Jump to content

UnmaskedLurker

Members
  • Content count

    4,653
  • Joined

  • Last visited

4 Followers

About UnmaskedLurker

  • Rank
    A former Lurker in a Mask

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    USA

Recent Profile Visitors

2,486 profile views
  1. UnmaskedLurker

    [Book Spoilers] R+L=J, A+J=T and other theories on HBO V.4

    @Jô Maltese -- Cool image of Tyrion breathing fire -- don't know that it means anything, but you know what I think about this issue, so no need to go into any detail.
  2. UnmaskedLurker

    R+L=J v.165

    @Ygrain Thanks for the "shout out" (nice to know some people still remember me around here). Always good to see you as well. Keep up the good work on this board (as I have indicated, I am a bit worn out from the same issues being raised over and over again, and so only check in occasionally -- if only book 6 would come out already).
  3. UnmaskedLurker

    R+L=J v.165

    @corbon Hope you are doing well. Been quite a while. Nice to see that you check in every once in a while as well. I don't have much to add these days, so don't come around all the time, but checking in from time to time can be enjoyable. As to your analysis, while I see some valid points from LV, I tend to lean in favor of your assessment. But I admit that so much is left open, that LV might be more right than we think he is. @Lord Varys I don't really have much to add to what I have already said, other than one point you raise again. Namely, you doubt that Starfall would have been the main source of supplies. I agree that Starfall is not that close to ToJ (maybe 100-200 miles away), but as you acknowledged, ToJ is close to the trade route between Dorne and Reach. Supplies are not needed that often -- so it would not be difficult to imagine that there was a regular place to stop off near ToJ on the way from Starfall to Reach -- one of the members of the trade group splits off for a short time to deliver supplies to ToJ and then goes back to the main group to continue on to Reach. The regular intervals between trade missions is probably about the right amount of time between needed supply runs to ToJ. ToJ needed a reliable source that minimized risk of leaks. Going into town occasionally for certain items, like bread and produce, might make sense. But general supplies -- and reliable information updates -- probably need to come from an "inside" source, like Starfall. The appearance of Wylla at ToJ is a considerable clue (IMHO). I also find it too coincidental that Starfall is just about the right distance so that it is far enough that people at Starfall who might be a problem are unlikely to know about people being at ToJ, while still close enough -- and on the trade route -- so that is can be a source of general supplies and information. Of course, in the overall analysis, whether ToJ gets supplies from Starfall or closer sources really is not important and does not really change the story in any way that should matter to readers (other details about what exactly happened between R&L are much more interesting and relevant to the overall story). I just am not sure why you keep repeating, with such assurance, that Starfall could not be the main source of supplies to ToJ.
  4. UnmaskedLurker

    R+L=J v.165

    I don't recall that particular discussion -- but it does not sound likely to me. I am more convinced by the argument that they were waiting out the war at ToJ because it seemed like a good place not to get noticed by either side and was close to Arthur's people. I suspect Rhaegar considered his time there to be the happiest for him -- thus the name.
  5. UnmaskedLurker

    R+L=J v.165

    Good point. I guess what I really mean is that if you look at your posts from the past 12 hours or so, you presented your positions as possible theories rather than firm conclusions. I suppose I was merely suggesting that such an approach (as you have taken since our exchange) seems more warranted regarding the issues raised than your approach in the prior posts I was referencing where you expressed your theories as if the evidence were more or less conclusive when you actually know that the issue is less clear than that. But I am unnecessarily quibbling -- so don't take it too seriously. Good points. You are almost certainly right that there is more important information to be told about their story. I just think the more interesting aspects will relate to how they got together than what quarrels they might have had before Rhaegar left for KL. But certainly GRRM is interested in telling the readers more about what happened between them and has been hamstrung by not wanting to be too definitive about things that need to be kept under wraps until Jon's parentage is ready to be revealed. And I had almost forgotten that Howland Reed is still alive and has not yet appeared in the story -- probably not a coincidence because he just knows too much. Throughout Westeros (other than perhaps some lingering Targ loyalists or Rhaegar acquaintances) -- the "official" story that everyone seems to tell (even the Stark children) is that Lyanna was kidnapped by Rhaegar. They might not talk about rape specifically, but almost everyone seems not to question that Rhaegar took Lyanna and kept her against her will for over a year. And while Dany states that Rhaegar loved Lyanna -- that statement can still be consistent with the notion that he was obsessed with her and kidnapped -- as everyone else seems to believe (Dany did not say that Lyanna loved him back). We already know that this "love story" ends fairly tragically, whatever other details get filled in -- no fairy tale if one dies in battle and the other dies shortly after giving birth to their son. Given that their families were fighting each other -- I think that staying out of the war does seem to have been their intent (it certainly is what they actually did until Hightower apparently convinced Rhaegar that his family and dynasty was gone if he did not raise an army to defend them). But prior to that, all evidence seems to be that Rhaegar did put his head in the sand -- we sort of know that -- he could have gone back sooner and did not -- so what else would someone call that behavior. When I say on the run from the rebels -- I mean they could not try to smuggle themselves into rebel territory for safety. They were as much or even more at risk in those areas given that Rheagar was considered their enemy. So being seen in either Targ or rebel controlled areas would be dangerous -- thus the reason to hand out in a long-abandoned tower with a small cadre and assistance, presumably, from a relatively close ally (assuming Arthur was able to get his most loyal people to help them). And where exactly is Lyanna going to want to go? And how is she going to get there? Sitting out the war -- especially if she is in love with Rhaegar -- really could have been seen by her as her only option. I don't see the logic for indicating that at some point she changed her mind and Rhaegar put guards on her to restrain her until she "came to her senses" -- maybe, but I am not convinced. She had no where to go and no way to get there even if she had a place to go. She was in the middle of Targ controlled territory -- with Winterfell thousands of miles away. Waiting out the war at ToJ really was her only realistic option, and no matter how head-strong she might have been, that seems like it would have been obvious to her. Rhaegar could not be sure he would be able to keep her safe from Aerys. You admitted above they were hiding out from Aerys. He was erratic and unstable. He just killed her father and brother and trying to kill her other brother. Whether Aerys would use Lyanna as a hostage -- just kill her -- or just imprison her (as he sort of was doing with Rhaegar's other wife and children--even if a "gilded cage"), Aerys was a danger to Lyanna. Rhaegar could not take the risk of Aerys getting hold of Lyanna, and Rhaegar and Lyanna likely saw the situation that way. As to Robert -- again, it is unclear what would have happened if she tried to return north. For one, it would make it more difficult to be with Rhaegar and he certainly could not go there with her. But if she did return, she would return having disobeyed her father -- and arguably causing his and Brandon's deaths. She had no reason to believe she could convince Ned to withdraw troops from the battle -- certainly not as long as Aerys remained king. So while her risk from the rebels may not be quite as severe as her risk from Aerys -- it certainly was a potential risk that if she were being wise, she would not want to chance it. They stayed together for quite a while after the executions and before Rheagar returns to KL. Whatever effect those events had on their relationship -- likely long resolved by the time Rhaegar leaves for KL. And given that I think we agree she was not being kept against her will for the entire time, those actions by Aerys should not really be an issue with respect to the relationship between Rhaegar and Lyanna by the time Rhaegar leaves for KL. But I think your point about Rhaegar going to "defend the madman" is the critical point you seem to be making -- that Lyanna would be upset that Rhaegar was no longer "sitting out the war" -- as they apparently had agreed to do. And here you might have a point. Maybe they squabbled over him leaving. But that does not mean she was kept against her will. As I have said before, I don't think she had anywhere to go or any way to get anywhere else. But I think your analysis really loses me in terms of your point about Rhaegar not keeping her closer to him. If he did -- she would be in more danger. Anywhere where she might be spotted and the location reported back to Aerys puts Lyanna in danger. He did not just "dump her" at ToJ -- they had been staying in hiding at ToJ. The name itself -- tower of JOY -- named by Rhaegar -- is a strong indication that their "love nest" for the past period of time was at that tower. A long-abandoned guard post close to people they could trust (assuming, again, help from the Daynes) is a good place to lay low. They had been hiding there because it was the safest place to hide -- and after Rhaegar left for KL it remained the safest place for her to hide. ToJ serves no better as a place to hold her hostage than it does a place to keep her hidden from Aerys. Here you also really lose me. Of course she is safer staying somewhere that no one else goes than to put her in some castle where there is some risk of her being recognized and reported to Aerys. While I suspect that some at Starfall would be helping (they get supplies somehow), the castle has a lot of people and not all can be trusted. Lyanna's presence -- even in disguise -- would be way too risky -- people would try to find out more about this woman showing up out of nowhere in the middle of the war. How is a message from Lyanna going to influence the war? What could she possibly tell Ned or Robert that would change the course of the war? Tell them to come rescue her? How are they going to do that -- they need to win the war first -- which they are trying to do in any event. She has no information relevant to the war that they don't have. So while I think that the KG obeying to the letter is important -- i.e., they are not going to "rat them out" to Aerys (as long as they are not directly confronted by Aerys -- a reason why all three need to stay at ToJ and cannot go back to KL until after the war) -- it is not important for keeping Lyanna from escaping. She has nowhere to escape to--and no evidence she wanted to escape (although admittedly, not clear evidence either way). But what evidence we have seems to be at least as supportive of ToJ being used as the best place to hide from Aerys as the best place to keep Lyanna from escaping. Good point about stage of pregnancy -- I think you are probably right about her not being that far along when Rhaegar goes to KL. I had always thought she was about 6 months pregnant when Rhaegar left for KL, but you are probably correct that she was not nearly that far along. But as to staying at ToJ during pregnancy -- I am not sure they had a better place to go. Again, they are hiding her from Aerys. They were presumably getting supplies. This time period is roughly like Middle Ages -- so no hospital to give birth -- no indoor plumbing in the houses (or castles). The tower was probably as good a place to stay and wait for the baby as any place -- as long as they could get a trusted midwife/nurse maid to assist (Wyla perhaps). See above -- not much more to add on these points. OK--I undersold their importance to the story and the extent to which there is more of their story to tell. But as stated above, the interesting part will be about how they got together -- the apparent "kidnapping" that perhaps was not really a kidnapping. No need to add a "real" kidnapping charge to Rhaegar by having him keep Lyanna against her will in the end for the story not to be a fairy tale -- as noted above, this "love story" is quite far from a fairly tale no matter what additional details end up being given. GRRM likes "gray" characters -- but no need to make Rhaegar that "gray" by having him hold Lyanna against her will as his last act towards her. So we will probably get a lot more detail about them -- but I still don't think it will involve Rhaegar preventing Lyanna from leaving ToJ against her will (or involve Rhaegar going public about Lyanna being pregnant -- or his marriage -- maybe he told someone something -- like he told Jaime that things would change after the war -- but whatever he told to whomever he told it likely was done only confidentially). War-torn lovers with perhaps her begging him not to leave her but him telling her that he has no choice and he wishes he could stay -- is sad enough. GRRM does not need to turn Rhaegar into an actual kidnapper to make the story interesting or tragic.
  6. UnmaskedLurker

    R+L=J v.165

    @Lord Varys I have a "stylistic" response and a "substantive" response. The stylistic response is simply that for the benefit of readers who are not aware of other theories, it might be helpful to acknowledge their existence (given that they remain plausible, even if you prefer a different theory). For example, in the past when discussing Jon's "real" name, I give my position (in this case, Aemon), but acknowledge some of the other prominent theories regarding his Targ name (such as a male version of Visenya to complete the three heads with R's other two children at the time). I can understand, however, how tedious it would become to acknowledge every time that this theory is merely your preferred theory but that many others have alternative theories are also are plausible. It is just the certainty with which you express your view that seems a bit more conclusive than the evidence supports. As far as my substantive response, I will start by clarifying that you have not convinced me. I simply doubt that the story needs to be made that complicated, as the details don't really matter anymore -- what matters is the basic nature of Jon's heritage (as the "legitimate" son of Rhaegar and Lyanna). I don't see why the story needs to be made more complicated as none of those characters are still alive at this point in the story. Your theory also seems to be a case of "overthinking" matters. In story, the characters generally express a belief that Rhaegar kidnapped and raped Lyanna. The "truth" that will be revealed (I think) is that this version of events never happened. Rhaegar did not keep Lyanna against her will (whether he grabbed her to protect her and then got romantic or they planned to get together from the beginning, I don't know, but the "official" story certainly is not accurate). So the readers are led to believe one set of facts -- and then "pow" virtually the opposite turns out to be true -- classic GRRM. But under your alternative (assuming I understand your theory, which maybe I don't, so clarify if I get it wrong), the readers will be led to believe the following, Lyanna was with Rhaegar voluntarily and agreed to marry him, but then, after learning of the circumstances of the war, she wanted to leave but Rhaegar kept her prisoner. Why do you think she wanted to leave and where did she want to go? She is at risk from both sides -- Aerys could use her as a hostage against the Starks and Robert would be enraged that she married Rhaegar and was carrying his baby. So I don't think they could come out publicly without great risk to Lyanna. And why would Lyanna blame Rhaegar for his father's actions? Or is it that she only turned against him when he agreed to go back to KL? But what would she expect him to do -- fight for the side that was trying to take down his family and the Targ dynasty? I just don't get how your alternative is more plausible than that she stayed voluntarily. As to the ToJ location -- I don't get your distinction. You admit that three guys in a tower are good for keeping a woman out of sight but not defending. And that is the point of being at ToJ. No one thought that if they were found there and an army approached that the three KG could protect her. The point was to stay there in stealth-mode. That logic works just as well for Lyanna staying voluntarily as not -- and you also fail to mention that when Rhaegar leaves for KL, Lyanna probably is very pregnant, so moving to another location might not be easy -- but again, it is not clear that a safer location existed. So ToJ works equally well if she is there voluntarily or if she is being held as a hostage. In fact, if she is a hostage, then Rhaegar probably no longer needs to keep her safe from his family and can bring her anywhere that is under Targ control (especially with the KG guarding her as a prisoner -- what Targ loyal area would question them -- but if trying to protect her and their relationship, then no where would be safe). The real bottom line, however, is that I just don't think Rhaegar and Lyanna have to be as important to the story as you suggest -- they don't really need their own complicated story. They really are just a plot device to make Jon the opposite of what he thinks he is -- rather than being a bastard-Stark, he is really a legit-Targ. That revelation to Jon (and maybe to other characters -- but I tend to think the main impact with be regarding Jon himself finding out the truth) is what the issue is really based on for this story. Beyond that purpose, making the story between Rhaegar and Lyanna too complicated is just unnecessary and not clear who would even know the details to tell (maybe a vision by Bran -- but why bother to get into so much detail about characters who are so removed from the real action).
  7. UnmaskedLurker

    R+L=J v.165

    @Lord Varys Hey LV -- it has been a while. I have stayed away from the boards, as they were getting tedious and repetitive. GRRM's slowness in writing the next book really has sucked away a lot of my interest in the series. At this point, I almost just want the series over just to be over, as the fun of "waiting for the next installment in the adventure" is pretty much gone for me. But I have returned (at least briefly, not sure how long I will stick around this time). In any event, in reading through some recent posts (got bored and decided to take a quick check-in peek at the boards), I noticed some positions of yours that I had not recalled previously (probably just do to the time that has passed). I have a question (or maybe some related questions) for you based on these statements of yours. You seem to have developed views regarding Rhaegar and Lyanna that differ from what I recall being the "majority views" in terms of the nature of Rhaegar's relationship with Lyanna when he left for KL. For example, you seem to assert she is his hostage, while most people assume he is keeping her in protective hiding and they remained in love. You also seem to assume that Rhaegar told people at KL that Lyanna was pregnant, while most people assume that her pregnancy is never made public. While your statements are plausible and certainly not inconsistent with the text, the "majority" positions are also consistent with the text. So my basic question is that while I understand why you put forth these theories (after all, you believe them to be the most likely scenario), why don't you acknowledge the meaningful possibility of the alternative theories (i.e., that Lyanna's pregnancy remained a secret and Lyanna was being protected by the KG, not held hostage in ToJ)? Your lack of acknowledgement of these theories suggests that you discount them as highly unlikely. If so, why (as I still believe them to be more likely than your alternative theories, but acknowledge that you could be correct)? What has made you so certain of your characterization, when you certainly are aware that most (or certainly, many) others who have formed views on these issues have developed different theories? If anyone else wants to chime in on these alternative theories regarding the nature of the relationship between R&L when R went to KL and the likelihood of others knowing about L's pregnancy (or any other related issues) -- feel free (this is a public board, after all).
  8. UnmaskedLurker

    Is Jon and Dany's blood relationship supposed to be a problem?

    Why do you continue to "assume facts not in evidence"? As MinscS2 has repeatedly explained, a relationship between aunt and nephew in Westeros is simply not considered incest -- by anyone in Westeros. So there cannot be an "incest bomb" when no one in that society would consider the relationship to be incest. Incest is a big sin in Westeros -- but relationships are considered incest only if brother-sister or parent-child (and perhaps grandparent-grandchild, but I don't think that issues really comes up). So no incest between Jon and Dany -- no possible incest bomb. Will they have some reaction to finding out they are related by blood? -- of course -- but they cannot be a laughing stock or fools when no one in that society finds such a relationship to be incest.
  9. UnmaskedLurker

    Is Jon and Dany's blood relationship supposed to be a problem?

    Clearly, in this context (and in many places even today), the term "incest" is limited to brother/sister or parent/child (or presumably grandparent/grandchild). SeanF obviously meant this definition of incest. So a marriage of cousins or uncle to niece would NOT be considered incest. Outside of the Targs (who had their own rules), the rest of Westeros spoke against incest quite clearly -- but had this more narrow definition. So the rest of Westeros, including the North, considered incest to be an abomination. They just did not consider cousin or avuncular marriages to be incest. So SeanF was NOT wrong. Look up the Stark Family Tree online and you will find uncle/niece (actually half-uncle/half-niece) marriages up the tree.
  10. UnmaskedLurker

    Is Jon and Dany's blood relationship supposed to be a problem?

    I don't have much to add to the rest of your points (mostly agree with them) -- but I wanted to clarify this one issue. Of course you are correct that we don't know how must "fresh blood" really is being introduced. I get that and understand that we don't have the full family trees of all the Houses in the North (or elsewhere). But the point I was trying to make is that even if we give @Lollygag every benefit of the doubt possible -- that there is a pattern (I am not sure that there really is one -- but assume there is) and that there really is a marriage among close relatives only after truly "new blood" has been introduced (again, we cannot be sure of this given the limited family trees -- but assume it is true) -- it would not be meaningful evidence in support of the thesis being put forth. If such a "pattern" or "rule" existed in Westeros, someone in-universe would have hinted at it. Someone would have made some comment along the lines that their House only permits cousins to marry if some number of generations has passed between the last such intra-House marriage -- or some clue in the direction of such a rule. But the readers/viewers get nothing like that from any of the characters. The characters talk about the sins regarding incest. And the definition of incest (outside the Targs) seems to be limited in Westeros to parent/child and brother/sister relationships. Other than incest, there is no mention of any other restrictions on relationships (ignoring polygamy for this purpose, as that gets into a whole different discussion not relevant to this analysis). So any perceived pattern would simply be a correlation without any reason to believe causation. There are multiple reasons (many of which you put forth) to explain why bringing in brides from other Houses can be helpful to a ruling House. That benefit is more likely to be the "cause" of the correlation than some rule that is never mentioned in the text (or on the show) that Westeros has some elaborate notion of incest or permissible marriages among relatives that looks to how recently a similar marriage occurred. The way that all of the "rules" are expressed in Westeros simply are not consistent with such a nuanced rule -- and we never hear any discussion to support this theory. Noticing a presumed pattern (whether really a pattern or just the appearance of a pattern) and then constructing some "law" or "rule" that must have cause the pattern is simply faulty logical reasoning. Some other independent evidence for the existence of the "law" or "rule" to support the causation premise must be found -- and here no such evidence has been presented.
  11. UnmaskedLurker

    Is Jon and Dany's blood relationship supposed to be a problem?

    @Lollygag-- I am not quite sure what you mean by the "incest problem" being addressed elsewhere. Certainly people have shown that incest is considered a sin in Westeros. Different groups in the series seem to have a different definition -- but only the Targs seem to have no form of prohibited incest (although presumably parent/child marriage would not happen even with Targs). People also have shown that incest is a problem in the real world for genetic reasons (and other reasons). But I have seen no evidence that there is any textual support that anyone in Westeros thought that incest between an aunt and nephew (or even brother-sister) might lead to genetic problems. The discussions of the evils of incest among the characters never get at any genetic defects likely to occur as a result of the incest -- they are prohibited because they are "sinful" or "abominations" -- the analysis never goes further than that. And the one quote you provided from Barristan does not attribute any of the Targ issues to the genetic issues regarding incest. Keep in mind that in the books at least, almost no one thinks it odd that all of Cersei's children with Robert have blonde hair (Ned needs to do extensive research to figure this out -- while in modern times, the issue would be obvious). People in that society simply have little understanding of genetics. Yes, I agree that GRRM is careful. But I think that proves the opposite of what you think it proves. Sure, a marriage between uncle(aunt) and niece(nephew) might not be that common in Westeros. But GRRM would not include such marriages in the Stark family tree for no reason at all. He included them to show that they were not prohibited. He does not want Jon to have a crisis regarding "incest" with Dany. There are many other issues to be addressed in terms of Jon's identity as a Targ that will be front and center. Adding the "ick" factor for Jon to have to get over that he is committing incest with his aunt simply is not part of GRRM's plan. How do we know? Well, we don't "know" but his inclusion of these types of marriages in the Stark family tree is huge clue. In this society, either a type of relationship is permitted or not permitted. In the Stark family tree -- they were permitted. They cannot be "sort of" permitted. We have no evidence that some special dispensation was needed to permit these marriages (and there were at least two). Your notion of complex rules involving "new blood" being added or being discouraged (but not prohibited) are just too complicated and legalistic for this type of society.
  12. UnmaskedLurker

    Is Jon and Dany's blood relationship supposed to be a problem?

    Quite interesting -- but not relevant to whether Barristan thought that Targ madness was a result of incest. You were responding to a post by LV that no one connects incest with bad effect and you posted the quote from Barristan in response. But Barristan does not mention incest or inbreeding -- just a problem with the Targs (just as people make generalizations about the traits of Starks and Lannisters, without any thought that they are involved with incest). So the Barristan quote does not support the proposition that you were asserting it supports With respect to a prior post of yours in which you noted that you were demonstrating an observed "pattern" -- I would emphasize that correlation is not causation. Sure, maybe you are correct that close relationship marriages seem to occur only after new blood was recently introduced -- but so what. Again, correlation is not causation. Without some textual evidence that the intervening "new blood" had anything to do with making the close relationship marriage permissible, you are engaging in a classic logical flaw. There are numerous alternative reasons for this pattern other than some societal rule that requires it.
  13. UnmaskedLurker

    Is Jon and Dany's blood relationship supposed to be a problem?

    But he does not connect this issue to inbreeding. The quote is about Targs either being mad or great. If inbreeding is seen as an inherent problem, then why would any of the Targs be great after so many generations of inbreeding? This observation is one about House Targ in terms of a family trait that is observed -- but no one seems to think that this trait is the negative repercussion from generations of incest.
  14. UnmaskedLurker

    Is Jon and Dany's blood relationship supposed to be a problem?

    Not to butt in -- but I presume that a public exchange is permissive of butting in. I think that this paragraph is what really matters. Even if someone could "prove" that cousin/cousin or uncle/niece marriages have only been done every once it a while, that finding would seem to be irrelevant. The readers/viewers have NO indication from the books or the show that "incest" or permissible marriages are at all tested by how recently a similar close marriage occurred in the bloodline or whether fresh "blood" has been introduced recently. Every available evidence is that certain groups (like the Targs) considered brother/sister marriages permissible, while most others did not. But either brother/sister marriages are permissible always or never -- no suggestion has ever been made that a brother/sister marriage is permissible only if it has been a couple of generations since the last brother/sister marriage. The same logic in this type of medieval society would apply to groups that permitted cousin/cousin marriages or uncle(aunt)/niece(nephew) marriages. Either they are permitted or not permitted. And clearly the Stark tradition permits such marriages, as they were practiced by the Starks. There is absolutely no hint at all that such a marriage is only permitted if new bloodlines had been introduced recently. As you note, people in this type of society have no idea about the genetic problems with inbreeding. The original rule may have been set down due to an observation by certain elites of these problems (who knows as not really relevant how the rule came to be developed) -- but the vast majority of people would have no idea and the rules would not be so nuanced as to permit certain types of marriages based on how recently new bloodlines were introduced. Such a rule is way too complicated for this type of society.
  15. UnmaskedLurker

    Is Jon and Dany's blood relationship supposed to be a problem?

    I have not read all 13 pages of this thread, so I don't know if this point has been made already. Some posters in this thread have suggested that Jon being raised a Stark will be a problem because as a Stark, Jon would consider his relationship with Dany to be incest. BUT Jon being raised a Stark (rather than a Targ) should not create a problem regarding "incest" given that by Stark standards, an aunt/nephew union would not be incest -- assuming that the show is consistent with the books on this issue. In the official family tree for the Stark lineage, the family tree shows more than one uncle/niece marriage (they might have been "half-uncle"/"half-niece" but I don't think that distinction makes the difference regarding cultural norms as cultural norms are unlikely to regard this distinction as meaningful). GRRM likely included these marriages in the family tree specifically to avoid any concern that Jon would consider his relationship with Dany to be incest or otherwise problematic. Apparently, the Stark "values" would make brother/sister or parent/child marriages forbidden incest -- but aunt/nephew marriages presumably would be perfectly permissible and not viewed as incest.
×