BearQueen87 Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 Jon Weirgaryen, are you still reworking the FAQ? Does R+L= J aim to prove that Jon is Rhaegar's and Lyanna's son? or does it aim to prove that Jon Rhaegar's legitimate son? there's a slight difference. In the interest of keeping things straightforward and simple, I'd suggest taking out the questions relating to marriage and succession, or having them addressed in other section (see below). The more developed the OP, the more vulnerable it becomes to critic. Some people will dismiss a whole theory because they do not agree on all points. So, here's a slightly different version, just a suggestion: The former. The second, while most of us here do believe that RL married, is more up for debate. But the basic theory is that R and L are the parents of J. I think the questions should stay in because marriage is a big part of the conversation and is often addressed here. If it's taken out of the OP then I think we run the risk of getting a lot of "but were they married?" questions. I know it was recently reworked a bit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingmonkey Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 How do blue winter roses signify Jon Snow? Blue rose(s) or flowers or just roses are patterns strewn all over the series. In short, we learn of the garland of blue winter roses that Rhaegar uses to crown Lyanna Queen of Love and Beauty at the Grand Tourney at Harrenhal ... by laying it in her lap. Rose petals spilling from Lyanna's palm are seen in Ned's dream at the time of her death. In ACoK we learn the story of Bael the Bard asking the fairest blue winter rose in Winterfell. When that has been granted he steals the Stark's maiden daughter who, a year later, returns from the crypts with their son, the new Stark. Dany then sees in a vision A blue flower grew from a chink in a wall of ice. Read more in Jon Snow and the Blue Rosetta Stone by J.Stargaryen. Hate to be the one to point this out, but this doesn't exactly do what it says on the tin. Sure it's obvious to me that a symbol of the mother can be applied to signify the son, but the content answers the question "How do blue winter roses signify Lyanna Stark", not "How do blue winter roses signify Jon Snow". Seems to me this needs a bit of a rethink. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 The former. The second, while most of us here do believe that RL married, is more up for debate. But the basic theory is that R and L are the parents of J. I think the questions should stay in because marriage is a big part of the conversation and is often addressed here. If it's taken out of the OP then I think we run the risk of getting a lot of "but were they married?" questions. I know it was recently reworked a bit Well that and whether they were married can also have a big effect on how the parentage affects Jon. Can a bastard be a dragon? Can a prince that was promised be a bastard? And so on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greymoon Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 The former. The second, while most of us here do believe that RL married, is more up for debate. But the basic theory is that R and L are the parents of J. I think the questions should stay in because marriage is a big part of the conversation and is often addressed here. If it's taken out of the OP then I think we run the risk of getting a lot of "but were they married?" questions. I know it was recently reworked a bit The thing is that by addressing these questions in the OP, especially considering the number of questions dealing with marriage and legitimacy/succession that are included, it appears as if there was a clear leaning toward Jon being legitimate and the heir to the IT. I'm not necessarily disagreeing, just pointing out that the OP appears to be saying a lot more than just R+L. Which is why, imo, these questions are better addressed in another section, not in the main one. I do believe some people object to R+L because they are persuaded that R+L necessarily implies that Jon is King, or will be King, though. That it diminishes the character's worth and makes him less interesting, because he's no longer just a bastard. While repeatedly addressing the same questions concerning marriage and polygamy is tiresome, I find it important that people be allowed discuss these details... The point of the second section, is to allow new comers to see what arguments have been raised, how they have been addressed, without making the question of marriage one of the main points in the R+L theory. This way, it can't be made into a main point of contention, either. It's also a reality that some R+L followers disagree with the idea of Jon being legitimate... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kat Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 New thread, guys Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.