Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

RumHam

R+L=J v. 102

Recommended Posts

Yes he would be defying convention and custom. But who is going to strongly object enough to make serious waves?

Dorne is the biggest possibility, I know.

Casterly Rock/Lannisters: If Tywin can insert himself politically into Rhaegar's new regime, then he might be willing to go for it. "I'll accept your second wife if you make me your Hand" sort of deal

Highgarden/The Tyrells: rich but kinda toothless in all this.

The Vale/Arryns: Problematic but might follow the North

The North/Starks: Yeah, Rickard (if he were alive) isn't going to object to his daughter being Queen.

Storm's End/Baratheons: This and Dorne are the issues, I know. But would they concede?

Also, as to your second point, I don't think Rhaegar ever intended Jon to be King of Westeros. That was always going to be Aegon. Baby Boy Jon had a different task and destiny.

Yes, I always envisioned him to be Aegon's and the Realms protector while Aegon was king.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not really strange, considering they are descended from the First Men and worship different gods. The Valyrians clearly believed incest and polygamy was fine...other cultures did not.

I think it is strange, or rather interesting, that two or three different religions would all be anti-polygamy independently of each other.

Something may have changed, but it could also be that Rhaegar just didn't care that something had changed. And, in his head, by the time this was all said and done, he'd have overthrown Aerys (good for the realm and potentially the Faith) and the Faith was still toothless enough that he figured they wouldn't object to what it took to overthrow Aerys and what he did in the process,like marrying Lyanna.

I do not disagree at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is strange, or rather interesting, that two or three different religions would all be anti-polygamy independently of each other.

I don't think it's strange because of the problems it causes with inheritance rights. That's why most cultures disallow it in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it's strange because of the problems it causes with inheritance rights. That's why most cultures disallow it in the first place.

I agree that it is generally disallowed in the first place. So Maegor defied convention, and this caused problems and ultimately war. Some people however like to argue that in modern times "The Faith tolerates Targeryen incest, so they would tolerate Targaryen polygamy." which I do not buy. As you said it causes problems with inheritance rights. These are arguments why they should consider polygamy worse than incest. Not to mention the fact that polygamy undermines the whole idea of marriage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that it is generally disallowed in the first place. So Maegor defied convention, and this caused problems and ultimately war. Some people however like to argue that in modern times "The Faith tolerates Targeryen incest, so they would tolerate Targaryen polygamy." which I do not buy. As you said it causes problems with inheritance rights. These are arguments why they should consider polygamy worse than incest. Not to mention the fact that polygamy undermines the whole idea of marriage.

Just because it might cause political problems for Rhaegar in the future, doesn't mean that he wouldn't go through with it if he thought that child was necessary to save the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that it is generally disallowed in the first place. So Maegor defied convention, and this caused problems and ultimately war. Some people however like to argue that in modern times "The Faith tolerates Targeryen incest, so they would tolerate Targaryen polygamy." which I do not buy. As you said it causes problems with inheritance rights. These are arguments why they should consider polygamy worse than incest. Not to mention the fact that polygamy undermines the whole idea of marriage.

I don't think the Faith would ever like polygamy. But I think you and I both agree that if Rhaegar were to show up with two wives and inform the High Septon that he had married Lyanna and the HS is going to be okay with it ...or else...then the HS is going to be okay with it. Whether that makes it "okay" in terms of morality or general opinion of Rhaegar is up to debate. But I don't know, honestly, if Rhaegar cared about that. He had a planet to save.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just because it might cause political problems for Rhaegar in the future, doesn't mean that he wouldn't go through with it if he thought that child was necessary to save the world.

Exactly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Retreat, hell! We're not retreating, we're just advancing in a different direction."

Quite. Ok, I'll go with that. Barristan was advancing backwards.

Boldly taking to his feet ("I never did!")

He beat a very bold retreat ("All lies!")

Boldest of the boooold, Ser Barristan ("I was advancing backwards!")

Yep, that works!

Great. This leaves only two possible conclusions:

1. Targaryen children are not children, Kingmonkey's assertion was wrong.

2. Ned is opposed to killing Targaryen children, Kingmonkey's assertion was correct.

Which of these two conclusions do you subscribe to?

3. kingmonkeys statement left off Lannister children, Stark children, Baratheon children, whore's children, Tyrell children, Dothraki children, Ironborn children, anybody's children-- well "Ned opposed killing children" is certainly shorter...

You omitted "Kingmonkey's statement also left off that Ned was riding a horse, that the tower was ruinous, that Howland once got a nasty splinter in his right toe that took ages to get out, and that the moon is not made of blue cheese (which, incidentally, isn't the same as saying the moon is made of some non-blue cheese, I assure you). These things are irrelevant, that's why I didn't say them. Ned's attitude to killing Lannister children etc. is equally irrelevant.

It is also not a secret....unless you specify the someone. If Ned heard it from an archer that heard it from a pikeman... that heard it from the cook... that heard it from an inkeeper that heard it from a group of mummers passing through town... it is not a secret.

That would be so, but I thought you weren't into writing fiction? I never suggested he picked up a rumour that was going around. Look at what's implied by the fact that he took a small group of trusted friends rather than taking his army. That's what he'd do if he knew the secret (or at least some part of it), and wanted to keep it secret. He wouldn't need to try to keep the secret if it was a rumour that was going around, but he might if one of the few people in the know had told him. Ashara, perhaps.

If so, you're missing the subtext. Ned doesn't actually believe those things,

I bother to counter the assertion that Ned was lying.... but I do not think you are actually aware you are making it.

he's trying to shame Robert into accepting his viewpoint by stating it in a way he thinks Robert cannot deny. In both cases, Ned says these things in direct response to Robert promoting the idea of killing of a child.

The questionable assertion was that Ned believed Robert was a threat to Targaryen children.

It is questionable because it contradicts Ned's statements... and is not supported by his thoughts.

OK, I understand where you're coming from. Ned says "You are no Tywin Lannister, to slaughter innocents" in direct response to Robert's "A knife, perhaps [as a wedding gift]. A good sharp one, and a bold man to wield it." Robert is planning to slaughter an innocent, and Ned is trying to persuade him that he is a better man than that, and that he shouldn't do it. If you want to call that lying, then yes, I'd say Ned was lying. Perhaps he was lying to himself, but I think the obvious thing to draw from it is that he's trying to shame (someone he considers) a good man who makes bad choices into doing the right thing.

As for your 13 years later point, true. That leaves us with the "I see no babes. Only dragonspawn" bit. Whilst this does not explicitly state that Ned considered Robert a threat to other Targaryen children, I think it would be very bizarre if he didn't. You are of course free to disagree with this, but we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...since when does the KG made decisions based on political viability? They know that Aerys, Rhaegar and Aegon are dead. They know that Jon is Rhaegar's only living son and heir. Ergo, Jon is the rightful king to the Targaryan throne. If the KG had successfully spirited Jon away to safety and then at some point announced to the kingdom that Rhaegar's heir lived, do you think that everyone would have been "...but where's the proof?" to three of the most famous and respected KG in history? Think of how extremely powerful Houses Hightower, Dayne and Whent are. This wouldn't be a cut-and-dried situation at all.

I said look at the way he characterizes both of them.

He thinks Jaime, the man who slew the king who murdered his father and brother and helped win Robert and Ned's war, is disloyal and doesn't deserve to wear the cloak.

He thinks that Arthur Dayne, a man he fought to the death, is the best KG he had ever seen.

The dichotomy is striking and makes no sense until you realize that Ned prizes the KG, first and foremost, for upholding their duty. Ned isn't prone to seeing shades of grey...he sees things very black and white. They refused to run, and they refused to bow down. The story specifically points out that Viserys had no KG with him and the KG at the ToJ thought they were fulfilling their vow by staying there. And so does Ned.

As for the foreshadowing, one or two pieces by themselves would mean nothing...but there's quite a lot of it, and very specific.

Also, the evidence I gave following that supports the idea of marriage.

Rhaegar wants his child to be the third head of the dragon. Why would he not make sure that child IS a dragon in every way possible?

We know that Visenya performed a ritual of blood and fire for her son, Maegor, to marry him to his second wife when the Faith refused.

We know that Lyanna didn't want to marry Robert because of his infidelity. Why on earth would she then consent to become the mistress of any man and bear his bastard child?

We know that they didn't get pregnant right away. In fact, it took several months. So they weren't 'swept up in a fit of passion' and found themselves pregnant. They had plenty of time to get married.

...since when does the KG made decisions based on political viability?

since you use it later in the post....see quote

They know that Aerys, Rhaegar and Aegon are dead.

aGoT page 409 ballpoint in the margin and Robert killed Rhaegar with an arrow drawn to

“I looked for you on the Trident,” Ned said to them--aGoT 409

aGoT page 410 ballpoint in the margin The mountain smashed Aegon's skull with an arrow drawn to

“When King's Landing fell Ser Jamie, slew your king with a golden sword, and I wondered where you were.”--aGoT page 410

They know that Jon is Rhaegar's only living son and heir.

aGoT page 650 or mother in the first birth plus six weeks with an arrow drawn to.

"I know every secret of the bloody bed, silver lady, nor have I ever lost a babe." Mirri Maz Duur replied.--aGoT page 650

Ergo, Jon is the rightful king to the Targaryan throne.

If the KG had successfully spirited Jon away to safety and then at some point announced to the kingdom that Rhaegar's heir lived,

...since when does the KG made decisions based on political viability?

do you think that everyone would have been "...but where's the proof?"

to three of the most famous and respected KG in history?

aGoT page 802 ballpoint.

Think of how extremely powerful Houses Hightower, Dayne and Whent are. This wouldn't be a cut-and-dried situation at all.

aGoT page 802 number 2 pencil

I said look at the way he characterizes both of them.

Yet these were no ordinary three.--aGoT page 409

He thinks that Arthur Dayne, a man he fought to the death, is the best KG he had ever seen.

aCoK page 332 margin in ballpoint KG with an arrow drawn to the lined through word

"The finest knight I ever saw was Ser Arthur Dayne, who fought with a blade called Dawn, forged from the heart of a fallen star, They called him the Sword of the Morning, and he would have killed me but for Howland Reed." Father had gotten sad then , and he would say no more,---aCoK page 332

The dichotomy is striking and makes no sense until you realize that Ned prizes the KG, first and foremost, for upholding their duty. Ned isn't prone to seeing shades of grey...he sees things very black and white. They refused to run, and they refused to bow down.

aGoTpage 410 ballpoint in the margin Nedd offers a chance to run or surrender... the KG refuse

The story specifically points out that Viserys had no KG with him and the KG at the ToJ thought they were fulfilling their vow by staying there. And so does Ned.

aGoT page 410 arows drawn between Ned's and Hightower's statements in ballpoint.

Also, the evidence I gave following that supports the idea of marriage.

Rhaegar wants his child to be the third head of the dragon.

odd paraphrase... but ok. It does not support marriage.

Why would he not make sure that child IS a dragon in every way possible?

and a question

We know that Visenya performed a ritual of blood and fire for her son, Maegor, to marry him to his second wife when the Faith refused.

Ok... The faith refused to perform a second marriage... not something one asserting Rhaegar got married... as Visenya had been dead for a couple hundred years.

We know that Lyanna didn't want to marry Robert because of his infidelity.

We know Lyanna stated Robert will never keep to on bed...

There were thousands, tens of thousand, perhaps hundreds of thousands of arranged marriages in the nobility through the thousand years of Middle Ages and people went through with them. That’s how you did it. It wasn’t questioned..--GRRM

http://entertainment...sy-and-history/

Why on earth would she then consent to become the mistress of any man and bear his bastard child?

again... questions are not proof

But back at you why would Lyanna marry a man that already had a wife over a man that would never keep to one bed?

We know that they didn't get pregnant right away. In fact, it took several months.

Jon was born 8 or 9 months or thereabouts before Dany... who was born 9 months after Trident and the sack of kingslanding. The sack of King's Landing was almost a year into the rebellion.

Lyanna was kidnapped... Brandon rides to King's Landing and get's arrested, Rickard goes to KL to answer the charges, Aerys calls for Jon and Robert's heads--- the war starts-- the war lasted for almost a year and King's Landing was sacked...

subtract 8 or 9 months from the Trident and the sack to get time of conception.... Lyanna was pregnant 3 months into the rebellion at the latest. Not several.

So they weren't 'swept up in a fit of passion' and found themselves pregnant. They had plenty of time to get married.

An opportunity is also not proof....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just because it might cause political problems for Rhaegar in the future, doesn't mean that he wouldn't go through with it if he thought that child was necessary to save the world.

I agree! But I'm not sure why Rhaegar's prophetical son should need to abide by the rules/ceremonies of the Andal faith.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...or it's Bloodraven warning Jon Snow of the man/men who plan on killing him.

A likely story! Remember, the crow's non-nonsense words are "Free" "King" "Kill" "Snow" "Dead", in that order. Where does "Free King" fit into a warning from Bloodraven? I guess he could have been offering Marsh and co. one free king each if they kill Snow dead, but it's much more likely we've just got a misheard line. Ravens don't speak very clearly. "Freaking kill Snow dead!" is the only interpretation that makes sense, and I don't think that's something Bloodraven would say. Not his style. It's the raven talking there.

That bird hates Jon. It's probably a secret Blackfyre.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A likely story! Remember, the crow's non-nonsense words are "Free" "King" "Kill" "Snow" "Dead", in that order. Where does "Free King" fit into a warning from Bloodraven? I guess he could have been offering Marsh and co. one free king each if they kill Snow dead, but it's much more likely we've just got a misheard line. Ravens don't speak very clearly. "Freaking kill Snow dead!" is the only interpretation that makes sense, and I don't think that's something Bloodraven would say. Not his style. It's the raven talking there.

That bird hates Jon. It's probably a secret Blackfyre.

The bird is the Great Other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree! But I'm not sure why Rhaegar's prophetical son should need to abide by the rules/ceremonies of the Andal faith.

He's following a prophecy. The prophecy says that there will be three heads of the dragon. The dragons are the Targaryans. He would want this child to be a Targaryan, otherwise he/she would not be considered a "dragon".

I think it was more about crossing his Ts and dotting his Is...something his personality lends itself to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bird is the Great Other.

No, the bird...is a secret Targaryan!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was just thinking the same "How does that work" question everyone else was, until it suddenly struck me... "King Jon Snow" IS both a king and a bastard. Snow is a Bastard's name. It might be King Jon Stark or King Jon Targaryen, but if it's King Jon Snow, that does kind of indicate a bastard king.

However! I have an entirely different take on the Ravens and the "king" line. Let's Mormont's Raven's wordsin Jon VIII, aDwD, when John is talking with Marsh, Cellador and Yarwyck. From the three entering the room:

"Corn, " screamed the raven from the lintel. "Corn, corn. "

"Free, " the raven muttered. "Corn. King. "

The raven flapped its wings and said, "Corn, corn, kill. "

"Snow, " screamed Lord Mormont's raven. "Snow, Snow. "

Above the door the raven muttered, "Dead, dead, dead. "

We can ignore "corn" because ravens are greedy, and we can ignore repetition of the same word, because ravens are babbling nutcases. This leaves us with:

"Free" "King" "Kill" "Snow" "Dead".

Yes, new crackpot theory time! We've totally misinterpreted the Raven's "King" quorks, as did Jon and Mormont in the books. The Raven has no interest in monarchies, he's telling Marsh, Yarwyck and Cellador (at least one of whom was involved in Jon's stabbing, obviously on the raven's instructions) to "Freaking kill Snow dead!"

Now THAT... is hilarious, and rather amazing. I did indeed laugh out loud. Well done, ser. :laugh:

The other, more substantive tie-in there, of course, is the myth of the Corn King (aka, John Barleycorn, aka, the Green Man), whose death is necessary to ensure plenty during the winter, and the rebirth and renewal of the land come spring.

In fact, there is significant history of kings who have been mythologized as the half-human sons of male gods and mortal human mothers. They are divine bastards, and it is precisely that bastard nature that justifies and empowers their kingship and authority. Jon Snow looks like a prime candidate to follow in that tradition.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now THAT... is hilarious, and rather amazing. I did indeed laugh out loud. Well done, ser. :laugh:

The other, more substantive tie-in there, of course, is the myth of the Corn King (aka, John Barleycorn, aka, the Green Man), whose death is necessary to ensure plenty during the winter, and the rebirth and renewal of the land come spring.

In fact, there is significant history of kings who have been mythologized as the half-human sons of male gods and mortal human mothers. They are divine bastards, and it is precisely that bastard nature that justifies and empowers their kingship and authority. Jon Snow looks like a prime candidate to follow in that tradition.

.

Agreed, that's the real reason the bird is yelling Corn. King. at Jon. "Dude! you about to be staaaaaaaabed!"

Though the Bird being the Great Other (secret Targ) is quite compelling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now THAT... is hilarious, and rather amazing. I did indeed laugh out loud. Well done, ser. :laugh:

The other, more substantive tie-in there, of course, is the myth of the Corn King (aka, John Barleycorn, aka, the Green Man), whose death is necessary to ensure plenty during the winter, and the rebirth and renewal of the land come spring.

In fact, there is significant history of kings who have been mythologized as the half-human sons of male gods and mortal human mothers. They are divine bastards, and it is precisely that bastard nature that justifies and empowers their kingship and authority. Jon Snow looks like a prime candidate to follow in that tradition.

That is a really great parallel! The Green Man faces sort of resemble the weirwood faces too.

Interesting point too about divine bastards. Even King Arthur's conception and birth is described as illegitimate or at least sketchy in some versions of the myth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd have to go with Mormont's raven secretly being jealous of Jon's rapid ascent as Lord Commander. That whole kettle thing was misunderstood. The Raven was asking Jon for his support. Jon was too dumb to see that even when the Raven started yelling "Kettle!" at him. He'd been serving Mormont way longer than Jon had, it was clearly his turn.



You can't blame the Raven for that, really. Look at it from his viewpoint; they're crows, he's a raven. Ravens are superior. Bran (Welsh for crow) is junior to Bloodraven, and so the Night's watch (crows) should be junior to Mormont's raven.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting point too about divine bastards. Even King Arthur's conception and birth is described as illegitimate or at least sketchy in some versions of the myth.

Sketchy to say the least. Arthur's dad Uther got Merlin to transform him into the likeness* of the duke of Tintagel so he could sneakily have his wicked way with Gorlois' wife. He later killed the duke and married his wife, just to make it up to her. That's been pretty much standard since Geoffrey of Monmouth, the earliest complete account we have.

No doubt Ygrain can say more about this, as she's named after the lady in question.

edit: *Wait, does this suggest that Uther Pendragon was a secret Faceless Man?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×