Throne.

Maybe, but one thing is certain: symbols are used by honest people as well as by liars. This, again, supports the idea that truth is not relevant, only what people believe. Funny how it goes

[Fire Eater]

If he was, he would probably not break her marriage promise and provoke a civil war either.

Do you think Rhaegar knew that taking Lyanna would provoke a civil war? Plus, Lyanna broke her marriage promise not Rhaegar, she had a choice, go with Rhaegar or keep her marriage contract with Robert.

I don't think Jon would marry his aunt, as he raised following the faith of the Old Gods and spent time with Ygritte and the wildlings, both of which oppose incestuous marriages.

[Lyanna Stark]

They are going to fuck imo. They're meant for each other. But they need to provide Rhaegar with a legitimate grandchild or I'm going to be pissed.

Pretty much. Even if they haven't met, the foreshadowing was there ever since the HotU.

I also liked Jon's thinking that he would never like some passive maiden sitting in a tower and Dany may be many thinks, but some blushing maiden in a tower who does nothing, she's definitely not that.