Bushido Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 STILL,with Jon's dark grey,almost black eyes there is no possibility for lilac shade. I bet GRRM didn't even pay attention to this,you know how he is with eye colours... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Budj Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 I'm betting the purple shades of his eyes will be "brought out" by fire....i.e. certain lighting will show the flecks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bushido Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 You mean grey eyes mottled with purple/indigo??? Oh,one can hope,one can hope :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NedStark'sHonour Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 Hey.Been lurking briefly. I'm amazed I never noticed this theory before coming across this site but there you go, Truth be told, I think only a tiny percentage of readers actually realised this revelation.Anyway, just been playing the GoT video game, and there's an interesting quote in there.Basically, one of the characters says there are stil Targaryan heirs left, one in the east (presumaby referring to Daenarys)... and one in the north.That's got to be Jon.. surely?Interestingly the game also has quotes, and one of them from the 3-eyed crow is listed as being quoted by Brynden Rivers. Now, I know it was all but confirmed that the 3-eyed crow was ol' Brynden in the 5th book anyway but it's interesting that GRRM has come outright with it in the game.(FWIW the game links to the series completely, bar the fictional characters for the sake of the game, but even then GRRM is apparently going to make some reference to them in the later books. Either way, all the took in the game is of the 'real' world from the books.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragonfish Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 Anyway, just been playing the GoT video game, and there's an interesting quote in there.Basically, one of the characters says there are stil Targaryan heirs left, one in the east (presumaby referring to Daenarys)... and one in the north.That's got to be Jon.. surely?They were probably referring to Aemon. If we had the direct quote, it would be easier to say definitively. Even so, I can't imagine that the characters in the game would know about Jon's true parentage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
y ddraig Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 If the exact quote is Targaryen heirs, Aemon hardly fits. The line of succession has long passed him by, and his vows to his order/the Night's Watch means any claim he might have is forfeit. Very interesting quote, imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragonfish Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 If the exact quote is Targaryen heirs, Aemon hardly fits. The line of succession has long passed him by, and his vows to his order/the Night's Watch means any claim he might have is forfeit.That's just it, I don't think the exact quote refers to Targaryen heirs. That's why I asked NedStark'sHonour to provide the full quote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fizz16 Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 guys, i made an account just to ask this question. and i am so sorry if it has been discussed some other place, but i have looked around and i simply cannot find anything on it. Let's assume that Jon IS indeed Lyanna and Rhaegar's son. Wouldn't he still be a bastard since Rhaegar was married to Elia Martell at the time? I have seen everywhere that he is a "legitimate" Targaryen, but that just doesn't seem like that would TECHNICALLY be the case.again, i am sorry if this is posted elsewhere, i just couldn't find anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jem Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 guys, i made an account just to ask this question. and i am so sorry if it has been discussed some other place, but i have looked around and i simply cannot find anything on it.Let's assume that Jon IS indeed Lyanna and Rhaegar's son. Wouldn't he still be a bastard since Rhaegar was married to Elia Martell at the time? I have seen everywhere that he is a "legitimate" Targaryen, but that just doesn't seem like that would TECHNICALLY be the case.again, i am sorry if this is posted elsewhere, i just couldn't find anything.Ask yourself: why would three kingsguard be protecting Rhaegar's mistress and bastard son, while the 'apparent' heir, Viserys is left unprotected by any kingsguard.And remind yourself: Targaryens have several precedents for engaging in bigamy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaggy Rickon Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 Can't we all just accept Jon targaryen and move on? While we are at it why not make Tyrion Lannister canon as well? C'mon people. Is there still any doubt? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corbon Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 Ask yourself: why would three kingsguard be protecting Rhaegar's mistress and bastard son, while the 'apparent' heir, Viserys is left unprotected by any kingsguard.And remind yourself: Targaryens have several precedents for engaging in bigamy.Important point: Barristan has told us that the most important part of the KG vow is that at least one of the KG must be with the King at all times. They can have other assignments, but one of them must be with the king.This is why it is so very suspicious that the 3KG at the Tower of Joy make no effort for even one of their number to go to Viserys' side, even though they note that the man guarding him is a good man, but no KG, and also note that they keep their vows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
y ddraig Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 Can't we all just accept Jon targaryen and move on?Move on to what, though? The Winds of Winter? That would be nice, but it's not in our hands. Plus, there are details to talk about. Let's face it, we probably won't stop discussing this until we know for certain what colour socks Rhaegar wore at Harrenhal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmholt Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 Important point: Barristan has told us that the most important part of the KG vow is that at least one of the KG must be with the King at all times. They can have other assignments, but one of them must be with the king.This is why it is so very suspicious that the 3KG at the Tower of Joy make no effort for even one of their number to go to Viserys' side, even though they note that the man guarding him is a good man, but no KG, and also note that they keep their vows.Um, except for the scene in the KG headquarters in which all the KG are there and Jaime asks as part of the formalities who is watching the king in their stead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmholt Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 guys, i made an account just to ask this question. and i am so sorry if it has been discussed some other place, but i have looked around and i simply cannot find anything on it.Let's assume that Jon IS indeed Lyanna and Rhaegar's son. Wouldn't he still be a bastard since Rhaegar was married to Elia Martell at the time? I have seen everywhere that he is a "legitimate" Targaryen, but that just doesn't seem like that would TECHNICALLY be the case.again, i am sorry if this is posted elsewhere, i just couldn't find anything.All these arguments beg the question of whether it matters. I just dont think it does. First, Targaryens make their own rules. Second it isnt hard to legitimize a bastard. Third, see Renly's argument about how people get to be king outside rules of succession Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmholt Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 Can't we all just accept Jon targaryen and move on? While we are at it why not make Tyrion Lannister canon as well? C'mon people. Is there still any doubt?Tyrion Lannister canon? What is that if I may ask?Also, even if Jon is Targ, I wouldnt put it past GRRM to take him out of the game. Although he does seem to be setting him up for something big. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ygrain Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 Um, except for the scene in the KG headquarters in which all the KG are there and Jaime asks as part of the formalities who is watching the king in their stead.Read on, then. It is made very clear that this is an exceptional situation, just for the time when the seven need to confere together, for the shortest time possible. I believe those three at ToJ had plenty time to confer amongst themselves and should have been for Dragonstone ASAP, unless!All these arguments beg the question of whether it matters. I just dont think it does. First, Targaryens make their own rules. Second it isnt hard to legitimize a bastard. Third, see Renly's argument about how people get to be king outside rules of successionCan you prove a quote where Targaryens randomly skip the line of succession or where some other Targ than a king legitimizes a bastard? ANd where is it stated that the KG's loyalty can shift to people who are outside the line of succession?The KG play very much by a strict, almost rigid, set of codes. Viserys is the last (known) male Targaryen heir of the last Targaryen king, therefore he is king. Since he is king, at least one KG MUST be with him, there is no exception to the rule. If the KG don't comply with the rule, they are oathbreakers.... oh, wait, they claim they are KG and that they stick to their vows. You can't have it both ways, so only one statement can be true. If the honorary men like Dayne or Hightower claim they are keeping their vows, then Viserys cannot be the king. I can't see any other way that would allow keeping those conditions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corbon Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 Um, except for the scene in the KG headquarters in which all the KG are there and Jaime asks as part of the formalities who is watching the king in their stead.Which merely proves the point. The priority is that someone is with the King. They can't have their meeting until they've established that the king is actively being sufficiently protected. Having a temporary but necessary suspension, with a rigid system in pace to ensure the purpose of the rule is still being sustained, in order to conduct a short KG meeting, is a lot different from leaving a child-king without any KG for 1000s of miles.All these arguments beg the question of whether it matters. I just dont think it does. First, Targaryens make their own rules. Second it isnt hard to legitimize a bastard. Third, see Renly's argument about how people get to be king outside rules of successionFirst, wrong. The Targaryens follow their own rules. They don't just make them all up as they go. When teh rules tried to be subverted there were rebellions.Second, wrong. The evidence of the books is that only a king can legitimise a bastard, and since Jon was unlikely born before the death of Aerys or Rhaegar, it isn't possible that either of them could have legitimised him.Third - that's because Renly is ignoring the law, not following it. The KG clearly are following what they believe to be the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmholt Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 Which merely proves the point. The priority is that someone is with the King. They can't have their meeting until they've established that the king is actively being sufficiently protected. Having a temporary but necessary suspension, with a rigid system in pace to ensure the purpose of the rule is still being sustained, in order to conduct a short KG meeting, is a lot different from leaving a child-king without any KG for 1000s of miles.First, wrong. The Targaryens follow their own rules. They don't just make them all up as they go. When teh rules tried to be subverted there were rebellions.Second, wrong. The evidence of the books is that only a king can legitimise a bastard, and since Jon was unlikely born before the death of Aerys or Rhaegar, it isn't possible that either of them could have legitimised him.Third - that's because Renly is ignoring the law, not following it. The KG clearly are following what they believe to be the law.I think the KG were sent to protect Jon, the heir. It seems like I have sent a message that i am arguing with that theory, sorry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corbon Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 I think the KG were sent to protect Jon, the heir. It seems like I have sent a message that i am arguing with that theory, sorryUmm, you seemed to be arguing that it didn't matter whether he was legitimate or not?But it surely does for the KG presence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrozenFire3 Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 If we look at the actors, we can barely see any trace of Tully in Robb, Bran or Rickon either. It seems to me that some of the cast was chosen more for what they considered appropriate acting than the physical characteristics anyway.Ah, but an artist has complete control of facial structure and features he gives each character. Casting agents can't be as precise. They try to adhere to a character's physical description when they can, but other factors are taken into account. I don't envision Viserys to look like Harry Lloyd, yet he did a fantastic job portraying the scumbag. Actually the adorable little boy that plays Bran is the closest to the Stark look as described in the books.I don't think anyone believes the graphic novel to be hard evidence of Jon's parentage, just something to take note of while we ride out the next 20 years waiting for the series to be completed. :laugh:It's rather odd that they darkened Richard Madden's hair when his natural reddish color is exactly what Robb is supposed to have. I'm glad they didn't touch Bran's though, that kid has enviable lustrous locks. :agree: "Unfortunately" when you're casting actors, it's not only about how good they look or how similar to the character in the books they are... it's first and foremost about the acting. Kit doesn't look anything like the Jon I imagine in the books. He is very Stark-like in his features although the colours are all off. His hair is black and his eyes are very dark brown... but I really like the way he portrayed Jon and would change him for no one in the world ^_^ Imagine if they had cast a super good-looking model who had mixed Targ-Stark features but that person had been really bad with the acting and all... I can't even imagine that really :bang: Kit all the way :love: Plus, the casting could have been made to deceive people (non-readers) in the series too. Tricking them into thinking there was no relation at all with the Taragaryens.As for the other Starks... Bran and Rickon especially don't even look like Ned or Catelyn's sons at all if you ask me... Isaac has these amazing long, brown locks and his eyes are truly wonderful but he was supposed to have his mother's auburn hair as was Rickon. Rickon is instead blond-ish... but then again they are both quite talented to be so young so...Richard is reddish, you can see that from his beard too ;) Instead they made his hair look more mahogany but at least he has the Stark looks and his father's eyes.As for the graphic novel, it's just very interesting what the creators did under GRRM's supervision... they could freely draw and create the characters they way they had imagined them so I love Jon's eyes :D But of course it's not "real" evidence.From the scans posted here in forum, I don't they changed much Jon's appearance (except for the few shades of violet that Jon's eyes seems to have in graphic novel. I couldn't see it in the scans). The rest is almost the same as in the book, imo. He has Stark features, looks a bit like Ned but he's more body slender than Ned or Robb that are described in the books as being broad shouldered I think.Anyway, I only saw the scans, I don't have the paper version. That's my only impression :)As I said above, the way they drew Jon is simply very interesting... he's really the perfect Stark-Targaryen mixture! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.