UnmaskedLurker Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 As you said, we already know it didn't actually say "prince" in the original language. It probably said something like "the royal dragon that was promised" and then it gets twisted over the years and through translation. So you are suggesting that a bastard can be a "royal dragon"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RumHam Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 So you are suggesting that a bastard can be a "royal dragon"? Yeah why not? If he has royal blood. Were Daemon or Bloodraven not members of the royal family? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearQueen87 Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 Yeah why not? If he has royal blood. Were Daemon or Bloodraven not members of the royal family? Not in the same regard that Aegon IV's true born sons were. They were only part of the royal family once Aegon legitimized them; before that they were bastards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RumHam Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 Not in the same regard that Aegon IV's true born sons were. They were only part of the royal family once Aegon legitimized them; before that they were bastards. I still think it's fair to say they were royal bastards, even before they were legitimized. Also Jon could be legitimized. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearQueen87 Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 I still think it's fair to say they were royal bastards, even before they were legitimized. Also Jon could be legitimized. Cause that ended well the first time 'round.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RumHam Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 Cause that ended well the first time 'round.... Is that really relevant to what we're talking about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ygrain Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 Yeah why not? If he has royal blood. Were Daemon or Bloodraven not members of the royal family? They were bastards. Not princes, not dragons. To paraphrase Jon, a Rivers is not a Targaryen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearQueen87 Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 Is that really relevant to what we're talking about? How is it not? You brought up Daemon and Bloodraven... They were bastards. Not princes, not dragons. To paraphrase Jon, a Rivers is not a Targaryen. Agreed. He would not have been seen as a dargon/Targ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RumHam Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 They were bastards. Not princes, not dragons. To paraphrase Jon, a Rivers is not a Targaryen. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I think a bastard of royal blood might have been called a dragon or "royal dragon" or something like that in an ancient prophecy. We don't know the exact wording, nor to we know how Valyrians felt about bastards. How is it not? You brought up Daemon and Bloodraven... The fact that Aegon IV caused problems by legitimizing people doesn't somehow invalidate my point that they would be considered royal bastards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearQueen87 Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 The fact that Aegon IV caused problems by legitimizing people doesn't somehow invalidate my point that they would be considered royal bastards. Also doesn't invalidate my point that Rhaegar would know all about the problems caused by bastards that get legitimized. And you don't know what they would be considered--royal bastards or dragon. Your argument that "I think a bastard of royal blood might have been called a dragon or "royal dragon" or something like that in an ancient prophecy." is quite extraordinary given that we don't know what this prophecy says except it apparently yields a PRINCE that was promised (not bastard) and we don't have any evidence to my knowledge that any bastard was ever considered a dragon by those that really WERE dragons. We may not know how Valyrians felt about bastards, but they are obviously very concerned with blood and "right" blood--the blood of the dragon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RumHam Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 Also doesn't invalidate my point that Rhaegar would know all about the problems caused by bastards that get legitimized. And you don't know what they would be considered--royal bastards or dragon. Your argument that "I think a bastard of royal blood might have been called a dragon or "royal dragon" or something like that in an ancient prophecy." is quite extraordinary given that we don't know what this prophecy says except it apparently yields a PRINCE that was promised (not bastard) and we don't have any evidence to my knowledge that any bastard was ever considered a dragon by those that really WERE dragons. We may not know how Valyrians felt about bastards, but they are obviously very concerned with blood and "right" blood--the blood of the dragon. But we already know the prince part was a mistranslated based somehow on the fact that dragons' genders are fluid. I agree the word prince would suggest a legitimate child, but the word "dragon" does not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearQueen87 Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 But we already know the prince part was a mistranslated based somehow on the fact that dragons' genders are fluid. I agree the word prince would suggest a legitimate child, but the word "dragon" does not. We don't know that. We know that is what Aemon thinks. And that doesn't matter because Aemon learns that AFTER Rhaegar is died. Beforehand, he and Rhaegar were of one mind, or so we can imagine. Prince = royal legit child. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonBranRickon Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 Black or Red, a dragon is a dragon. But I digress, Jon Snow is not illegitimate or the KG would be with Viserys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Consigliere Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 The thing is, it doesn't matter what the prophecy actually means in this instance. What matters is what Rhaegar thought the prophecy meant. If he believed that he needed a third legitimate child (a prince) and it was within his power to make that happen, why wouldn't he do it? Also we must consider the KG at the ToJ. The theory requiring the least number of assumptions is often correct i.e. the KG were fulfilling their primary duty to guard the king. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sj4iy Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 I still think it's fair to say they were royal bastards, even before they were legitimized. Also Jon could be legitimized. Who would legitimize him, exactly? The thing is, it doesn't matter what the prophecy actually means in this instance. What matters is what Rhaegar thought the prophecy meant. If he believed that he needed a third legitimate child (a prince) and it was within his power to make that happen, why wouldn't he do it? Also we must consider the KG at the ToJ. The theory requiring the least number of assumptions is often correct i.e. the KG were fulfilling their primary duty to guard the king. This. I just don't see how Rhaegar knocks up Lyanna without marrying her. He has precedent up the wazoo to do it and get away with it, on top of the fact that he is the crown prince to the Iron Throne who is planning on deposing his father. All of it was planned, and if he needs another 'dragon' for his prophecy (or a 'prince that was promised' whose song was 'ice and fire'), then he going to want a legitimate child. To me, it makes no sense for Rhaegar NOT to marry Lyanna, given the tons of hints all throughout the text about 'kings' and 'trueborn princes' and whatnot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RumHam Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 We don't know that. We know that is what Aemon thinks. And that doesn't matter because Aemon learns that AFTER Rhaegar is died. Beforehand, he and Rhaegar were of one mind, or so we can imagine. Prince = royal legit child. Gotcha. I was thinking in terms of what Lurker said about the prophecy being a vision of the future. I agree that Rhaegar may have thought it was important Jon be a prince. Black or Red, a dragon is a dragon. But I digress, Jon Snow is not illegitimate or the KG would be with Viserys. By that logic they should have been with Viserys anyway, according to Yandel. The thing is, it doesn't matter what the prophecy actually means in this instance. What matters is what Rhaegar thought the prophecy meant. If he believed that he needed a third legitimate child (a prince) and it was within his power to make that happen, why wouldn't he do it? Well the whole thing I'm suggesting is that it wasn't in his power to make it happen. He may have done it anyway in front of a weirwood and decided to deal with the fallout later. Also we must consider the KG at the ToJ. The theory requiring the least number of assumptions is often correct i.e. the KG were fulfilling their primary duty to guard the king. Doesn't that actually require a few more assumptions than the alternate explanation? That Rhaegar told them "guard this tower/Lyanna/my son no matter what happens" and they were doing that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RumHam Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 Who would legitimize him, exactly? Stannis already offered to. There are theories that Robb's will may have. In an alternate universe where Robert died at the Trident and Rhaegar returned to make his changes king Rhaegar could have done it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sj4iy Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 Stannis already offered to. There are theories that Robb's will may have. In an alternate universe where Robert died at the Trident and Rhaegar returned to make his changes king Rhaegar could have done it. Stannis isn't going to legitimize him as a Targaryan and give him a direct claim to the IT...that would be nonsense. If Rhaegar wanted to legitimize Jon, the easiest way to do it is to marry Lyanna. Which he would have had plenty of time to do in those several months between her 'kidnapping' and Jon's conception. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liz Stark-Targaryen Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 This. I just don't see how Rhaegar knocks up Lyanna without marrying her. He has precedent up the wazoo to do it and get away with it, on top of the fact that he is the crown prince to the Iron Throne who is planning on deposing his father. All of it was planned, and if he needs another 'dragon' for his prophecy (or a 'prince that was promised' whose song was 'ice and fire'), then he going to want a legitimate child. To me, it makes no sense for Rhaegar NOT to marry Lyanna, given the tons of hints all throughout the text about 'kings' and 'trueborn princes' and whatnot. :agree: I figured out R+L=J before joining the boards this spring, but it's those of you who are regulars on the thread who have convinced me they were very likely married. So much hints at it, and if they weren't married, then all the clues for it are just red herrings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UnmaskedLurker Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 Gotcha. I was thinking in terms of what Lurker said about the prophecy being a vision of the future. I agree that Rhaegar may have thought it was important Jon be a prince. By that logic they should have been with Viserys anyway, according to Yandel. Well the whole thing I'm suggesting is that it wasn't in his power to make it happen. He may have done it anyway in front of a weirwood and decided to deal with the fallout later. Doesn't that actually require a few more assumptions than the alternate explanation? That Rhaegar told them "guard this tower/Lyanna/my son no matter what happens" and they were doing that? Here is the thing. Assuming Jon is TPTWP, for Jon not to be legitimate, it seems that you have to make the following assumptions: (1) Rhaegar retained his thinking that Aegon and not his child with Lyanna would be TPTWP (despite his knowledge of the Pact of Ice and Fire); (2) Rhaegar did not think it was important for the third head of the dragon to be a legitimate child, any child of a Targ is a dragon and thus can be a head of the dragon, only TPTWP had to be legitimate (it is pretty clear Rhaegar interpreted it as referencing a "Prince"); (3) not only was Rhaegar wrong about Aegon as TPTWP and not only was Jon really TPTWP, but the prophecy is really about the "dragon" that was promised and Jon as a Targ bastard is still a dragon (even if not a prince--so Aemon was right about a "mistranslation" but it was not a gender issue but rather a legitimacy issue); and (4) the 3 KG at ToJ failed to go to Viserys and guarded Jon and Lyanna even though they knew the rightful "king" was unguarded by any KG merely because the now-dead Rhaegar ordered them to protect his mistress and bastard and following those order were considered to supersede the requirement that the King be guarded by a KG (did you not read the WoIaF chapter of why the KG were stared initially--doesn't that tell you they would never leave the King unguarded for an indefinite period of time?). While it is possible for all four of these assumptions to be the case and and for Jon to be TPTWP and still a bastard, I find it a HUGE stretch. As to the Yandel issue: I think it is logical to conclude that the 3 KG had no knowledge that Aerys had named Viserys as his heir (or Yandel got it wrong and Viserys really only became heir shortly thereafter when Aegon died--and Yandel had no knowledge of Jon). Under normal succession laws, Jon and not Viserys would be king only if Jon is legitimate. It is not hard to believe--and actually quite likely--that word of any decree from Aerys to make Viserys the new heir would not have reached ToJ. As far as the power to make the marriage happen, we have the example of Maegor. When they could not find a septon, Maegor got married another way. But no one claimed it was not a marriage. He merely had to go into exile. But he remained married to two women. Perhaps Rhaegar could not find a septon either, but we know they were very near an island with weirwood trees. An Old Gods marriage is good enough to make Jon a Prince. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.