Eira Seren Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 Continued from the locked thread about speculation: We can all make up percentages and try and guess how many readers figured out R+L=J for themselves. My guess would be as many as 40-50%. Without burrowing into the minds of every person who has ever read the books, we're never going to know for certain what % of readers picked up on the clues. So you think all the POV characters will come together, collectively defeat the Others, and then divide the kingdom equally with no one ruler and no significant consequences for R+L=J? A lot of characters undoubtedly have interesting parts to play in the remaining books, but unless R+L=J is proven to be untrue or Jon is already dead and not coming back, i'm sticking to my belief that Jon is the main character GRRM had in his head when writing ASoIaF. Possibly. I'm a believer in R+L=J, but there's a lot of story that isn't taken up with R+L=J. And characters that GRRM repeatedly (so far) has rescued from very dodgy circumstances, even though anyone could die. Arya. Tyrion. Sansa. Yeah, I know, now another Stark will get it. Really, I think R+L=J is going to be pretty central to Jon's story. To what degree Jon is central to the Song of Ice and Fire, I have not fully decided. I think that so far, GRRM has not shown us he is married to any one main character. If the Starks all end up in positions to rule, there is a tiny, teeny chance that the 7 kingdoms could be successfully administered in parts with Jon on the IT. Eventually, it'll all go up in rivalry, but for a brief period, perhaps even a couple of generations, it could function. Should Bran, Rickon or Arya not make another appearance in Westeros (unlikely), Sansa on her own could potentially end up holding the Vale, Riverrun, Harrenhal and Winterfell or some combination thereof (if enough of the right people die first). It's not set it stone, but it isn't completely impossible, either. But you pose an interesting question: how will the next leader manage to unify the 7K? And how/what will make it lasting? Because despite what Viserys and Illyrio say, I don't see people chomping at the bit and secretly making dragon banners for a Targaryen return. Nor are Targaryens, despite their lengthy grip on Westeros, known for their *ahem* stability. And they weren't the first to make kingdoms there. So what does GRRM have in mind if there is to be a dynastic shift? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toccs Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 Really, I think R+L=J is going to be pretty central to Jon's story. To what degree Jon is central to the Song of Ice and Fire, I have not fully decided. I think that so far, GRRM has not shown us he is married to any one main character. :agree: It will important for Jon should he ever find out, but I seriously doubt that it is the lynchpin of the entire story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Snowfyre Chorus Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 Actually in a recent interview GRRM said that some fans back in 1998 figured out a secret that he will unveil in the next book. I have to think that the secret he is referring to is Jon's parents. It will all come to fruition as his death/near death experience will fit in with the waking of the stone dragon. Is there mention of a stone dragon? I thought the phrase was "wake dragon(s) from stone." (Not being cheeky here - I think the difference would be significant.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagda Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 . Nor are Targaryens, despite their lengthy grip on Westeros, known for their *ahem* stability. And they weren't the first to make kingdoms there. So what does GRRM have in mind if there is to be a dynastic shift?Snip:Just following the plot development with the two counter lines of magic/magic creatures and human politics, if the magical element, which would extend to the Targs, expend themselves in the North against the magical threat, that would leave the politics of the kingdom wide open. Tinfoil: Sansa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stateofdissipation Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 Since Rhaegar was already married, wouldn't Jon still be a bastard?The evidence that Jon is legitimate is that Targaryens have a history of polygamous marriages which makes it a possibility that Rhaegar had two wives. Three Kingsguards were present at the Tower of Joy when Ned arrived. Even after Ned said that Aerys, Rhaegar and Aegon were dead and Viserys had fled to Dragonstone, the Kingsguard opted to stay at the Tower of Joy stating they were obeying their Kingsguard vow. The heart of a Kingsguard's vow is to protect the king. With Aerys, Rhaegar and Aegon dead, the new king would have been Viserys, unless Lyanna's child was legitimate making him the new king of the Targaryen dynasty. For a comprehensive analysis of Jon's legitimacy, see the detailed explanations in the two linked articles.But polygamy hadn't been practiced in centuries, is it still even legal?The practice was never made illegal and there may have been some less prominent examples after Maegor, as stated in this SSM. Furthermore, Jorah suggests it to Dany as a viable Why should we care who Jon's parents are? Will Jon care? Who cares if he's legitimate?Once one accepts that the evidence is conclusive and that Jon's parents are Rhaegar and Lyanna and that he is most probably legitimate, these become the important questions. There is no evidence that Jon is legitimate. The Targaryens engaged polygamous marriages in spite of the laws when they had dragons. There were no dragons which makes it an impossibility that Rhaegar had two wives. Three Kingsguards were present at the Tower of Joy when Ned (The enemy) arrived. Even after Ned (the enemy) said that Aerys, Rhaegar and Aegon were dead and Viserys had fled to Dragonstone, the Kingsguard opted to stay at the Tower of Joy stating they were obeying their Kingsguard vow. The heart of a Kingsguard's vow is to protect the king. and to obey orders. With Aerys, Rhaegar and Aegon dead, the new king would have been Viserys, unless Lyanna's child was legitimate making him the new king of the Targaryen dynasty. That would have made Lyanna the regent Queen Mother until Jon came of age. The Kingsguard then ignored their regent when she called for Eddard. It would have also made Ned the king's uncle. It is hard to imagine how the Kingsguard could believe it their duty to defend the king from one of 4 remaining blood relatives. It would be very short sighted of the KG to neither inform Ned that he was fighting his nephew or they were in fact defending the king. Polygamy was never legalAfter Aegon other male Targaryens has multiple wives, but with the death of their dragons House Targaryen lost the clout that they needed to be able to get away with committing the sin of polygamy in Westeros. According to GRRM, Furthermore, Jorah suggests it to Dany as a viable option. Dany had dragons. Furthermore, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagda Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 :agree: It will important for Jon should he ever find out, but I seriously doubt that it is the lynchpin of the entire story.What if Bran tells Jon. Bloodraven has to start talking at some point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stateofdissipation Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 The relevant question is not the marriage of R and L. Tyrion married the kidnapped Sansa and Aerys raped his wife. The relevant question would be was Lyanna kidnapped and raped. There is evidence lacking for the case of kidnapping: No witnessNo casualties reportedNo pursuit describedNo location of kidnapping given We are given a report that Lyanna was kidnapped and Brandon believed it was Rhaegar... that is pretty much it. Even if R and L were not married king Rhaegar could legitimize his bastard son. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagda Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 Is there mention of a stone dragon? I thought the phrase was "wake dragon(s) from stone." (Not being cheeky here - I think the difference would be significant.)Just an aside:Could you open a thread with your Maester Theory? It would be fun to work through it completely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stateofdissipation Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 :agree: It will important for Jon should he ever find out, but I seriously doubt that it is the lynchpin of the entire story. Jon being the prince that was promised would be a lynchpin... sitting on the Iron Throne a subplot...Jon as king would just be one of many kings... Aerys, Aegon, Robert, Joffrey, Ttmmen.... and so on ending in Jon. There is only one prince that was promised and he saves the world from darkness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ygrain Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 There is no evidence that Jon is legitimate. The Targaryens engaged polygamous marriages in spite of the laws when they had dragons. There were no dragons which makes it an impossibility that Rhaegar had two wives. Three Kingsguards were present at the Tower of Joy when Ned (The enemy) arrived. Even after Ned (the enemy) said that Aerys, Rhaegar and Aegon were dead and Viserys had fled to Dragonstone, the Kingsguard opted to stay at the Tower of Joy stating they were obeying their Kingsguard vow. The heart of a Kingsguard's vow is to protect the king. and to obey orders. With Aerys, Rhaegar and Aegon dead, the new king would have been Viserys, unless Lyanna's child was legitimate making him the new king of the Targaryen dynasty. That would have made Lyanna the regent Queen Mother until Jon came of age. The Kingsguard then ignored their regent when she called for Eddard. It would have also made Ned the king's uncle. It is hard to imagine how the Kingsguard could believe it their duty to defend the king from one of 4 remaining blood relatives. It would be very short sighted of the KG to neither inform Ned that he was fighting his nephew or they were in fact defending the king. Polygamy was never legal After Aegon other male Targaryens has multiple wives, but with the death of their dragons House Targaryen lost the clout that they needed to be able to get away with committing the sin of polygamy in Westeros. According to GRRM, Furthermore, Jorah suggests it to Dany as a viable option. Dany had dragons. Furthermore, .... is actually what GRRM never said. It is a basic test of reading comprehension: a few =/= none, more difficult =/= impossible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagda Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 The relevant question is not the marriage of R and L. Tyrion married the kidnapped Sansa and Aerys raped his wife. The relevant question would be was Lyanna kidnapped and raped. There is evidence lacking for the case of kidnapping: No witnessNo casualties reportedNo pursuit describedNo location of kidnapping given We are given a report that Lyanna was kidnapped and Brandon believed it was Rhaegar... that is pretty much it. Even if R and L were not married king Rhaegar could legitimize his bastard son.:agree: best argument I've heard in a while.The timing of the legitimacy now becomes important. If Rhaegar legitimized him, then why would it become needed for George to have Robb write another proclamation? Makes no literary sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stateofdissipation Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 .... is actually what GRRM never said. It is a basic test of reading comprehension: a few =/= none, more difficult =/= impossible. but with the death of their dragons House Targaryen lost the clout that they needed to be able to get away with committing the sin of polygamy that was said by GRRM... simple reading comprehension Targayens Lost (DO NOT HAVE) the clout needed to engage in polygamy. I do not see the part of 'unless they really want to' anywhere in that. Perhaps my glasses are broken. I also do not see few or diffucult either. All i see is LOST.. and no exception to that. I guess i just got stuck on the somebody can't do something they lost the ability to do. Kind of like if I went blind so it is impossible for me to see. Lost the ability impossible to use the ability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jory Cassel Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 oh, my There is no evidence that Jon is legitimate. The Targaryens engaged polygamous marriages in spite of the laws when they had dragons. There were no dragons which makes it an impossibility that Rhaegar had two wives. Three Kingsguards were present at the Tower of Joy when Ned (The enemy) arrived. Even after Ned (the enemy) said that Aerys, Rhaegar and Aegon were dead and Viserys had fled to Dragonstone, the Kingsguard opted to stay at the Tower of Joy stating they were obeying their Kingsguard vow. The heart of a Kingsguard's vow is to protect the king. and to obey orders. With Aerys, Rhaegar and Aegon dead, the new king would have been Viserys, unless Lyanna's child was legitimate making him the new king of the Targaryen dynasty. That would have made Lyanna the regent Queen Mother until Jon came of age. The Kingsguard then ignored their regent when she called for Eddard. It would have also made Ned the king's uncle. It is hard to imagine how the Kingsguard could believe it their duty to defend the king from one of 4 remaining blood relatives. It would be very short sighted of the KG to neither inform Ned that he was fighting his nephew or they were in fact defending the king. Polygamy was never legalAfter Aegon other male Targaryens has multiple wives, but with the death of their dragons House Targaryen lost the clout that they needed to be able to get away with committing the sin of polygamy in Westeros. According to GRRM, Furthermore, Jorah suggests it to Dany as a viable option. Dany had dragons. Furthermore, Something legally acknowledged by the authority on the matter; the faith, it is not illegal. In every single encounter Lyanna calls Eddard "Ned", and during this dream, his steward is calling out to him, seen in how "Eddard" becomes "Lord Eddard". Even if we suppose that Lyanna did cry "Eddard" in that scene, your certainty that it was an order to the KG and not e.g. an urging to Ned to lay down his weapons and surrender is unfounded. The relevant question is not the marriage of R and L. Tyrion married the kidnapped Sansa and Aerys raped his wife. The relevant question would be was Lyanna kidnapped and raped. There is evidence lacking for the case of kidnapping: No witnessNo casualties reportedNo pursuit describedNo location of kidnapping given We are given a report that Lyanna was kidnapped and Brandon believed it was Rhaegar... that is pretty much it. Even if R and L were not married king Rhaegar could legitimize his bastard son. Too bad Rhaegar was never King. but with the death of their dragons House Targaryen lost the clout that they needed to be able to get away with committing the sin of polygamy that was said by GRRM... simple reading comprehension Targayens Lost (DO NOT HAVE) the clout needed to engage in polygamy.I do not see the part of 'unless they really want to' anywhere in that. Perhaps my glasses are broken. I also do not see few or diffucult either. All i see is LOST.. and no exception to that.I guess i just got stuck on the somebody can't do something they lost the ability to do.Kind of like if I went blind so it is impossible for me to see. Lost the ability impossible to use the ability. Link please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stateofdissipation Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 It was a prince that was promised, not a princess. Rhaegar I thought … the smoke was from the fire that devoured Summerhall on the day of his birth, the salt from the tears shed for those who died. He shared my belief when he was young, but later he became persuaded that it was his own son who fulfilled the prophecy, for a comet had been seen above King’s Landing on the night Aegon was conceived, and Rhaegar was certain the bleeding star had to be a comet. Rhaegat was not very good at deciphering the prophecy... Jon Snow (Rhaegar's son) was born under the protection of the bleeding Arthur Dayne (all knights must bleed) of Starfell. Jon Snow being the prince that was promised makes him far more important than Jon Targaryen heir to the throne. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toccs Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 Jon being the prince that was promised would be a lynchpin... sitting on the Iron Throne a subplot...Jon as king would just be one of many kings... Aerys, Aegon, Robert, Joffrey, Ttmmen.... and so on ending in Jon. There is only one prince that was promised and he saves the world from darkness. I doubt it is going to be as simple as that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stateofdissipation Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 oh, my Something legally acknowledged by the authority on the matter; the faith, it is not illegal. In every single encounter Lyanna calls Eddard "Ned", and during this dream, his steward is calling out to him, seen in how "Eddard" becomes "Lord Eddard". Even if we suppose that Lyanna did cry "Eddard" in that scene, your certainty that it was an order to the KG and not e.g. an urging to Ned to lay down his weapons and surrender is unfounded. Too bad Rhaegar was never King. Link please. 'Lord Eddard' would show Lyanna knew Brandon and Rickard had been killed. The calling to Eddard (or Ned) shows that (if R and L were married) the Queen had the ability to call to the Kingsguard. So the kingsguard was either operating under orders of the Queen when they fought Ned or they were still operating under the order given by Rhaegar. If they were still obeying Rhaegar it is difficult to make the case for Lyanna being Queen. R and L never married... Jon was a bastard. (Rhaegar never became king to change that) In short Jon is not Oliver Twist. Jon Snow is the prince that was promised but not an heir to the iron throne. Jon Snow (Rhaegar's son) was born under the protection of the bleeding Arthur Dayne (all knights must bleed) of Starfell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Snowfyre Chorus Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 Just an aside:Could you open a thread with your Maester Theory? It would be fun to work through it completely.Yes, I've been thinking I should do that... just lacking enough "lumped together" free time to get organized. Three kids, a full time job, etc. - lately, if I want to post more than an extended thought, I have to stay up until 2 am to make it happen...(Meanwhile, the name Ned appears to be rooted in the Proto-Indo-European word for "the dead, corpse." So perhaps we all should have seen that coming... :) ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteOwl18 Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 'Lord Eddard' would show Lyanna knew Brandon and Rickard had been killed. The calling to Eddard (or Ned) shows that (if R and L were married) the Queen had the ability to call to the Kingsguard. So the kingsguard was either operating under orders of the Queen when they fought Ned or they were still operating under the order given by Rhaegar. If they were still obeying Rhaegar it is difficult to make the case for Lyanna being Queen. R and L never married... Jon was a bastard. (Rhaegar never became king to change that) In short Jon is not Oliver Twist. Jon Snow is the prince that was promised but not an heir to the iron throne. Jon Snow (Rhaegar's son) was born under the protection of the bleeding Arthur Dayne (all knights must bleed) of Starfell. If he was a bastard, then he cannot be the prince that was promised. A bastard is not a prince. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toccs Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 If he was a bastard, then he cannot be the prince that was promised. A bastard is not a prince. It's a symbolic title applied to a mythical figure, for example the Stallion that Mounts the World does not have to be an equine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagda Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 If he was a bastard, then he cannot be the prince that was promised. A bastard is not a prince.If Robb named Jon heir and legitimized him, he is a Prince, and possible King In The North. Jury and letter still lost. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.