Jump to content

Archived

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

Jon Weirgaryen

R+L=J v.103

Recommended Posts

Interesting. It's really the third rider that gets debated most often, since obviously one is Dany and most think Jon is going to be one.

So does that make Tyrion a chimaera?

Child of three, Joanna, Aerys and Tywin?

Mismatched eyes?

I wonder. Wrong thread, and I don't wanna know just yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's pretty clear that the Valyrian dragonlords began the incest because they wanted to ensure that all their descendants would have the right drop of blood to become dragonriders. Nobody ever said that a half-Targaryen, a quarter-Targaryen, and so forth cannot become a dragonrider, but it seems that it becomes less likely that you have it in you to become a dragonrider.

And if your power basis as a family are your dragons, you better ensure that all your children and grandchildren are able to claim the creatures.

Thus it would still be possible that a descendant of a dragonlord in the, say, 20th generation or so would be able to bond with a dragon, just very unlikely. Sort of like winning the lottery.

Right, that's basically exactly what I meant. Technically it would be possible, but we have not seen examples of it really, besides PATQ (which has no documentation of blood-status of the riders).

My guess is that Jon has the right blood to ride.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HODOR!

I feel like an RLJ thread is never really an RLJ thread until this happens.

Right, that's basically exactly what I meant. Technically it would be possible, but we have not seen examples of it really, besides PATQ (which has no documentation of blood-status of the riders).

My guess is that Jon has the right blood to ride.

Agreed. Jon will ride a dragon. (and quite possibly warg one)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now saw this. That's quite clever.

and inventive....

longclaw was in a fire...

"the fire melted the silver off the pommel and crossguard and grip. Well,dry leather and old wood, what would you expect? The blade now... You'd need a fire a hundred times as hot to harm the blade." Mormont shoved the scabbard across the rough oak planks. "I had the rest made new. Take it."--aGoT page 630-631.

If you just "add pulled from the fire".. longclaw was pulled from the fire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the best breakdown of the conversation between Ned and the KG I've seen, but I still see problems with it.





“Ser Willem Darry is fled to Dragonstone, with your queen and Prince Viserys. I thought you might have sailed with him.”


Ned has offered the Kingsguard the option of surrendering to him, which they rejected. This line is disjointed in the timeline because Ned is changing his tactic. He holds the Kingsguard, especially these three in high regard, even years later. He called them a shining example to the rest of the world. In an attempt to find some talking point that would lead to a peaceful solution, Ned tells them that their queen and prince have fled to Dragonstone without Kingsguard protection. This is an opening for the Kingsguard to discuss a tactical withdrawal. It is within Ned’s capabilities, as second in command, to provide safe passage. It would be in his, his friend’s and the Kingsguard’s best interests to allow them to go to Dragontsone to carry out their duties there.







“And now it begins,” said Ser Arthur Dayne, the Sword of the Morning. He unsheathed Dawn and held it with both hands. The blade was pale as milkglass, alive with light.


The most important (first) battle of the Jon Targaryen dynasty. The mindset of the Kingsguard is that they will win the battle, and keep the secret at the tower safe until they can move to safety. There is nothing here that would indicate any fatalism on the part of Arthur. It suggests that Arthur expects to win, though we know with hindsight that they did not, and that at least Ned and Howland are aware of the secret.




Why would they discuss a tactical withdrawl and think they are going to win the battle. If they think that they are going to win, then there's no point to discuss anything until after the battle(this is assuming R+L=/=J and they wanted to head to Dragonstone).



And I don't see how it's in Ned's or Robert's best interest to allow 3 of the best knights at the time safe passage to help protect someone that Robert wants dead. Unless they were going to use it as a trap.








“Woe to the Usurper if we had been,” said Ser Oswell.


This states that Robert is considered an usurper by these Kingsguard, or at least by Ser Oswell Whent. He does use the term "we" and implies that Robert could not have won the battle at the Trident if these three had been present at the battle. They know that Robert has been crowned and taken the throne as an usurper. This also tells us that they know of an heir that is still living that has a better claim than Robert.




This also happens to be my biggest pet peeve with this theory. It is the use of the word usurper. No one ever seems to look it up or see how it is used in context within the world of aSoIaF.






Must the rightful Lord of the Seven Kingdoms beg for help from widow women and usurpers? [3]


- Melisandre






The Starks seek to steal half my kingdom, even as the Lannisters have stolen my throne and my own sweet brother the swords and service and strongholds that are mine by rights. They are all usurpers, and they are all my enemies.[2]


- Stannis






Daemon Blackfyre was a rebel and usurper.[11]


Stannis Baratheon, to Ser Justin Massey



As you can see, the term usurper is used to describe people who have made a claim to the throne, not to have actually won it. If anything this line only shows that they had knowledge of the Trident where Robert first made his claim to the throne.



It was not until the end of the war, around the time the Battle of the Trident was being fought, that Robert Baratheon proclaimed his intention to claim the throne.





“Our knees do not bend easily,” said Ser Arthur Dayne.


Ser Arthur Dayne speaks for the group, and says that they will not surrender. Of note, when Ned approaches the tower Ser Oswell Whent is on his knee. That fact and this line can amount to a subtle clue that the Kingsguard have already bent their knees at the tower, before Ned arrives.




Ser Oswell Whent was on one knee, sharpening his blade with a whetstone.(aGoT Eddard X)



I think it's easier to sharpen your blade while sitting or kneeling rather than standing. So the fact that he was on his knee, sharpening his blade, does not mean he had just bent the knee to Lyanna's child.



There's more but then it just becomes nitpicking.



Otherwise good job.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Jon ends up as a dragonrider, he'll only become one if one of the original three dragonriders die, or if another dragon shows up at the Wall. I'm pretty sure Viserion and Rhaegal will be claimed in TWoW, and most likely not by Jon Snow - rather while they still hang around in Meereen. All signs point towards Tyrion and Viserion, so Rhaegal may be claimed by Victarion or Euron (using Dragonbinder), or perhaps by somebody else.

...so Jon won't have a dragon and he won't get a sword? Dany is going to fulfill all of the prophecies? What will Jon end up doing, then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I did say he could/will become a dragonrider, didn't I? Just not the first rider of either of Dany's dragons, since they won't remain unclaimed for long...



The chances are almost zero that Rhaegal just flies from Slaver's Bay to the Wall because Jon has to be his rider, don't you think? The dragons have to get to Westeros first, before we can reasonably speculate who may claim them as second or third rider...



And we should not easily dismiss the possibility that they may be still other dragons out there - either survivors from the past, or young dragons hatched from eggs after Dany's three dragons came to life.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I did say he could/will become a dragonrider, didn't I? Just not the first rider of either of Dany's dragons, since they won't remain unclaimed for long...

The chances are almost zero that Rhaegal just flies from Slaver's Bay to the Wall because Jon has to be his rider, don't you think? The dragons have to get to Westeros first, before we can reasonably speculate who may claim them as second or third rider...

And we should not easily dismiss the possibility that they may be still other dragons out there - either survivors from the past, or young dragons hatched from eggs after Dany's three dragons came to life.

No, I'm asking what do you think Jon will do in this upcoming war if you don't think he fulfills any prophecies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ser Oswell Whent was on one knee, sharpening his blade with a whetstone.(aGoT Eddard X)

I think it's easier to sharpen your blade while sitting or kneeling rather than standing. So the fact that he was on his knee, sharpening his blade, does not mean he had just bent the knee to Lyanna's child.

There's more but then it just becomes nitpicking.

Otherwise good job.

Well, yes, it's obviously easier to sharpen a blade while sitting. But it's symbolic of the entire event and what has transpired in the Tower, especially when the lines "our knees do not bend..." comes later.

Well, I did say he could/will become a dragonrider, didn't I? Just not the first rider of either of Dany's dragons, since they won't remain unclaimed for long...

Well why do you think the other two dragons will be spoken for by the time they get to Westeros? Tyrion, I agree, will mount Viserion but why does Rhaegal need a rider before Dany lands on the shores of home?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BearQueen87 said:



Of course there's no honor is forcing either.. I'm using the quote as an illustration of something. Craster is a terrible man, never said otherwise. Forget Craster himself. Look at the quote. If you want to bed a woman, you marry her first. And the fact that it's being said directly to Jon is significant.


---------------



And Mambu said:



Sorry, I can't forget the source - if one uses Craster as a source of an authoratative declaration on honorable marriage vs. bastards, his veracity as a source of has to be considered...we have to consider him.



I can't take uncritically from Craster that Marriage automatically = honor to a woman, completely independently of the coercive circumstances of that marriage ("But I don't want to be fooking married to you, Father!"), and that therefore having a woman as a lover who willingly gives herself in full knowledge without marriage must automatically = dishonoring her.



Craster is set up as one of the closest things in the books to an embodiment of pure evil, and therefore when HE preaches of morality, it's probably best to consider it Opposite Day, and take his teachings as instructive of what good people ought NOT to do or think. So to pick out that ONE thing that he says (among all the other evil things he says and does) and say that that ONE thing is totally right and correct and in harmony with what ALL Westeros would think of honor, just because that ONE thing provides a hint of proof of your theory - doesn't convince me.



Because when cruel Craster praises marriage and denigrates bastards as intrinsically inferior because of their origin - is he right about that, too? Is a bastard intrinsically an inferior creature due to circumstances beyond his control, no matter what his virtues and good works are? I think that we would disagree, and even some of the better Westerosi would disagree. And I think that GRRM's entire work is dedicated to undermining the whole simpleminded black/white view of conventional Westerosi morality, showing us its cruelty and stupidity. Knight=honor, nobility=perfection, smallfolk=scum, virgin=good girl, non-virgin=worthless whore...all these and others are conventional Westerosi moral views, and GRRM has undermined them all. His heroes undermine them with their actions. For example, Sam is honorable, and has a loving unmarried relationship with Gilly. Does that make his relationship with her dishonorable as compared to the relationship of Ramsey with Jeyne Poole? After all, he married her (without her choice) before abusing her horribly. I'm sure you would agree that Sam behaves more honorably. And IMO, even one of the better Westerosi would say the same. The black/white moral view isn't realistic - not in our world, and not in a complexly-drawn world like Westeros.



So I don't think GRRM, having undermined all those simpleminded black/white moral views, would say, "Yeah. all those are wrong. But the one that says "Bastard=inferior"? Evil daughter-raping Craster was totally right about that one. No matter what his hard work, his skill and his virtues are, if Jon were a bastard he'd STILL be unworthy. Fortunately, I as author will produce this deus ex marriage certificate to prove that he's not one of those worthless creatures. Jon is NOT an inferior bastard, and therefore he's worthy to be the Hero of Heroes! Aren't you all relieved he wasn't one of those unworthy baseborn?"



Doesn't inspire me much.


---------------



Couple of thoughts about Craster:


  1. The man is a bastard himself. He's not denigrating bastards as "intrinsically inferior because of their origin." Quite the opposite, actually. When he says “man wants to bed a woman, seems like he ought to take her to wife," he's denouncing the absent father. Not the child who (like himself), was abandoned. Bringing me to my second thought, which is...
  2. That "taking to wife" does not necessarily mean the same thing as "having a wedding." They don't have "weddings" beyond the Wall... and for Craster, the important point is not that the man gets the marriage certificate witnessed and notarized... but that he not abandon the mother of his child. That's Craster's M.O. He's got women to protect, and gods help him - he's not leaving them. Craster may seem an evil man... but in that regard, he almost certainly shows up Lyanna's baby-daddy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, yes, it's obviously easier to sharpen a blade while sitting. But it's symbolic of the entire event and what has transpired in the Tower, especially when the lines "our knees do not bend..." comes later.

It very well could be. And the quote "our knees do not bend easily" could also refer to them not forsaking their vows to the mad king even though he is dead and Robert is now crowned king. In other words that they will not bend the knee to someone they see as a usurper and would rather die fighting, or trying to get to Viserys(assuming R+L=/=J) to protect him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, yes, it's obviously easier to sharpen a blade while sitting. But it's symbolic of the entire event and what has transpired in the Tower, especially when the lines "our knees do not bend..." comes later.

Well why do you think the other two dragons will be spoken for by the time they get to Westeros? Tyrion, I agree, will mount Viserion but why does Rhaegal need a rider before Dany lands on the shores of home?

I don't think Rhaegal needs a rider before arriving in Westeros. I assume Daenerys and co will take ships to Westeros, he could be kept on one of those. Or Daenerys could lead him there as Daemon led Vhagar after Laena died. But that dragon horn is probably going to do something, and that may well result in the Greyjoys stealing one of the dragons away from it's fated rider.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't matter what kind of man Craster is, the simple fact is that his words can be seen as foreshadowing from the author since they were specifically directed at Jon. It's just like the raven or anything else. It's simply looking at the words in a different way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think Rhaegal needs a rider before arriving in Westeros. I assume Daenerys and co will take ships to Westeros, he could be kept on one of those. Or Daenerys could lead him there as Daemon led Vhagar after Laena died. But that dragon horn is probably going to do something, and that may well result in the Greyjoys stealing one of the dragons away from it's fated rider.

I agree the Dragon Horn will do something. I'm just very much on the fence about it doing what it claims to do.

It doesn't matter what kind of man Craster is, the simple fact is that his words can be seen as foreshadowing from the author since they were specifically directed at Jon. It's just like the raven or anything else. It's simply looking at the words in a different way.

Yeah, I regret ever bringing up the stupid passage now. I thought it was interesting that Craster said it directly to Jon and that it seemed to be a well placed wink from GRRM. It wouldn't matter to me if Mormont said it or Sam or Edd. I think it's a little nudge from the author is all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I regret ever bringing up the stupid passage now. I thought it was interesting that Craster said it directly to Jon and that it seems to a well placed wink from GRRM. It wouldn't matter to me if Mormont said it or Sam or Edd. I think it's a little nudge from the author is all.

Yeah, I don't get why people are taking it so literally. Might as well say that Mormont's raven can't be foreshadowing anything because it's a raven XD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, there is a chance that Dragonbinder is not going to bind a dragon to a new bloodline of riders, but I really don't think that this chance is all that big. The purpose of Dragonbinder seems to be clear enough, the question now is can Moqorro twist the spell to suit his own ends. One should think he can, but if the dusky woman is an agent/servant of Euron - possibly even a Faceless Woman - all bets are off...



The chance that Daenerys is taking all her three dragons (and the rider(s)) to Westeros soon are pretty slim right now. It depends on whether she returns to Slaver's Bay before the guys there start to make up their own minds. The new dragonrider(s) could start to make plans of their own, and there is a very good chance, that Tyrion may decide to return to Westeros on dragonback without Dany (either to bring the other dragon to Aegon, or to help him; or after he learns about the threat the Others pose from Marwyn).



We'll have to wait and see.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, there is a chance that Dragonbinder is not going to bind a dragon to a new bloodline of riders, but I really don't think that this chance is all that big. The purpose of Dragonbinder seems to be clear enough, the question now is can Moqorro twist the spell to suit his own ends. One should think he can, but if the dusky woman is an agent/servant of Euron - possibly even a Faceless Woman - all bets are off...

The chance that Daenerys is taking all her three dragons (and the rider(s)) to Westeros soon are pretty slim right now. It depends on whether she returns to Slaver's Bay before the guys there start to make up their own minds. The new dragonrider(s) could start to make plans of their own, and there is a very good chance, that Tyrion may decide to return to Westeros on dragonback without Dany (either to bring the other dragon to Aegon, or to help him; or after he learns about the threat the Others pose from Marwyn).

We'll have to wait and see.

I don't see Victarion doing anything at all, tbh.

Rhaegal = named after Rhaegar

Jon = son of Rhaegar

I don't see this as a coincidence at all.

In any case, I'm still wondering what you think Jon will end up doing in all of this. If he's not AAR, TPTWP or TSTMTW, he won't get a magic sword and won't have a dragon for a very long time if he gets one at all, I'm just honestly confused as to what he's supposed to be doing since he's really the only person who has been preparing to fight the Others.

Also, if you're basing all of this on the fact that Dany has dragons and the sword is a metaphor for dragon, then why can't the 'wake dragons from stone' mean a metaphorical dragon? Like, say, a Targaryan, for example? Because it could very well be argued that 'waking the dragon from stone' could mean something like waking the dragon up in Jon or something of the kind. Or do the dragons have to be literal dragons?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see Victarion doing anything at all, tbh.

Rhaegal = named after Rhaegar

Jon = son of Rhaegar

I don't see this as a coincidence at all.

In any case, I'm still wondering what you think Jon will end up doing in all of this. If he's not AAR, TPTWP or TSTMTW, he won't get a magic sword and won't have a dragon for a very long time if he gets one at all, I'm just honestly confused as to what he's supposed to be doing since he's really the only person who has been preparing to fight the Others.

Just in case I've been unclear, we do think he is 1/3 of Azor Ahai reborn. He already has a magic sword that can probably kill Others (I'm of the opinion that dragonsteel is Valyrian steel or very similar. Maybe the spells are different but still forged in dragonflame.) And I think just about everyone expects him to ride a dragon. Lord Varys is just saying he might not be the first rider of his dragon.

Share this post


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

×