Heresy 102 of Ice and Fire

[wolfmaid7]

I'd be inclined to speculate that it weas a deliberate aspiration, something not unlike Master Benero's pronouncement:

"She is Azor Ahai returned… and her triumph over the darkness will bring a summer that will never end… death itself will bend its knee, and all those who die fighting in her cause shall be reborn…”

Now in this case he's calling for her to smite the Valyrians and isn't it interesting that he refers to them as "the darkness"?

However, I can imagine fanatics within Valyria preaching the triumph of an endless Fire.

This is interesting in that the Valyrians "sin" was against the Dragons by trying to enslave them.Now a big part of Dragonlore is their ability to "shapeshift". A lot of Valyrian imagery especially the Sphinx alludes to that seeing that is the meaning behind the Sphinx in Egyptian Mythology.Mel for sure is using a glamour,what she looks like below that beats me,but what has struck me is the theme again of" singing".

Drogon sang Dany a song that brought her to him. Mel made Ghost's name a song ( or i believe she mimicked the song sang by Ghost to link him to Jon) and when Tyrion first saw Master Benero he was leading the afternoon prayer in song.

I use this to show that possibly Mel and her kind,plus the Dragons are also "singers" but they sing the song of fire.I would also characterize Ghost as a "singer" just maybe his song is different.

If the Valyrians brought about their own doom with a "magical over-reach", some sort of effort to touch god or gain god-like powers, then I would point you to the CotF and say "it has happened before". The Valyrians binding dragons to their will is reminiscent (to me anyway) of the Singers jacking greenseers into the Weirwoods.

"You have brought Sin to Heaven

And doom upon all the world."

I agree with this,and believe this was the single event that started Valyria's road toward the doom.The Dragons asleep deep within was natural as i pointed out earlier they in lore can hibernate for hundreds and or thousands of years. Waking them before their time was absolutely the wrong thing to do. Even more the Valyrian's enslaved them,something the Targs ( least of the Dragonlords seemed to have done).Meaning there was a bond for whatever reason the Dragons chose to forge. It ensured their survival and the Targ family. The Valyrians forcing the dragons to bond through sorcery was an abomination against magic.

Ah thank you, I see where you are coming from here. I do like to explore the ways these elements are alike as most seem to see them as completely different. In a very general sense I believe it will be such likenesses that help to bring about the overall balance in the end. As I know you have pointed out in your Dragonlord thread the dragon bond and the direwolf bond is another thing Ice/Fire have in common. :cheers:

In Teutonic magic they are what is called primordial powers because they were there at the dawn of Earth and will be there at its setting.They can be a creative force or a destructive one and their qualities can be swapped.So i'll use quotes from the series to make that connection.

In that as Jojen said "ice can burn" and per Mel " let the flames of Rhollor cleanse and purify you.

[King Benjen II]

Normally I would agree -- demonstrating that considerable doubt does exist about Jon's legitimacy (never mind his parents!) is relatively easy.

All we have to do is cite the evidence that makes it doubtful, a process we have both already begun. And some of that evidence is exceedingly strong.

The trouble as I see it is that this subject will bring in far more attention and response than a usual subject.

Ten pages left isn't going to come close, IMO. Note the 75 iterations of 22 pages or so each of the R+L=J thread -- a truly incredible amount of discussion on a tiny subject, compared to the broad range of Heresy. So I'm sure traditionalists will be venturing into Heresy on this subject who normally never would. At least one has already been directly invited.

I support the idea. Heresy: R+L=J Special Edition!

It could even be started as its own thread seperate from the main Heresy threads, in case it stretches into its own mini series. Especially since I'd love to see Heresy break down and assess the alternatives to R+L=J...or just make a Heresy: Jon's Parentage Special Edition that only discusses the alternative theories.

[Urrax2]

...Thus, it is not demonstrated that Jon is the king, that Rhaegar and Lyanna were married, or that Jon is legitimate. Those making the extraordinary claims have failed to provide adequate evidence to back up the extraordinary claims.

Looks pretty irrefutable to me. :agree:

[Eira Seren]

I'm not sure on that one. Its assumed that catastrophe overtook the Valyrians, but I'm interested in exploring the idea that they brought it upon themselves which is why Azor Ahai/Prince that was Promised may have nothing at all to do with the Ice (and by extension Jon) and everything to do with the evil in demon-haunted Valyria

What heresy! I like it. And am curious; if we have the 'evil' Others in the North, what possible 'demons' are haunting Valyria? And why is Mel so obssessed with the ones in the North instead of those in her own backyard?

[wolfmaid7]

Is Jon the legitimate son of Rhaegar Targaryen? Meaning: Were Rhaegar and Lyanna married?

Part I

It’s an extraordinary claim… one that requires Rhaegar secretly to have pursued polygamy for the first time in many generations of Targaryen rule.

If you're going to make an extraordinary claim, you need extraordinary evidence. The burden of proof is on those making the claim.

But those making the claim haven't provided much evidence at all. All they have is the presence of three of Aerys’ Kingsguard at the ToJ when Ned arrived. Their idea is: "KG are sworn to guard the king. The KG were at the ToJ. So was baby Jon. Therefore, baby Jon must be the king."

Now, GRRM has been asked about this exact subject. And very unusually for him, he’s given a direct answer.

This is quite plain. Rhaegar ordered the KG to stay at the ToJ, before he rode off to his eventual death at the Trident, and long before Jon was even born. That's why the KG did stay at the ToJ until Ned showed up.

Now, GRRM’s statement above has been dismissed by R+L=J people, very heatedly and repeatedly. Usually, they roll out this kind of reasoning: "Rhaegar’s orders died with him. The KG would not have been bound by Rhaegar's orders after the Trident."

Well, you can read what GRRM actually said, above, and decide for yourself.

As far as I'm concerned, in any dispute between GRRM and some of his fans, I side with GRRM.

PART II

I would find the Jon Is King! argument weak anyway, even without the above, for other reasons. Here are just two of them.

1. We have excellent reason to think the KG don't always defend the king.

Notice that the KG at the ToJ did not move to defend King Aerys — the living Targaryen king — after Rhaegar's forces were defeated at the Trident, when Aerys' life was in blatant danger.

This, again, is quite straightforward. It clearly suggests that the KG did not consider themselves bound by oath to guard the Targaryen king, in person, under all circumstances. Instead, they consider themselves subject to the direct orders of the royal family, and they assume (and hope) the royal family knows what it's doing, in issuing those orders.

Here's the typical R+L=J response: "The KG didn't know Rhaegar lost, or Aerys was in peril. The ToJ was off the raven network. And they had no other possible way to get news quickly."

Here's the problem with that idea: There is no such statement in the books at all. It's just a convenient assumption, like the idea that Rhaegar and Lyanna got married, that pleases certain people.

Furthermore, we know for sure that the KG did get news fairly quickly. Because by the time Ned showed up, the news that Aerys was dead, and Jaime killed him, beat him there. The three KG already knew it.

So the Jon Is King! crowd is a bit trapped. They think that information was slow getting to the ToJ, and that's why the KG never tried to guard King Aerys. But they also think that information was quick getting to the ToJ, and that's why it outran Ned. These ideas can't both be true.

My own belief is that the KG got their information quickly. It seems likely they did know Aerys was in trouble, and yet were bound by strict orders from Rhaegar, which predated Jon's birth, to remain at the ToJ carrying out some ultra-important mission.

This, you will notice, is exactly what GRRM suggests above. He is implying the ToJ KG wanted to leave the ToJ, because they knew full well what was happening… but they were bound by strict orders given by Rhaegar.

2. Ned's dialogue with the KG at the ToJ also contains a couple of other very interesting hints on this subject. I just recently noticed these.

Let's walk through that dialogue.

Structurally, it's quite simple. Ned is asking the three KG where the hell they have been all this time. He points out four different places they could have been. Then the KG explain why they weren't there.

The first two are the Trident and the Sack. I've already discussed those two above.

The third location is Storm's End, when Ned showed up there to lift the siege. Now, notice there were no Targaryens at Storm's End at that time. Ned knows that. So Storm's End shouldn't even be on his list, right?

Yet he still thinks the three KG could all have been there -- and not with Viserys on Dragonstone. Why does Ned think that's possible?

Because he knows the KG are bound to follow their orders — whether those orders include personally guarding the royal family or not. This, again, supports what GRRM said above, about orders being the determining factor in KG behavior.

The fourth location Ned brings up is even more suggestive. Ned says:

Here, Ned is moving backwards in time… to a point after the Trident, but before the Sack. Because that's when Viserys sailed.

Now, if you've read this far, you know what the Jon Is King! crowd should predict the KG answer should be:

"We, the KG, couldn't have sailed with Viserys before the Sack. We had no idea Rhaegar had died, or that the royal family was even threatened, until the Sack had already happened. We were getting our information very slowly."

But that's not what the KG say. Not at all:

Again: They don't say "we couldn't have fled with Viserys, because we didn't know he was fleeing."

They say "we didn't flee with Viserys. Because we are Kingsguard and Kingsguard don't flee. Then or now."

The clear implication is that the KG knew what was happening all along. They were getting information rapidly, and that info included the fact that Viserys and Rhaella were about to flee to Dragonstone -- before the Sack happened.

Now, once again… if the KG were getting rapid information, that means they chose not to guard King Aerys, even knowing he was in danger after Rhaegar lost at the Trident. Instead, they followed Rhaegar's direct orders (just as GRRM explicitly said).

Which means the KG are not always bound by oath to personally guard the king at all times, but instead, are bound to follow direct orders.

Which means that their presence at the ToJ when Ned arrived does not prove baby Jon was the king.

Thus, it is not demonstrated that Jon is the king, that Rhaegar and Lyanna were married, or that Jon is legitimate. Those making the extraordinary claims have failed to provide adequate evidence to back up the extraordinary claims.

You knocked that one out the park JNR,loads to discuss and i think a new thread devoted to this is warranted.We may have to come up with a Shadow name so we aren't redirected to the other thread( which would be lacking an objective analysis ) so any ideas for BC would be nice. On the Guide i would put in the synopsis what the thread is discussing.

Also i believe there are a few people who do not believe in R+L=J so i would suggest you get your evidence lined up.So far we have two subheadings: With your leave BC.

1. Identity

2. Targ Legitimacy

The curious case of "The dragon prince and the winter rose". Throwing it out there.

[King Benjen II]

Dany's arc has always had the theme of her returning home...so it could be that she "returns" to the original Targaryen home Valyria, the place with a red door, the counterpart to the weirwood door under the Black Gate.

[King Benjen II]

Is Jon the legitimate son of Rhaegar Targaryen? Meaning: Were Rhaegar and Lyanna married?

Part I

Its an extraordinary claim one that requires Rhaegar secretly to have pursued polygamy for the first time in many generations of Targaryen rule.

If you're going to make an extraordinary claim, you need extraordinary evidence. The burden of proof is on those making the claim.

But those making the claim haven't provided much evidence at all. All they have is the presence of three of Aerys Kingsguard at the ToJ when Ned arrived. Their idea is: "KG are sworn to guard the king. The KG were at the ToJ. So was baby Jon. Therefore, baby Jon must be the king."

Now, GRRM has been asked about this exact subject. And very unusually for him, hes given a direct answer.

This is quite plain. Rhaegar ordered the KG to stay at the ToJ, before he rode off to his eventual death at the Trident, and long before Jon was even born. That's why the KG did stay at the ToJ until Ned showed up.

Now, GRRMs statement above has been dismissed by R+L=J people, very heatedly and repeatedly. Usually, they roll out this kind of reasoning: "Rhaegars orders died with him. The KG would not have been bound by Rhaegar's orders after the Trident."

Well, you can read what GRRM actually said, above, and decide for yourself.

As far as I'm concerned, in any dispute between GRRM and some of his fans, I side with GRRM.

PART II

I would find the Jon Is King! argument weak anyway, even without the above, for other reasons. Here are just two of them.

1. We have excellent reason to think the KG don't always defend the king.

Notice that the KG at the ToJ did not move to defend King Aerys the living Targaryen king after Rhaegar's forces were defeated at the Trident, when Aerys' life was in blatant danger.

This, again, is quite straightforward. It clearly suggests that the KG did not consider themselves bound by oath to guard the Targaryen king, in person, under all circumstances. Instead, they consider themselves subject to the direct orders of the royal family, and they assume (and hope) the royal family knows what it's doing, in issuing those orders.

Here's the typical R+L=J response: "The KG didn't know Rhaegar lost, or Aerys was in peril. The ToJ was off the raven network. And they had no other possible way to get news quickly."

Here's the problem with that idea: There is no such statement in the books at all. It's just a convenient assumption, like the idea that Rhaegar and Lyanna got married, that pleases certain people.

Furthermore, we know for sure that the KG did get news fairly quickly. Because by the time Ned showed up, the news that Aerys was dead, and Jaime killed him, beat him there. The three KG already knew it.

So the Jon Is King! crowd is a bit trapped. They think that information was slow getting to the ToJ, and that's why the KG never tried to guard King Aerys. But they also think that information was quick getting to the ToJ, and that's why it outran Ned. These ideas can't both be true.

My own belief is that the KG got their information quickly. It seems likely they did know Aerys was in trouble, and yet were bound by strict orders from Rhaegar, which predated Jon's birth, to remain at the ToJ carrying out some ultra-important mission.

This, you will notice, is exactly what GRRM suggests above. He is implying the ToJ KG wanted to leave the ToJ, because they knew full well what was happening but they were bound by strict orders given by Rhaegar.

2. Ned's dialogue with the KG at the ToJ also contains a couple of other very interesting hints on this subject. I just recently noticed these.

Let's walk through that dialogue.

Structurally, it's quite simple. Ned is asking the three KG where the hell they have been all this time. He points out four different places they could have been. Then the KG explain why they weren't there.

The first two are the Trident and the Sack. I've already discussed those two above.

The third location is Storm's End, when Ned showed up there to lift the siege. Now, notice there were no Targaryens at Storm's End at that time. Ned knows that. So Storm's End shouldn't even be on his list, right?

Yet he still thinks the three KG could all have been there -- and not with Viserys on Dragonstone. Why does Ned think that's possible?

Because he knows the KG are bound to follow their orders whether those orders include personally guarding the royal family or not. This, again, supports what GRRM said above, about orders being the determining factor in KG behavior.

The fourth location Ned brings up is even more suggestive. Ned says:

Here, Ned is moving backwards in time to a point after the Trident, but before the Sack. Because that's when Viserys sailed.

Now, if you've read this far, you know what the Jon Is King! crowd should predict the KG answer should be:

"We, the KG, couldn't have sailed with Viserys before the Sack. We had no idea Rhaegar had died, or that the royal family was even threatened, until the Sack had already happened. We were getting our information very slowly."

But that's not what the KG say. Not at all:

Again: They don't say "we couldn't have fled with Viserys, because we didn't know he was fleeing."

They say "we didn't flee with Viserys. Because we are Kingsguard and Kingsguard don't flee. Then or now."

The clear implication is that the KG knew what was happening all along. They were getting information rapidly, and that info included the fact that Viserys and Rhaella were about to flee to Dragonstone -- before the Sack happened.

Now, once again if the KG were getting rapid information, that means they chose not to guard King Aerys, even knowing he was in danger after Rhaegar lost at the Trident. Instead, they followed Rhaegar's direct orders (just as GRRM explicitly said).

Which means the KG are not always bound by oath to personally guard the king at all times, but instead, are bound to follow direct orders.

Which means that their presence at the ToJ when Ned arrived does not prove baby Jon was the king.

Thus, it is not demonstrated that Jon is the king, that Rhaegar and Lyanna were married, or that Jon is legitimate. Those making the extraordinary claims have failed to provide adequate evidence to back up the extraordinary claims.

Very well written post. I look forward to reading your next posts on this subject.

[TheButcherCrow]

Dany's arc has always had the theme of her returning home...so it could be that she "returns" to the original Targaryen home Valyria, the place with a red door, the counterpart to the weirwood door under the Black Gate.

Nice. Without discussing the optimal conditions for lemon tree growth, there are some issues with Dany's memories of "home". It would be interesting if the "red door" was representative of something more mystical. One thing though, Dany's arc is more about the concept of home rather than a return to it.

[Black Crow]

Is Jon the legitimate son of Rhaegar Targaryen? Meaning: Were Rhaegar and Lyanna married?

...Thus, it is not demonstrated that Jon is the king, that Rhaegar and Lyanna were married, or that Jon is legitimate. Those making the extraordinary claims have failed to provide adequate evidence to back up the extraordinary claims.

To a very large extent this is why I don't actually think that this one requires a thread of its own in Heresy. As you point out far too much of the evidence cited as holy writ is nothing of the sort. GRRM directly responded to the question as to why they were at the Tower by stating they were following orders and orders they didn't like, not because it was their sworn duty to be there. The point about Ser Willem Darry is also well made because at the time Aerys was still King. The whole business is in fact summed up by the statement that had they been by the King's side as they ought to have been Jaime Lannister wouldn't have killed him. Instead they were stuck here obeying orders they resented and as a result failed to protect their king. So now here they are and it is time to die, which is why Ned says "And now it ends".

Basically old son, you are preaching to the converted. I don't think there's anybody on this thread believes that Rhaegar and Lyanna were lawfully wed and that Jon is the heir to the Targaryen throne. That's why rather than get bogged down in refuting the faith we will do much better to consider on the one hand Jon's future role as a son of Winterfell - and what really lies down those stairs, and Dany's true role...

[TheButcherCrow]

Basically old son, you are preaching to the converted. I don't think there's anybody on this thread believes that Rhaegar and Lyanna were lawfully wed and that Jon is the heir to the Targaryen throne. That's why rather than get bogged down in refuting the faith we will do much better to consider on the one hand Jon's future role as a son of Winterfell - and what really lies down those stairs, and Dany's true role...

I sort of do. Evidence schmevidence, it fits the story. I highly doubt anyone other than Jon will ever find out that he is Rhaegar's trueborn son (I do not think he will sit the IT) but your ideas about Jon/Dany as the folks who will sort out their respective elements seem to ignore Bran's role. Bran is a trueborn son of Winterfell, Bran is Ice. Dany is fire. Jon is the bridge. Bran will sort out ice, Dany fire and Jon will hold it all together while they do.

[Black Crow]

An interesting thought occurred to me as to the visions in the House of the Undying - both versions.

As to the book, Dany encounters a young Targaryen Prince (Rhaegar of course) and a young woman confirmed by GRRM to be Elia, both clearly very happy with each other and with their babe. Rhaegar however turns to Dany and says there must be a third.

This is immediately siezed upon by the faithful as evidence that Jon Snow is "the third", but is he? Why does Rhaegar look at Dany when he says it. In anyone's language that's him telling her she is the third. And given that Rhaegar is dead is referring to a third living person, ie; that Dany will be one of a trio or does he mean a third in succession?

Then, and I think more straightforward, is the HBO version, where everything in the book is cut down to the bare essential, the core of the matter. Dany is "offered" the Iron Throne, the one which she considers her by right, and she turns it down. Yes the shattered state of the place may be a foreshadowing of horrors to come, but the point is that she resisted temptation and turned away from it and perhaps also the implication that there are white walkers to fight. No says she, not for her. Is this really a foreshadowing of her fate lying other than in Westeros?

[Black Crow]

I sort of do. Evidence schmevidence, it fits the story. I highly doubt anyone other than Jon will ever find out that he is Rhaegar's trueborn son (I do not think he will sit the IT) but your ideas about Jon/Dany as the folks who will sort out their respective elements seem to ignore Bran's role. Bran is a trueborn son of Winterfell, Bran is Ice. Dany is fire. Jon is the bridge. Bran will sort out ice, Dany fire and Jon will hold it all together while they do.

I honestly don't think it matters, except that perhaps one day Jon will learn of it and turn his back on it because he is a son of Winterfell not a Targaryen Prince. If anyone is going to be a bridge to "hold it all together" it will be Bran.

[Black Crow]

What heresy! I like it. And am curious; if we have the 'evil' Others in the North, what possible 'demons' are haunting Valyria? And why is Mel so obssessed with the ones in the North instead of those in her own backyard?

As to the first, there are demons of snow and ice and cold in the North so why not demons of flame in Valyria. As to Mel I think its opportunistic happenstance. When we first met her she had no notion of trouble up North. She reckoned she had identified Stan the Man as Azor Ahai (clever old her) and only saw her real chance for glory after Davos picked his way through that letter. Never mind Master Benero and the darkness in Valyria. She knows better and she's going to show him. Ha!

[TheButcherCrow]

I honestly don't think it matters, except that perhaps one day Jon will learn of it and turn his back on it because he is a son of Winterfell not a Targaryen Prince. If anyone is going to be a bridge to "hold it all together" it will be Bran.

I agree with that, I think it will be incidental to the "game" but key to the "song". If Dany has to go to Valyria to gain some knowledge or perform some task then that suggests a counterpoint journey will take place with Dany's counterpart making a journey to the Valyrian flipside, the Lands of Always Winter. If Jon is Dany's counterpart then he had best start walking, Bran on the other hand is already well on his way to that particular destination. If Jon is on this "last hero" trek to the LoAW then who leads the armies of Westeros against the WW? Bran is unlikely to lead a charge (unless he skinchanges a horse) so I maintain, Jon will fight the battle, bringing together the armies of the north (ice) and the armies of the south (fire), he will fight and he will keep the enemy busy while Bran & Dany do their thing. Predictable ? Yes. Satisfying ? The way Martin writes? Hell yes.

[Toccs]

Basically old son, you are preaching to the converted. I don't think there's anybody on this thread believes that Rhaegar and Lyanna were lawfully wed and that Jon is the heir to the Targaryen throne. That's why rather than get bogged down in refuting the faith we will do much better to consider on the one hand Jon's future role as a son of Winterfell - and what really lies down those stairs, and Dany's true role...

Sorry BC, but I definitely believe they were indeed wed and that Jon was (at that time at least) the lawful king/heir of the Iron Throne. I am with you though that endgame of the story is not King Jon Targaryen.

[Toccs]

If Jon is on this "last hero" trek to the LoAW then who leads the armies of Westeros against the WW? Bran is unlikely to lead a charge (unless he skinchanges a horse) so I maintain, Jon will fight the battle, bringing together the armies of the north (ice) and the armies of the south (fire), he will fight and he will keep the enemy busy while Bran & Dany do their thing. Predictable ? Yes. Satisfying ? The way Martin writes? Hell yes.

I've never bought into the "fire is the good guy, ice is the bad guy" idea.

[TheButcherCrow]

I've never bought into the "fire is the good guy, ice is the bad guy" idea.

That's not what I'm saying. Ice & Fire are neither good nor evil. They are power in it's rawest form. Evil & good comes in to play with how that power is used.

[JNR]

To a very large extent this is why I don't actually think that this one requires a thread of its own in Heresy. As you point out far too much of the evidence cited as holy writ is nothing of the sort... Instead they were stuck here obeying orders they resented and as a result failed to protect their king. So now here they are and it is time to die, which is why Ned says "And now it ends".

You and I see it this way... but I am afraid a huge percentage of readers don't and won't.

However, my point was mainly just to show that the burden of proof has not been met.

So while it is possible that Jon is the trueborn king, it's doesn't seem at all likely. It remains a very speculative notion, poorly demonstrated by evidence, and it should be seen as such, instead of de facto proven.

[JNR]

You knocked that one out the park JNR,loads to discuss and i think a new thread devoted to this is warranted.We may have to come up with a Shadow name so we aren't redirected to the other thread( which would be lacking an objective analysis ) so any ideas for BC would be nice. On the Guide i would put in the synopsis what the thread is discussing.

Also i believe there are a few people who do not believe in R+L=J so i would suggest you get your evidence lined up.So far we have two subheadings: With your leave BC.

1. Identity

2. Targ Legitimacy

The curious case of "The dragon prince and the winter rose". Throwing it out there.

I'd be glad to read and contribute to such threads, and your creative shadow name sounds cool as a way to dodge the Thread Police. We'll have to see if Black Crow changes his mind.

Very well written post. I look forward to reading your next posts on this subject.

Thanks!

[Toccs]

So while it is possible that Jon is the trueborn king, it's doesn't seem at all likely. It remains a very speculative notion, poorly demonstrated by evidence, and it should be seen as such, instead of de facto proven.

The majority of things we discuss in these very pages and take as "de facto proven" have also similarly failed to meet the burden of proof.

Glass houses and all that :P