Jump to content

Iron Mother

Members
  • Content count

    697
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Iron Mother


  1. 3 hours ago, MrJay said:

    I doubt it. I know little of Elia, but I doubt that any princess would 1. Step down from being future queen. 2. Jeopardize her children's claim to the throne (and their life) and 3. Allow herself and her family to deal with the shame of being set aside for another.

    Hide in plain site? The only explanation I can think of is that he went to the last place anyone would look.

    What are we talking about again?

    1) You obviously didn't even read the OP if you are saying she stepped down or jeopardized her children or allowed herself or her family [et al] shame.............................

    2) Dorne is hardly plain sight when your wife's family rules there.

    3) We are talking about my OP which you obviously didn't read.

    Why are you here?

    Could his wife of perhaps 5 years have known him enough to trust him/his vision to bear a third child when she could not give him one? 

    Did she believe it was her destiny for her and her children to die anyway? 

    Why did Lyanna name their child Aegon which was already the name of Rhaegar and Elia's son?

    Could Lyanna ALSO have trusted Rhaegar's vision that Elia and other children were doomed?

    ▲ major parts of OP extrapolate.  Come back when you've read it.

    I didn't make this thread to WETNURSE to the DragonWolf melodrama. 

     


  2. I do not know if anyone is talking about my OP here which is concerning ELIA, the wife of Rhaegar and if she was complicit.

    WHY would Rhaegar take a woman from the North (rather, why would she go with him) to hide IN DORNE?

    Does no one find this telling?  He went with her to the place neither of them is from.... and to the lands where Elia is from.  Her family did not know he was there?  SHE did not know they were there?

    That is the OP of this thread in case ppl forgot :D


  3. 6 hours ago, ShadowKitteh said:

    Please don't call me "Missy." No need to start out a post belittling someone.

    Missy is an endearing term I say to my niece over having had too much sugar and going spastic (overreacting).  I do not come here to fight.  And I also shouldn't have to explain myself but I did.  I have never insulted or belittled you.  If you took a jest wrongly, then put me to ignore.

    I dislike when people ASSume a motive when they know nothing about the intention behind it.  However, every interaction I have had with you has been kind and gentle.  I'm not asking for an apology.  Just maybe re-think the context of what you said and your reaction.

    This is a frakking chat forum.  I won't walk on eggshells in the hope someone won't have some toxic reaction to a word.  Especially when I have never acted negatively toward you.  Your post to me was far more aggressive but I took it in stride based on the idea you have not a history toward me being vengeful or mean.  Why I cannot have the same courtesy is not even something I wish to explore currently.

    If you choose to continue to battle, then I will put you to ignore instead.  It has been made clear these types of interaction are forbidden in this forum because they don't belong here.  I'm not a person to go around reporting others.  Just don't argue or choose to ignore me.

    Thanks so much.


  4. 19 minutes ago, ShadowKitteh said:

    Way to not answer any of my questions. They're not hard to answer directly, are they? Yes or No will suffice.

    Here they are again:

    woah missy.................................... slow that up :D

    Are you saying:

    That Bran wasn't told "no" by Ned? 

    That Ned didn't allow the pups after Jon said what he said? 

    That Ned has no idea who Jon is? 

    Seriously, what part do you think didn't happen?

    All true.  DO you feel like Jon perhaps made a better argument as for WHY to keep the pups?  You don't have to be royalty to change someone's mind.  If you think Ned was "obeying" the true king of Westeros, then I guess Ned would have been obeying Jon throughout all season 1 on anything Jon said.  I wonder if Jon ever said something Ned did not obey.  And if that's the case, he would have been putting Catelyn in her place for shunning Jon and being like "listen woman, you need to get onboard with this bastard thing".  But that was never the case.

    YES OR NO?

    YES?  NO?

    YES/NO?

    Y/N?

    No other answer will suffice.


  5. 4 hours ago, ShadowKitteh said:

    Why? 

    That's what happened.

    Seriously, what part are you disputing? 

    Are you saying:

    That Bran wasn't told "no" by Ned? 

    That Ned didn't allow the pups after Jon said what he said? 

    That Ned has no idea who Jon is? 

    Seriously, what part do you think didn't happen?

     

    Kytheros made the point.  Jon pointed out it was maybe an omen for the Stark family.


  6. On 8/30/2017 at 3:34 PM, ShadowKitteh said:

    Sean Bean even plays it in the Pilot (and from what I remember, the dialog is very similar to the book.) Go back and watch the puppy scene. Bran begs his father to keep them, and Ned instantly shuts him down. Then when Jon points out they were meant to have them, being the Stark sigil, and five pups for the five legit kids... Ned knows exactly who is speaking to him, the rightful heir to the Seven Kingdoms. The Great Chain of Being was very important to these people (15th Century England), in that God chose the King... the same seems to be true in GRRM's world. 

    Ned says nothing to Jon, doesn't argue, doesn't belittle, doesn't say no. It's almost as if he's been given an order (indirect as it may be), but a strong suggestion nonetheless. He immediately states the kids will bear the responsibility. 

    Ned says NO to his own son, and YES to the "bastard" (who is actually the rightful King.)

    I would say that's looking into things a little too deeply :(


  7. 17 minutes ago, falcotron said:

    The only argument people are giving for "annulment means the kids are bastards" is "that's how it was in the real world". But that's not how it was in the real world. The real world followed the rules of the Catholic church,* which makes the Catholic church relevant to explaining why those people are wrong.

    Sure, maybe the rules of Westeros are completely different, and "annulment" doesn't mean the same thing to them as it means to us. But if that's true, we can't conclude anything at all. Maybe "annulment" means that legally Rhaegar is no longer a human being and is now bound by the laws that apply to giant squid. But the obvious assumption is that "annulment" means the same thing in Westeros as it did in medieval Europe, and as it does in popular historical TV shows, and so on.

    There's just no way to conclude that the annulment made Rhaegar's first two children bastards. The only people who think that are people with an irrational hate-on for either the show or Rhaegar that makes it impossible for them to even do 3 seconds of google research because they're absolutely sure they're right that Rhaegar sucks and therefore the show makes no sense.

    ---

    * OK, parts of Europe were Orthodox, and even Muslim. If you want, I can explain their medieval rules as well, but it gets complicated (in large part because they, unlike the Catholics, didn't virtually ban divorce in the 10th century), and the result is still going to be the same.

    I like this post.  lol

    on with the bitchy quips!


  8. 5 minutes ago, SerJeremiahLouistark said:

    This begs the question, when Ned entered the Tower of Joy, and found Lyanna there, did he not realize he was in the presence of the Legitimate King?  That's why Dayne and other Kingsguard were there.  They were protecting their King.  what if Ned raised Jon as a bastard partly to give what could be the future King a different outlook than most royal and even noble children get.  I know it was mostly to protect him, but it makes me wonder if this ever crossed his mind, that he was grooming what could be the future king of the 7 kingdoms.  

    That's a very interesting thought I have not heard before. 

    It never seemed tho that Ned was doing this.... but perhaps there were other factors.  Such as Catelyn hated AeJon and Ned could never be seemingly treating him "well" in her presence.  And Ned never really tried hard to stop him from going to/wanting to go to the Wall.... which would nullify everything he was born to be (with the oath).  Ned never seemed to go out of his way to do anything different with AeJon but there could ne a number of logical reasons for it.

    I do agree with what you said tho.  I can't think of it now, there are other shows and maybe a movie(?) that do this same thing where the "chosen one" is given a "normal life" to prepare him/her reasonably for their destiny in abnormality.


  9. 4 hours ago, SerJeremiahLouistark said:

    Undead is kind of a Christian thing

    ACTUALLY if you want to get in the mud and mix it up, the "Christian thing" is actually Vampirism.

    "Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and will be saved from Death."
    - John 6:54

    And not to mention a reanimated corpse -- with the same wounds (like AeJon and Baeric) and a lot more

    hmm :huh:


  10. 2 minutes ago, SerJeremiahLouistark said:

    If they do continue with the prophecy aspect I think it will be very watered down.  

    That's putting it lightly.  It will be some Bran vision and explanation to the whole Great Hall in Winterfell in one fell swoop.

    Bran has become simply a tool of extrapolation lol

    If you need something clarified, you just go get Bran and he goes into greensight to explain it.  I wouldn't doubt if Bran in S08 will be in the vision and explaining what he sees simultaneously.  Less screen time to waste.  Less script.  Everybody believes Bran.  Win/Win.

    Question: WHY do they believe Bran anyway?  He's telling all these things no one else knows, how can it be confirmed? 


  11. 1 hour ago, Megorova said:

    I think that Dorne is out of the picture for the rest of the story, at least in a TV-show. Though in books something like this could be revealed later. If GRRM will ever explain Rhaegar's reason for annulment, it is possible that my theory (about fake marriage with Elia, and that her kids are from Oberyn) is one of possible options.

     I thought he looked similar to Viserys, but I haven't realised how exactly :D wig of Viserys :D:D:D

    Yes... lol :D if you look there are all these news stories asking if the actor from Viserys appeared in episode 7 finale.  I was dying!

    But I was saying the books have to be aside for this conversation -- the show has now totally diverged from Martin's story. 

    https://i.redd.it/kax4ssbv4q3y.png

    The actor DOES look a lot like Viserys tho.  Makes sense since they were brothers.  I think it was good casting.


  12. 1 hour ago, Megorova said:

    Unless Elia's Aegon wasn't Rhaegar's Aegon. He was Oberyn's son.

    Really?  The show never barely explore any characters from Dorne, we never saw Elia.... but you think they are going to pull THIS out at the last moment to explain the motivations of Rhaegar - a character who we also have NEVER seen before except for a 10-second murky glance through the wig of Viserys from season 1?


  13. 2 hours ago, Yukle said:

    I still don't get why Rhaegar annulled his marriage. That means it was never legally valid, so it disinherits his children to Elia.

    Aegon I married both of his sisters, so that Targs have a history of bigamy. Of course, it can lead to issues when both wives have children (like in the Dance of the Dragons) but the issue there was that it was Aerys I had the audacity to name a woman as his heir. :P

    There could be a few reasons - the one I believe to fit the overall story better is he knew his first family was going to die, therefore, he had to make sure his second bride (but especially the child) was "authentic" (through marriage) and was a legitimate heir to the throne.

    Does no one think they discussed what to name  the child?  She named him AEGON.  That means Rhaegar already had a child named Aegon and AeJon was basically a replacement for Aegon (who was or would be killed).  I really believe there was divine prophecy involved.


  14. 11 hours ago, Megorova said:

    The most obvious reason why they kept their marriage in secret, is because their parents would never agree to it.

     

    You may be right, however, I initially thought it was secret because Rhaegar had some kind of foreknowledge of the slayings to come and that the child would have to be a secret.  It would have to be kept hidden (Dorne is a great place to hide something like that) in order to protect the child.  AKA Luke Skywalker theory.  Dorne=Tatooine? :D


  15. 12 hours ago, SerJeremiahLouistark said:

    I do however feel that in the show what you said about the prophecy and Rhaegar's beliefs is waaaaay too complicated for it. They will just simply say that Rhaegar and Lyanna ran away with each because they were in love.  That's way more palatable for a television audience.

    I agree it would be... except, they have already introduced these items of annulment and marriage to the second wife and IS AeJon really a bastard (no he isn't) and so on.  So, I'm just going by what the writers have introduced.

    If they don't plan to make use of it, why is it there?  If it was just a fling for love, why are they bringing out all these little pieces of information about possible legitimacy and all that.  Didn't Bran say in plain words "he is the rightful heir to the Iron Throne" after that brief interaction with Sam?


  16. 15 hours ago, falcotron said:

    I think the whole point of revealing R+L=J to Dany and Jon is the same as in the books—the struggle will not be a war, it will be Dany's own struggle over what it means. She'll have conversations with multiple characters before she finally gets to the conclusion that she was wrong all along to think her birthright guarantees that she either will or should be Queen, but that she actually does have better reasons to take the throne after all.

    I've seen this coming for a while.  I thought Daenerys would no longer desire the throne and re-think her whole life ambitions up until this point.  I think it is symbolic it was VISERYION to turn dead.... because afterall, the "conquer Westeros" was his ambition which she took up.  Then it became all she ever knew.


  17. 7 hours ago, tugela said:

    A marriage can only be annulled if it was either not consummated or was illegal to start with. So, if Rhaegar really did do this, then there must have been something like that with his original marriage. It is possible that the real father of Elia's children was the mad king, and that is the reason he made them stay in King's Landing. Maybe Elia did not want to leave him, so she stayed even though it was clear the city would fall.

    That would be grounds for annulment. Failing that, Rhaegar as crown prince would not have been able to do this on his own accord, he would have required his father's permission otherwise it would be an act of treason. That would make the annulment and subsequent re-marrying illegal and illegitimate.

    When the marriage to Elia was annulled, her children would have become bastards. It is highly unlikely that Rhaegar would have done that to his own children (if they really were his) just to get in Lyanna's pants, given that he is portrayed as this noble character.

    The whole annulment thing just does not ring true unless Rhaegar was not the father of her two children.

    In any case, no one in Westeros is realistically going to believe some claim based just off some crazy dude's visions and a supposed transcribed diary. There are no DNA tests, no proper legal documents, no witnesses, just some ceremony held in secret that supporters and family members of the supposed king just happen to be aware of through third parties. Hardly a compelling argument and I have a hard time believing that any self respecting lord of Westeros would fall for that one.

    How do we know any of this tho ?  We don't know all these laws of westeros do we?


  18. 11 hours ago, dantares83 said:

    well, he annulled their marriage meaning the children he had with Elia are not longer legitimate. they were born without their parents being properly married. annulled means the marriage was never there. it was 'fake'. 

    They died. 

    Maybe he knew that was going to happen.

    And no one knows the "laws" of Westeros whether the children are then labeled "bastards" after annulment. 


  19. 10 hours ago, falcotron said:

    I think they simplified the story by having show!Rhaegar be just a guy who fell in love with Lyanna, and had his marriage to Elia annulled because he wanted to be married to Lyanna, not because he was going to extraordinary lengths to fulfill a prophecy.

    It could be.  With the lazy and quick writing that has been of late, they could be making this all out to be a battle in the end between AeJon and Daenerys about WHO really has the right claim to the Iron Throne.

    That would be a really vapid way to go with the show.  :(


  20. 10 minutes ago, WSmith84 said:

    You're bringing a lot of book material into this that was never mentioned in the show. There's been no mention of Rhaegar having any knowledge or interest in prophecies, or needing three heads of a dragon, so to try and understand that as his motivation (in the show) seems sketchy.

    Not really.  Because there has to be a reason Rhaegar went to the extraordinary lengths to legally stop one marriage and legally start another legally.  From this we can infer there were far greater reasons than a Springtime love affair.  And using those reasons from the book, we can make the connection.

×