Heresy 127

[TheButcherCrow]

I almost fear writing this but it's meant entirely hypothetically and meant to make a point about marriage, Craster and bastards.

IF Ygritte had lived and IF she had borne Jon a child, would she have considered that child "trueborn" ? I would hazard yes. By all accounts Jon and Ygritte were married, by the wildling custom anyway and I use this to illustrate the Craster issue. If some ranger got trapped north of the wall during the winter and that winter lasted say, three years, then conceivably he could have ended with a wildling wife and little baby Craster. Winter ends and one morning the wife gets up and Ranger Bob has sacked off back to Castle Black.

One additional question, do we think Gilly considers herself and Sam to be "married" ? He stole her after her first husband died after all.

(this account has not been hacked by TRJS)

[Hrafntýr]

I like this a lot, but it suddenly occurs to me that there might be another angle to take on this... "Bael" is an element that appears in Targaryen names, in some cases earlier than this trip north seems to have occured. (See: Jaeherys' second son Baelon, apparently born in the mid first century, AC... later there is Baelor Breakspear, and Baelor the Blessed.) There are a couple of Baelors in other houses, appearing closer to the current story's timeline... but the Targs seem to have used that "bael" element first.

So here's the second angle on this Bael the bard business. Assuming for now that the time periods align - what if Bael the bard was himself a Targaryen bastard, or a prodigal son already in exile? That would have provided incentive for him to connect with Alysanne (or vice versa) during her trip North - beyond just the incentive of "conquest." It would also have provided added incentive to visit Winterfell, if he came during Jaehaerys' visit - and perhaps getting in was even easier than advertised. Above all, of course... it would mean that dragon blood was mixed into the Stark line much earlier than anyone has realized.

(Cracked pot? Of course. But it's an intriguingly cracked pot... if I do say so myself. :) )

This was just what I was suggesting above. Baelon is a name of a Targ of the generation before Aegon's conquest, by the way.

:agree:

Until that Rogue Prince story came along all we knew of the visit came from Northern sources and there's no hint that it was anything other than a bog-standard royal progress of the show the flag; let the royal countenance shine upon the lieges; do justice on the criminal classes [or anybody else handy for it]; disburse some alms and set in motion some expensive public works, like roads and drains which nobody wants.

However by popular repute the North is stuffed with all manner of horrors from white walkers to home cooking so its easy to see how a royal visit could reputedly involve fighting said horrors

I'd demur somewhat, on account of Roose bringing up Queen Alysanne so memorably in ADwD as Jaehaerys' "shrewish queen," highlighting her importance in relationship to the first night/bastardy nexus.

Well, I'd take the other side on that - and probably for the same reason: it's seemingly random placement. Not saying the "details" are accurate or that it couldn't be "just a bedtime story," but we do know that the royal part traveled North. And we know it was more than just a social visit, in the end... Alysanne, at least, made some significant changes while she was there. Beyond that, the repeated mentioning of this episode starts to look less incidental as Martin goes on. In the context of the Rogue Prince in particular, there's no obvious reason to bring it up at all - which just makes me wonder why Martin included it.

<snip>

I agree.

[#Fire and Blood]

Er...no.

The stag, if there really was one, is very conspicuous by its absence in the book - which is why some of us cleave to the theory that the foot of shattered antler with the tines snapped off was actually an antler-bone dagger.

Gah! I forgot...I get the show and books confused too often now!

Did GRRM ever say we will find out who/why the DW was there? I thought he said it was one of those "only this one time" instances that are just there to get the story moving.

[Hrafntýr]

I almost fear writing this but it's meant entirely hypothetically and meant to make a point about marriage, Craster and bastards.

IF Ygritte had lived and IF she had borne Jon a child, would she have considered that child "trueborn" ? I would hazard yes. By all accounts Jon and Ygritte were married, by the wildling custom anyway and I use this to illustrate the Craster issue. If some ranger got trapped north of the wall during the winter and that winter lasted say, three years, then conceivably he could have ended with a wildling wife and little baby Craster. Winter ends and one morning the wife gets up and Ranger Bob has sacked off back to Castle Black.

One additional question, do we think Gilly considers herself and Sam to be "married" ? He stole her after her first husband died after all.

(this account has not been hacked by TRJS)

Just so. But this is an example of a case of a clash of different cultural understandings of marriage. Yes, likely for the wildling woman who was Craster's mother, her liaison with the black crow was a marriage, and her son Craster trueborn. But for the men on the Wall, there was no marriage, the baby was a bastard, and unless the crow father wished to recognize him, neither the mother nor the child had a claim on the father. But Craster's quite clear on the fact that none of his children are bastards, as he's married all their mothers. The question might be: is there any such thing as bastardy north of the wall? I suppose only if a woman doesn't know who the father of her child might have been (incidentally: can spearwives "steal" husbands?).

I don't know about Gilly's understanding of her relationship with Sam. Her conversation with him aboard the Cinnamon Wind suggests that she doesn't expect any further relationship with him once they're back on land. But were she have to conceived during their hanky panky at sea, I wonder if she'd consider their child "trueborn." But then again, as I say above, I'm not sure what "bastardy" really means north of the Wall.

[The Snowfyre Chorus]

I almost fear writing this but it's meant entirely hypothetically and meant to make a point about marriage, Craster and bastards.

IF Ygritte had lived and IF she had borne Jon a child, would she have considered that child "trueborn" ? I would hazard yes. By all accounts Jon and Ygritte were married, by the wildling custom anyway and I use this to illustrate the Craster issue. If some ranger got trapped north of the wall during the winter and that winter lasted say, three years, then conceivably he could have ended with a wildling wife and little baby Craster. Winter ends and one morning the wife gets up and Ranger Bob has sacked off back to Castle Black.

One additional question, do we think Gilly considers herself and Sam to be "married" ? He stole her after her first husband died after all.

(this account has not been hacked by TRJS)

I don't know what you're nervous about. That all makes sense to me. And the answer to the Gilly-Sam marriage question is yes. A most ironic, hilarious yes. What's so funny, you ask? Well, after Craster's big talk about how if a "man wants to bed a woman, seems like he ought to take her to wife," and after Gilly tells Sam that she'd "be your wife, like I was Craster's," if only he'll agree to take her baby to the Wall... after all that, Gilly finally names the very moment she considers that she became Sam's wife. And that is the moment she takes Sam's virginity:

"I am your wife now," she whispered, sliding up and down on him. And Sam groaned and thought, No, no, you can't be, I said the words, I said the words, but the only word he said was, "Yes."

Cracks me up. Because now we have to look back and decide what all that talk about marriage and wives and bastardy really meant. What did Craster mean by "wife" as opposed to "bed," and what did Gilly mean when she (first ) offered to be Jon's wife, and then especially when she told Sam she'd be his wife "like [she] was Craster's." Plus... depending on how you think Craster's wives qualify as "wildling" women, this whole episode throws an entertaining wrench into any speculation having to do with Jon's "legitimacy," and the "marriage" that some imagine was celebrated by Jon's mother. There are so many implied double-takes here, that I just can't help laughing.

(Also cool: this was the moment Gilly cured Sam of green-sickness.)

[Hrafntýr]

I don't know what you're nervous about. That all makes sense to me. And the answer to the Gilly-Sam marriage question is yes. A most ironic, hilarious yes. What's so funny, you ask? Well, after Craster's big talk about how if a "man wants to bed a woman, seems like he ought to take her to wife," and after Gilly offers tells Sam that she'd "be your wife, like I was Craster's," if only he'll agree to take take her baby to the Wall... after all that, Gilly finally names the very moment she considers that she became Sam's wife. And that moment is the moment she takes Sam's virginity:

"I am your wife now," she whispered, sliding up and down on him. And Sam groaned and thought, No, no, you can't be, I said the words, I said the words, but the only word he said was, "Yes."

Cracks me up. Because now we have to look back and decide what all that talk about marriage and wives and bastardy really meant. What did Craster mean by "wife" as opposed to "bed," and what did Gilly mean when she (first ) offered to be Jon's wife, and then especially when she told Sam she'd be his wife "like [she] was Craster's." Plus... depending on how you think Craster's wives qualify as "wildling" women, this whole episode throws an entertaining wrench into any speculation having to do with Jon's "legitimacy," and the "marriage" that some imagine was celebrated by Jon's mother. There are so many implied double-takes here, that I just can't help laughing.

(Also cool: this was the moment Gilly cured Sam of green-sickness.)

This is great, Snowfyre Chorus! And that link about green sickness is hysterical!

[The Snowfyre Chorus]

This was just what I was suggesting above. Baelon is a name of a Targ of the generation before Aegon's conquest, by the way.

:cheers: You're right - somehow I missed that post. Sorry about that!

...I wonder if she'd consider their child "trueborn." But then again, as I say above, I'm not sure what "bastardy" really means north of the Wall.

See my last comment re: Gilly's view of things. But I'm with you on the issue of "trueborn" children - I don't think the concept would have any traction in wildling culture. Based on Tormund's comments to Jon, it seems the "legitimacy" of children north of the Wall is decided by the mother when she chooses to bear the child.

"Do you mislike the girl?" Tormund asked him as they passed another twenty mammoths, these bearing wildlings in tall wooden towers instead of giants.

"No, but I..." What can I at that he will believe? "I am still too young to wed."

"Wed?" Tormund laughed. "Who spoke of wedding? In the south, must a man wed every girl he beds?"

Jon could feel himself turning red again. “She spoke for me when Rattleshirt would have killed me. I would not dishonor her."

"You are a free man now, and Ygritte is a free woman. What dishonor if you lay together?"

"I might get her with child."

"Aye, I'd hope so. A strong son or a lively laughing girl kissed by fire, and where's the harm in that?"

Words failed him for a moment. "The boy… the child would be a bastard."

“Are bastards weaker than other children? More sickly, more like to fail?"

"No, but—"

"You're bastard-born yourself. And if Ygritte does not want a child, she will go to some woods witch and drink a cup o' moon tea. You do not come into it, once the seed is planted."

[Black Crow]

Yes, I think ultimately the big message coming over here is that the bastardy which both Jon in the book and the R+L=J crowd in the forum are so exercised about doesn't mean a thing in the end. There is so much effort expended on that thread and ancillary ones in proclaiming and "proving" that Jon is the legitimate son of one Rhaegar Targaryen when GRRM is actually telling us it doesn't matter.

[alienarea]

Yes, I think ultimately the big message coming over here is that the bastardy which both Jon in the book and the R+L=J crowd in the forum are so exercised about doesn't mean a thing in the end. There is so much effort expended on that thread and ancillary ones in proclaiming and "proving" that Jon is the legitimate son of one Rhaegar Targaryen when GRRM is actually telling us it doesn't matter.

Especially if it were to turn out that Rhaegar Targaryen wasn't involved at all.

[The Snowfyre Chorus]

Yes, I think ultimately the big message coming over here is that the bastardy which both Jon in the book and the R+L=J crowd in the forum are so exercised about doesn't mean a thing in the end. There is so much effort expended on that thread and ancillary ones in proclaiming and "proving" that Jon is the legitimate son of one Rhaegar Targaryen when GRRM is actually telling us it doesn't matter.

Just so. And not only that... he's almost explicity asking us to take a harder look at this very question. Legitimacy and bastardy are two sides of the same issue, and the issue is simply the question of social standing and, ultimately, power. So it's the same challenge presented by Varys' riddle, in the end. And neither bastardy nor legitimacy mean a thing in the end, when (as Tormund himself points out) the only things that get anyone's attention in this world are strength... and love.

[Amoracchius]

There is also Sansa's transformation into the bastard Alayne. That a trueborn lady from two of the most noble houses in Westeros could so easily pass herself off as the bastard of a lord from a minor house and some unnamed mystery woman shows what a ridiculous distinction it is. Clearly, the bits about bastards being more treacherous, dishonest, etc. are all bunk.

[JonBranRickon]

If Jon is the the son of R&L then his legitimacy is not in question. He was guarded by the Kingsqguard for only one reason, R &L married and he is the rightful heir. Otherwise the the Tower of Joy makes no sense at all. Ask yoursellf why didn't the Kingsguard find its way to Viserys instead of fighting to the death to protect Lyanna from her brother.? IMO, GRRM is not questioning the bastards vs legitimate born and this is a non-issue.

[The Free Folk]

If Jon is the the son of R&L then his legitimacy is not in question. He was guarded by the Kingsqguard for only one reason, R &L married and he is the rightful heir. Otherwise the the Tower of Joy makes no sense at all. Ask yoursellf why didn't the Kingsguard find its way to Viserys instead of fighting to the death to protect Lyanna from her brother.? IMO, GRRM is not questioning the bastards vs legitimate born and this is a non-issue.

I can't speak for those above but I don't think the above discussion disputes this is any way. What is being debated isn't Jon's bastardry vs legitimacy but rather the idea that in the end it won't matter whether he's legitimate or not. I think for Jon to realize this is much more logical conclusion to his arc than him learning that he is in fact the legitimate son of Rhaegar (though I suppose both could happen).

Just so. And not only that... he's almost explicity asking us to take a harder look at this very question. Legitimacy and bastardy are two sides of the same issue, and the issue is simply the question of social standing and, ultimately, power. So it's the same challenge presented by Varys' riddle, in the end. And neither bastardy nor legitimacy mean a thing in the end, when (as Tormund himself points out) the only things that get anyone's attention in this world are strength... and love.

:agree:

[Urrax2]

... And that link about green sickness is hysterical!

:agree: But why does it say the book is fiction?

[Frey family reunion]

If Jon is the the son of R&L then his legitimacy is not in question. He was guarded by the Kingsqguard for only one reason, R &L married and he is the rightful heir. Otherwise the the Tower of Joy makes no sense at all. Ask yoursellf why didn't the Kingsguard find its way to Viserys instead of fighting to the death to protect Lyanna from her brother.? IMO, GRRM is not questioning the bastards vs legitimate born and this is a non-issue.

I'm not completely sure that the oath that Arthur, Gerold, and Oswell spoke of was their oath to the Targaryen crown. Otherwise, they would have been at the Trident, or they would have been at King's Landing where Eddard presumed they would be. After all despite Jon's legitimacy as a son of Rhaegar, he would still in line of succession be of lesser importance than either Aerys or Aegon and absent a Great Council probably lower in the succession line than Rhaenys, Viserion and Dany. Yet they willingly abandoned all to be at the Tower of Joy. I think they were there as representatives of the ancient First Men Houses of Hightower and Dayne, and the occultish House Harrenhall (which at the time happened to be House Whent) guarding the only son of Lyanna Stark. The oath they were fulfilling may have been a seperate oath they made with Rhaegar.

[wolfmaid7]

I agree and disagree that Jon's suppossed legitamacy vs Bastardy is irrelevant. Let me explain, all through this story the trurborn label has had everything positive associated with it wev'e seen the likes of Ramsey , hell we even had Craster attacking a dude for calling him Bastard.Jon himself have felt and achknowleded the negative only to be set straight by Tourmond who challanged his stinking thinking. If and when Jon's legitamacy comes up it will be an internal struggle for him.His potential Targness and the duty expected of that and lets not forget Robb's will.

Pressure to be a Targ vs pressure to be a Stark, no doubt factions will be pulling tugging etc.What to do?

Jon is more than Stark or Targ he is the North, and to claim the North is to embrace his "true name" SNOW. So Targ or Stark may have its perks and expectations, but in the end Jon is "magic's" bastard and he will claim his true nature and name - Snow.

[alienarea]

After being stabbed four times it might be a lesser concern whether he's legitimate or not. At least he doesn't wear plaid.

[Black Crow]

I'm not completely sure that the oath that Arthur, Gerold, and Oswell spoke of was their oath to the Targaryen crown. Otherwise, they would have been at the Trident, or they would have been at King's Landing where Eddard presumed they would be. After all despite Jon's legitimacy as a son of Rhaegar, he would still in line of succession be of lesser importance than either Aerys or Aegon and absent a Great Council probably lower in the succession line than Rhaenys, Viserion and Dany. Yet they willingly abandoned all to be at the Tower of Joy. I think they were there as representatives of the ancient First Men Houses of Hightower and Dayne, and the occultish House Harrenhall (which at the time happened to be House Whent) guarding the only son of Lyanna Stark. The oath they were fulfilling may have been a seperate oath they made with Rhaegar.

That's an interesting one with possibilities - and I'd laugh like a drain if it turned out to be true.

[Black Crow]

If Jon is the the son of R&L then his legitimacy is not in question. He was guarded by the Kingsqguard for only one reason, R &L married and he is the rightful heir. Otherwise the the Tower of Joy makes no sense at all. Ask yoursellf why didn't the Kingsguard find its way to Viserys instead of fighting to the death to protect Lyanna from her brother.? IMO, GRRM is not questioning the bastards vs legitimate born and this is a non-issue.

Not at all, there are a number of ways in which what happened at the tower can be explained and the certainty in another place that its all about demonstrating Jon's being the [legitimate] heir to the Iron Throne is not as watertight as advertised so it is most certainly not a non-issue.

On the contrary as Snowfyre so rightly points out the issue is not about legitimacy but rather the belief that it means something - or not.

[King Wun Weg]

Hello, glad you could join in! That's an interesting suggestion for Hodor, and a nice detail with the 3 colors of the Trident. Someone else can speak more to the Lady of the Waves/Lord of the Sky connections, I never noticed the possible link to House Massey.

I wonder if blue is also connected to water?

Why thank you. In regards to Hodor being short for Horned Lord like I said just an idea I threw out there once. The meaning of Hodor has actually nagged at me through out the series.

So,

Red = sun / fire / Lord of the Sky - R'hllor / Storm God (perhaps)

Green = planetos or "earth" / land / ?

Blue = moon / water (maybe even to an extent ice) / Lady of the Waves - "Great Other" / Drowned God (perhaps)

I guess then the big ? would be the Old Gods, Greenseers, COTF, and men to an extent who partake in such religious / magical beliefs and practices. It is the balance due to having aspects or branches into either extreme without loosing itself in either side. And if one strays to far to either side they then run a big risk of causing some pretty hairy events and people creatures like Mel, Moqorro, and the Others who in my opinion were originally once men who went to far the ice way or pissed off the COTF and fellow Green Men and were cursed, or cursed themselves to gain the upper hand for some particular reason. Power hungry? Though like Ygritte says or was it Jon, can not recall, but it all depends where one is standing and quite true for us readers until GRRM fills us in.

Eh, could be all, some, or none.