Jump to content

Archived

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

Kat

R+L=J v. 129

Recommended Posts

Reference guide

The R+L=J theory claims Jon Snow most probably is the son of crown prince Rhaegar Targaryen and Ned's sister Lyanna Stark.

The Tower of the Hand has an excellent analysis of this theory:
Jon Snow's Parents

And Westeros' Citadel also provides a summary:
Jon Snow's Parents

A Wiki of Ice and Fire:
Jon Snow Theories

Radio Westeros podcast:

A Dragon, a Wolf and a Rose

Frequently Asked Questions:

How can Jon be a Targaryen if ordinary fire burned his hand?
Targaryens are not immune to fire. It's a myth that has been refuted by a list of Targaryens being burned. Danaerys 'the unburnt' was indeed unscathed when she hatched the dragon eggs, but that has not stopped her being burned on other occasions. See this thread on Targaryen fire immunity.

Don't all Targaryens have hallmark Valryian silver-golden hair and purple eyes?
Not all of them: Valarr and Queen Alysanne had blue eyes. Bittersteel, who like Jon was half first men blood, had brown hair. Baelor Breakspear and his son(s) and Jon's own half-sister Rhaenys had the Dornish look (dark hair, black eyes, olive skin). Rhaenyra Targaryen's three sons all had brown hair and brown eyes even though both their parents had light silver-gold hair.
Had Jon Valyrian features, it would give his parentage away: "He had the Stark face if not the name: long, solemn, guarded, a face that gave nothing away. Whoever his mother had been, she had left little of herself in her son." Tyrion got the bit about the mother wrong, though: his mother was the Stark.

If Jon isn't Ned's son, then why does he look so much like him?
Jon looks very like Arya, and Arya looks very like Lyanna. Jon is Ned's nephew, and Lyanna and Ned looked similar.

Ned is too honourable to lie. If he says Jon is his son, doesn't that mean he must be?
Ned tells Arya that sometimes lies can be honourable. His final words, a confession of his guilt, are a lie to protect Sansa. While a lie can be honourable, cheating on his wife isn't, so Ned's famed honour points to Jon not being his son.

How can Jon be half-Targaryen and have a direwolf?
He's also half Stark, through Lyanna. Ned's trueborn children are half Tully and that doesn't stop them having direwolves.

Why doesn't Ned ever think about Lyanna being Jon's mother?
Ned doesn't think about anyone being Jon's mother. If he did, there would be no mystery. He names 'Wylla' to Robert, but we do not see him thinking of Wylla being Jon's mother.
There's a hidden hint at who Jon's mother might be: In chapter 4, Eddard's internal monologue goes "Lyanna ... Ned had loved her with all his heart." and in chapter 6, Catelyn thinks "Whoever Jon's mother had been, Ned must have loved her fiercely".

Why would Ned not at least tell Catelyn?
We don't have a list of what Ned promised to Lyanna, but know he takes his promises seriously. Maybe he promised not to tell anyone. In Chapter 45, Ned is uncertain what Cat would do if it came to Jon's life over that of her own children. If Catelyn knew that Jon was Rhaegar's son, she might feel that keeping him at Winterfell presented a serious risk to her own children. Ultimately, Catelyn did not need to know, so maybe Ned simply chose to be on the safe side.

Doesn't Ned refer to Robb and Jon as "my sons in the very first chapter?
In speech, not in thought. Ned is keeping Jon's parentage secret. He never thinks of Jon as his son: In Chapter 45, Ned thinks of his children "Robb and Sansa and Arya and Bran and Rickon and explicitly excludes Jon from the list. ADwD Chapter 34 has Bran's vision of younger Ned in the Winterfell godswood: "...let them grow up close as brothers, with only love between them," he prayed, "and let my lady wife find it in her heart to forgive..." which not make sense if they are brothers.

Since Rhaegar was already married, wouldn't Jon still be a bastard?
He might, or might not. There was a tradition of polygamy among Targaryens in the past, so the possibility that Rhaegar and Lyanna married is not easily ruled out. A pro-legitimacy argument is this: The presence of the three kingsguards at the Tower of Joy is best explained if they were defending the heir to the throne, which Jon would only be if he was legitimate.

Can we be certain polygamy is not illegal?
Aegon I and Maegor I practised polygamy. In Westeros, unlike a constitutional monarchy, royals are not subject to the law. So if there ever was a law against it, it did not apply to the Targaryens: In Chapter 33 it says "like their dragons the Targaryens answered to neither gods nor men". Examples demonstrate that it was considered an option for Targaryens: Aegon IV and Daemon Blackfyre may have considered it for Daemon, Jorah Mormont suggested it to Daenerys as a viable option, and she said the same about Quentyn Martell.
George R.R. Martin says in this SSM: "If you have a dragon, you can have as many wives as you want". There is also this SSM predating the worldbook.
On Polygamy essay by Ygrain with additions by Rhaenys_Targaryen

Weren't the Kingsguard at Tower of Joy on the basis of an order from Aerys, to guard Lyanna as a hostage?
If so, why would they have apparently made no effort to use this leverage against Robert and Ned? Some argue their Kingsguard vows would have taken precedence and still have required them to leave the Tower to protect Viserys when he became heir -- unless there was another that took precedence [Jon]. Others think they were guarding Lyanna as a hostage at the Tower of Joy. Some say that makes little sense: She would better be kept hostage at King's Landing, and wouldn't require kingsguards to guard her. The mere presence of three kingsguards implies something more important: guarding members of the royal family or maybe the heir.
Frequently suggested readings: At the tower of joy by MtnLion and support of the toj analysis by Ygrain

Isn't there an SSM that says the 3 Kingsguard were following Rhaegar's orders though?
The SSM you may be thinking of is probably this: The King's Guards don't get to make up their own orders. They serve the king, they protect the king and the royal family, but they're also bound to obey their orders, and if Prince Rhaegar gave them a certain order, they would do that. They can't say, "No we don't like that order, we'll do something else."
We know from Barristan, protecting the king is the first and most important of all kingsguard duties. Jamie suggests some other KG to stay with the king when he wants to leave for the Trident and we also learn of a ritual that is performed when all KG meet and the king is guarded by someone who is not from the order.
"Protect vs Obey" is an ongoing subject of debate that is unlikely to be settled until we know more. Either viewpoint is compatible with R+L=J.

Wouldn't Viserys take precedence anyway? Rhaegar died without becoming king, and doesn't the world book call Viserys, not Aegon, Aerys' new heir?
No, in the case of an eldest son dying before the king dies, a grandson comes before a younger son. Even in the case the grandson is yet unborn at the time of death, he would succeed (heir apparent vs. heir presumptive). The world book is written with a Lannister bias (it may be propaganda to undermine Dornish support for the Targaryens) and in hindsight by maesters who have never learned all of what we know from Ned's dreams and memories. If it still turns out to be true... see the next answer.

Are matters of succession just as clear as presented here?
Succession quarrels are a part of medieval power play and even a very clear inheritance could well be contested. So maybe in King's Landing things did happen as the world book says. Rhaegar and Aerys may have been at odds over the succession. Rhaegar told Jaime before leaving for the Trident that he intended to call a council, and The Great Councils of the past have dealt with matters of succession. Who would have accepted such a change is a question worth asking.

Ned is dead. Who's going to tell anyone about it?
Bloodraven and Bran may have learned of it through the weirwood network. Benjen might know. Checkov's Crannogman Howland Reed is the sole survivor of the encounter at the Tower of Joy, and George R.R. Martin has stated he has not yet appeared because he knows too much about the central mystery of the book. "They had found him [Ned] still holding her [Lyanna's] body" tells that there also was someone else besides Howland to find Ned.

Why is this important? What impact can it have on the story?
The careful way the mystery of Jon's parentage was created is reason to believe it's important. What impact it will have on the rest of the series is still unknown.

This theory is too obvious and too many people believe it to be fact. How can it be true?
It is not so obvious to the majority of readers. Some will get it on their first read, but most will not. Readers who go to online fan forums, such as this, still represent a very small minority of the readership. Also, A Game of Thrones has been out since 1996. That's more than 18 years of readers being able to piece together this mystery. Crowd-sourced internet-based mystery solving like this inevitably make solved mysteries seem more obvious in hindsight.

George R.R. Martin is a "breaker of tropes, there can be no hidden prince, it's simply too cliché.
In order to break a trope it needs to be installed in the first place. It is yet unknown what will happen to Jon in the future. Being the son of Lyanna and Rhaegar does not imply the fairy-tale style happy ending associated with the hidden prince trope.

Is there a list of all R+L=J clues that have been found?
There is a list of R+L=J hints, clues and foreshadowing compiled by sj4iy.

Since this theory has been refined so well, will Martin change the outcome of the story to surprise his fans?
He has stated that he won't change the outcome of the story just because some people have put together all the clues and solved the puzzle.

Previous editions:
Please click on the spoiler below to reveal links to all previous editions of this thread

Lyanna + Rhaegar = Jon Thread (thread one)

Lyanna + Rhaegar = Jon Thread (thread two)

The Lyanna + Rhaegar = Jon thread (Part III) (thread three)

The Lyanna + Rhaegar = Jon thread (Part IV) (thread four)

The Lyanna + Rhaegar = Jon Thread (Part V) (thread five)

The Lyanna + Rhaegar = Jon Thread (Part VI) (thread six)

The Rhaegar + Lyanna = Jon Thread Part VII (thread seven)

The Rhaegar + Lyanna = Jon thread, Part VIII (thread eight)

The Rhaegar + Lyanna = Jon thread, Part IX (thread nine)

The Rhaegar + Lyanna =Jon Thread, Part X(thread ten)

The R+L=J thread, part XI (thread eleven)

The R+L=J thread, part XII (thread twelve)

R+L=J Part XXIII (thread thirteen)

R+L=J Part XXIV (thread fourteen)

R+L=J XXV (thread fifteen)

R+L=J v.16 (thread sixteen)

R+L=J v.17 (thread seventeen)

R+L=J v.18 (thread eighteen)

R+L=J v.19 (thread nineteen)

R+L=J v.20 (thread twenty)

R+L=J v.21 (thread twenty-one)

R+L=J v.22 (thread twenty-two)

R+L=J v.22a (thread twenty-two (a))

R+L=J v.23 (thread twenty-three)

R+L=J v.24 (thread twenty-four)

R+L=J v.25 (thread twenty-five)

R+L=J v.26 (thread twenty-six)

R+L=J v.27 (thread twenty-seven)

R+L=J v.28 (thread twenty-eight)

R+L=J v.29 (thread twenty-nine)

R+L=J v.30 (thread thirty)

R+L=J v.31 (thread thirty-one)

R+L=J v.32 (thread thirty-two)

R+L=J v.33 (thread thirty-three)

R+L=J v.34 (thread thirty-four)

R+L=J v.35 (thread thirty-five)

R+L=J v.36 (thread thirty-six)

R+L=J v.37 (thread thirty-seven)

R+L=J v.38 (thread thirty-eight)

R+L=J v.39 (thread thirty-nine)

"R+L=J v.40" (thread forty)

"R+L=J v.41" (thread forty-one)

"R+L=J v.42" (thread forty-two)

"R+L=J v.43" (thread forty-three)

"R+L=J v.44" (thread forty-four)

"R+L=J v.45" (thread forty-five)

"R+L=J v.46" (thread forty-six)

"R+L=J v.47" (thread forty-seven)

"R+L=J v.48" (thread forty-eight)

"R+L=J v.49" (thread forty-nine)

"R+L=J v.50" (thread fifty)

"R+L=J v.51" (thread fifty-one)

"R+L=J v.52" (thread fifty-two)

"R+L=J v.53" (thread fifty-three)

"R+L=J v.54" (thread fifty-four)

"R+L=J v.55" (thread fifty-five)

"R+L=J v.56" (thread fifty-six)

"R+L=J v.57" (thread fifty-seven)

"R+L=J v.58" (thread fifty-eight)

"R+L=J v.59" (thread fifty-nine)

"R+L=J v.60" (thread sixty)

"R+L=J v.61" (thread sixty-one)

"R+L=J v.62" (thread sixty-two)

"R+L=J v.63" (thread sixty-three)

"R+L=J v.64" (thread sixty-four)

"R+L=J v.65" (thread sixty-five)

"R+L=J v.66" (thread sixty-six)

"R+L=J v.67" (thread sixty-seven)

"R+L=J v.68" (thread sixty-eight)

"R+L=J v.69" (thread sixty-nine)

"R+L=J v.70" (thread seventy)

"R+L=J v.71" (thread seventy-one)

"R+L=J v.72" (thread seventy-two)

"R+L=J v.73" (thread seventy-three)

"R+L=J v.74" (thread seventy-four)

"R+L=J v.75" (thread seventy-five)

"R+L=J v.76" (thread seventy-six)

"R+L=J v.77" (thread seventy-seven)

"R+L=J v.78" (thread seventy-eight)

"R+L=J v.79" (thread seventy-nine)

"R+L=J v.80" (thread eighty)

"R+L=J v.81" (thread eighty-one)

"R+L=J v.82" (thread eighty-two)

"R+L=J v.83" (thread eighty-three)

"R+L=J v.84" (thread eighty-four)

"R+L=J v.85" (thread eighty-five)

"R+L=J v.86" (thread eighty-six)

"R+L=J v.87" (thread eighty-seven)

"R+L=J v.88" (thread eighty-eight)

"R+L=J v.89" (thread eighty-nine)

"R+L=J v.90" (thread ninety)

"R+L=J v.91" (thread ninety-one)

"R+L=J v.92" (thread ninety-two)

"R+L=J v.93" (thread ninety-three)

"R+L=J v.94" (thread ninety-four)

"R+L=J v.95" (thread ninety-five)

"R+L=J v.96" (thread ninety-six)

"R+L=J v.97" (thread ninety-seven)

"R+L=J v.98" (thread ninety-eight)

"R+L=J v.99" (thread ninety-nine)

"R+L=J v.100" (thread one hundred)

"R+L=J v.101" (thread one hundred one)

"R+L=J v.102" (thread one hundred two)

"R+L=J v.103" (thread one hundred three)

"R+L=J v.104" (thread one hundred four)

"R+L=J v.105" (thread one hundred five)

"R+L=J v.106" (thread one hundred six)

"R+L=J v.107" (thread one hundred seven)

"R+L=J v.108" (thread one hundred eight)

"R+L=J v.109" (thread one hundred nine)

"R+L=J v.110" (thread one hundred ten)

"R+L=J v.111" (thread one hundred eleven)

"R+L=J v.112" (thread one hundred twelve)

"R+L=J v.113" (thread one hundred thirteen)

"R+L=J v.114" (thread one hundred fourteen)

The "[TWoIaF Spoilers] R+L=J" threads were used to openly discuss spoilers from TWoIaF at the time we needed to protect that information.

"[TWoIaF Spoilers] R+L=J v.1"

"[TWoIaF Spoilers] R+L=J v.2"

"[TWoIaF Spoilers] R+L=J v.3"

"R+L=J v.115" (thread one hundred fifteen)

"R+L=J v.116" (thread one hundred sixteen)

"R+L=J v.117" (thread one hundred seventeen)

"R+L=J v.118" (thread one hundred eighteen)

"R+L=J v.119" (thread one hundred nineteen)

"R+L=J v.120" (thread one hundred twenty)

"R+L=J v.121" (thread one hundred twenty one)

"R+L=J v.122" (thread one hundred twenty two)

"R+L=J v.123" (thread one hundred twenty three)

"R+L=J v.124" (thread one hundred twenty four)

"R+L=J v.125" (thread one hundred twenty five)

"R+L=J v.126" (thread one hundred twenty six)

"R+L=J v.127" (thread one hundred twenty seven)

"R+L=J v. 128" (thread #128)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn't Viserys take precedence anyway? Rhaegar died without becoming king, and doesn't the world book call Viserys, not Aegon, Aerys' new heir?

No, in the case of an eldest son dying before the king dies, a grandson comes before a younger son. Even in the case the grandson is yet unborn at the time of death, he would succeed (heir apparent vs. heir presumptive). The world book is written with a Lannister bias (it may be propaganda to undermine Dornish support for the Targaryens) and in hindsight by maesters who have never learned all of what we know from Ned's dreams and memories. If it still turns out to be true... see the next answer.

Can we at least rework this section? It's confusing.

Wouldn't Viserys take precedence anyway? Rhaegar died without becoming king, and doesn't the world book call Viserys, not Aegon, Aerys' new heir?

Targaryens follow the laws of primogeniture. That means inheritance passes to the eldest male child of the most senior line. So, even if the eldest son dies before inheriting, the eldest son's male descendents take precedence over the eldest son's younger siblings and their descendents. Rhaegar's line takes precedence over Viserys...and so long as there was a possibility for Rhaegar to have another son, Viserys was only ever the heir presumptive of the IT.

The world book is written with a Lannister bias, it was in the interest of the Lannisters to make it appear that Aerys and Rhaegar were at odds and that Aegon was removed from the succession (to be understood as propaganda against the Dornish). And it was written in hindsight (after Aegon's presumed death) by maesters who were not privy to Ned's dreams and memories and are unaware of R+L. If Viserys does turn out to have been the heir... see the next answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Greymoon: too long. Otherwise ++ for being more distinguished/more correct...



eta: how about:



- old: No, in the case of an eldest son dying before the king dies, a grandson comes before a younger son.


+ new: All children of the king's eldest son come before the king's own younger children.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and add the direct quotes for the SSM in spoilers? Some of these links included long articles...

SSM on polygamy:

SSM 1:

[Questions concerning Targaryen polygamy.]

Maegor the Cruel has multiple wives, from lines outside his own, so there was and is precedent. However, the extent to which the Targaryen kings could defy convention, the Faith, and the opinions of the other lords decreased markedly after they no longer had dragons. If you have a dragon, you can have as many wives as you want, and people are less likely to object.

SSM 2 :

Targaryen Polygamy

First off all I want to thank you for the one of the best fantasy novels I ever read. Then I would like to ask one question: In the SOS Jora Mormont told to Dany that Aegon The Dragon had two wives and she could take two husbands. The question is if there were any other precedents of polygamy among Targaryens besides Aegon the First.

Yes, there were.

Maegor the Cruel had eight or nine wives, I seem to recall, though not all of them were simultaneous. He beheaded a few of them who failed to give him heirs, a test that all of them ultimately failed.

There might have been a few later instances as well. I'd need to look that up... (or make that up, as the case might be).

SSM on the Kingsguard:

"The King's Guards don't get to make up their own orders. They serve the king, they protect the king and the royal family, but they're also bound to obey their orders, and if Prince Rhaegar gave them a certain order, they would do that. They can't say, "No we don't like that order, we'll do something else."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So Bloodraven, part man, part tree, a 1000 eyes and one. Conscientious anti hero there to save the world, or proto marxist class warrior standing up for the children and the Others to stop the evil that is the Lords of Westeros?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Greymoon: too long. Otherwise ++ for being more distinguished/more correct...

better?

Wouldn't Viserys take precedence anyway? Rhaegar died without becoming king, and doesn't the world book call Viserys, not Aegon, Aerys' new heir?

Targaryens follow the laws of primogeniture. That means inheritance passes to the eldest male child of the most senior line. So Rhaegar's line takes precedence over Viserys...and so long as there was a possibility for Rhaegar to have another son, Viserys was only ever the heir presumptive of the IT.

The world book is written with a Lannister bias, it was in the interest of the Lannisters to discredit both Targaryens and Martells. It was written in hindsight (after Aegon's presumed death) by maesters who were not privy to Ned's dreams and memories. If Viserys does turn out to have been the heir... see the next answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So Bloodraven, part man, part tree, a 1000 eyes and one. Conscientious anti hero there to save the world, or proto marxist class warrior standing up for the children and the Others to stop the evil that is the Lords of Westeros?

How about a combo of both? I think Bloodraven is rather ruthless and he's doing whatever he has to "set things right." Now that we know why he was in the Black Cells--for doing something "bad" for a "greater good"--I think it's a pretty good indication of what he's doing in that cave. I think he might be on #TeamOther but only in that he has gained some sort of inside information about who the Others really are, what they want, and what the history of Other vs Men really is.

As for what he wants for Jon--I think he knows RLJ, I think he knows that Jon is the TPTWP and the Great Balance. Part of me wonders if his "Corn King Jon Snow" isn't his way of saying, "look, you're going to be stabbed, but it's going to be okay. I got this"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

- old: No, in the case of an eldest son dying before the king dies, a grandson comes before a younger son.

+ new: All children of the king's eldest son come before the king's own younger children.

Yeah, it's good.... but is it all children? Does Rhaenys come before Viserys?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, it's good.... but is it all children? Does Rhaenys come before Viserys?

All male children.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and add the direct quotes for the SSM in spoilers? Some of these links included long articles...

SSM on polygamy:

SSM 1:

[Questions concerning Targaryen polygamy.]

Maegor the Cruel has multiple wives, from lines outside his own, so there was and is precedent. However, the extent to which the Targaryen kings could defy convention, the Faith, and the opinions of the other lords decreased markedly after they no longer had dragons. If you have a dragon, you can have as many wives as you want, and people are less likely to object.

SSM 2 :

Targaryen Polygamy

First off all I want to thank you for the one of the best fantasy novels I ever read. Then I would like to ask one question: In the SOS Jora Mormont told to Dany that Aegon The Dragon had two wives and she could take two husbands. The question is if there were any other precedents of polygamy among Targaryens besides Aegon the First.

Yes, there were.

Maegor the Cruel had eight or nine wives, I seem to recall, though not all of them were simultaneous. He beheaded a few of them who failed to give him heirs, a test that all of them ultimately failed.

There might have been a few later instances as well. I'd need to look that up... (or make that up, as the case might be).

SSM on the Kingsguard:

"The King's Guards don't get to make up their own orders. They serve the king, they protect the king and the royal family, but they're also bound to obey their orders, and if Prince Rhaegar gave them a certain order, they would do that. They can't say, "No we don't like that order, we'll do something else."

We could add the quotes in spoiler tags, but doesn't linking the SSMs work just as well?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the links better - I do not like spoiler tags, they impede reading. Links tell you there's more elsewhere, so you decide if you want to venture elsewhere for more. Spoiler tags hide something from you, that is here... you unhide it. So you read some, then click some, then read some more. It has a less cozy reading feel, if you have to click for something that's hidden to appear right on page. Uncanny stuff...


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about a combo of both? I think Bloodraven is rather ruthless and he's doing whatever he has to "set things right." Now that we know why he was in the Black Cells--for doing something "bad" for a "greater good"--I think it's a pretty good indication of what he's doing in that cave. I think he might be on #TeamOther but only in that he has gained some sort of inside information about who the Others really are, what they want, and what the history of Other vs Men really is.

As for what he wants for Jon--I think he knows RLJ, I think he knows that Jon is the TPTWP and the Great Balance. Part of me wonders if his "Corn King Jon Snow" isn't his way of saying, "look, you're going to be stabbed, but it's going to be okay. I got this"

Corn King has to be a nod from the author, Bloodraven would have no context for it's use. I tend to speak of Bloodraven and Qauithe in the same sphere they seem like polarities to me that are sort of using the same reasoning and logic a bit like a chess game. Though weather they are playing against eachother or for the same ends is still iin question.

Some considerations. Prophocies, are they trying to make them happen? Have they been guiding Dany and Jon? Or are they trying to have them avoid prophecies because they don't want them forced? In Mels vision from her chapter, she sees Jon of course but also Bran and Bloodraven, she sees a 1000 eyes with Bloodraven and a 1000 skulls with Jon. Is this a direct relation to Bloodraven having a hand in Jon's apperant demise? If so how and why?

We know from the World book that the north has an intresting history. The Starks in particular, the curse of the first king, mention of a Child like person talking about teaching people to raise an army of the dead. Benerro also speaks of the dead rising for Azor Ahai both red priests and the Others have their own ways of resurection. the Starks married into both first king and warg blood and fought both. One of the reasons I suspect the children have the Night's Queen and that Dany's first vision in the HotU is actually her and the little rodent people are the children is related to what the World book points too. I don't think the Others are doing anything just to do it. But perhaps they are being manipulated for a purpose of Bloodravens and the Children.

If it is an attempt to unbreak the world than following what is known of the long night would not work. It may stop the Others but the world is still out of balance. I think one of the great mistakes of Azor is that he sacrificed love for a weapon. While what Nissa did is noble it only led to the rise of another power. Fire replaced Ice, so how do you fix that? Is that the goal of Qauithe or are the two at cross purposes? Jon has symbolism of Ice and Fire, but lacks the aspects of either at this point.

I don't like the idea that either Jon or Dany is being overlly controlled or guided by either of these two, as it goes against Martins idea of choice. But it does seem they are effecting things, like Ghost finding the Obsidian, or the Starks finding the Dire Wolves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All male children.

....iirc, the inheritance laws of House Targaryen changed post-dance? Their inheritance custom is closer to semi-salic laws, than to male-preference primogeniture that seems to be the norm elsewhere in westeros. (Alys comes before her grand-uncle, Myrcella before Stannis.).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

....iirc, the inheritance laws of House Targaryen changed post-dance? Their inheritance custom is closer to semi-salic laws, than to male-preference primogeniture that seems to be the norm elsewhere in westeros. (Alys comes before her grand-uncle, Myrcella before Stannis.).

Yeah, the Targ succession differs from the rest of Westeros by excluding females. There is a SSM for it somewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Corn King has to be a nod from the author, Bloodraven would have no context for it's use. I tend to speak of Bloodraven and Qauithe in the same sphere they seem like polarities to me that are sort of using the same reasoning and logic a bit like a chess game. Though weather they are playing against eachother or for the same ends is still iin question.

Some considerations. Prophocies, are they trying to make them happen? Have they been guiding Dany and Jon? Or are they trying to have them avoid prophecies because they don't want them forced? In Mels vision from her chapter, she sees Jon of course but also Bran and Bloodraven, she sees a 1000 eyes with Bloodraven and a 1000 skulls with Jon. Is this a direct relation to Bloodraven having a hand in Jon's apperant demise? If so how and why?

We know from the World book that the north has an intresting history. The Starks in particular, the curse of the first king, mention of a Child like person talking about teaching people to raise an army of the dead. Benerro also speaks of the dead rising for Azor Ahai both red priests and the Others have their own ways of resurection. the Starks married into both first king and warg blood and fought both. One of the reasons I suspect the children have the Night's Queen and that Dany's first vision in the HotU is actually her and the little rodent people are the children is related to what the World book points too. I don't think the Others are doing anything just to do it. But perhaps they are being manipulated for a purpose of Bloodravens and the Children.

If it is an attempt to unbreak the world than following what is known of the long night would not work. It may stop the Others but the world is still out of balance. I think one of the great mistakes of Azor is that he sacrificed love for a weapon. While what Nissa did is noble it only led to the rise of another power. Fire replaced Ice, so how do you fix that? Is that the goal of Qauithe or are the two at cross purposes? Jon has symbolism of Ice and Fire, but lacks the aspects of either at this point.

I don't like the idea that either Jon or Dany is being overlly controlled or guided by either of these two, as it goes against Martins idea of choice. But it does seem they are effecting things, like Ghost finding the Obsidian, or the Starks finding the Dire Wolves.

1. Yes Corn King is clearly a thing from GRRM, not necessarily BR. I'll rephrase it: It's GRRM way of telling us not to worry.

2. Quaithe (whom I believe to be Shiera Seastar) is interesting as well. I can't tell if they are playing against each other either, but when Bran is in his coma and has his dream with the 3EC, he never sees Dany, but the raven does "show" him everything else, inclduing Asshai. Is Quaithe blocking BR? And why hasn't Mel seen Quaithe (if BR+SS = Mel and Quaithe = SS)

3. Overall I feel like BR is going to have more of an impact on Bran than Jon. I'm not sure if Jon and BR will be enemies, but I'm not so sure they're be allies either. I think Jon will be standing in between these forces (fire and ice) and recognizing that they are both causing a big ol' mess.

4. I think whatever "the thing" is it will remove both the Others and the dragons from the world and somehow put magic/the world "right" Quaithe is overly interested in those dragons. Might be just because she's possibly a Targ but if (IF) what Yandel says about Asshai is right, does Quaithe think that Dany and her dragons can somehow "restore" light to Asshai? And then that translates to ending the Long Night in Quaithe's head? (and side note: anyone think there might be a Heart of Summer somewhere in the far East? The Far East stuff in the WB made my head spin...) Which might mean that Quaithe and BR are opposing each other if they've chosen different "champions"

That was all really speculate. lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the links better - I do not like spoiler tags, they impede reading. Links tell you there's more elsewhere, so you decide if you want to venture elsewhere for more. Spoiler tags hide something from you, that is here... you unhide it. So you read some, then click some, then read some more. It has a less cozy reading feel, if you have to click for something that's hidden to appear right on page. Uncanny stuff...

I suggested the spoiler tags because they take up less space. But it there is no section for 'source material and suggested readings' then, yeah....I admit, it appears a bit pointless at least of the subject of polygamy, since the links are quite short...as for the other SSM, maybe editing a little round it is sufficient? going to the line, and using italics, to make it a bit more obvious?

Isn't there an SSM that says the 3 Kingsguard were following Rhaegar's orders though?

The SSM you may be thinking of is probably this:

  • "The King's Guards don't get to make up their own orders. They serve the king, they protect the king and the royal family, but they're also bound to obey their orders, and if Prince Rhaegar gave them a certain order, they would do that. They can't say, "No we don't like that order, we'll do something else."

We know from Barristan, protecting the king is the first and most important of all kingsguard duties. Jamie suggests some other KG to stay with the king when he wants to leave for the Trident and we also learn of a ritual that is performed when all KG meet and the king is guarded by someone who is not from the order.

"Protect vs Obey" is an ongoing subject of debate that is unlikely to be settled until we know more. Either viewpoint is compatible with R+L=J.

That section is a little confusing, too....

"We know from Barristan that protecting the King is the first and most important of the KG's duties. Jaime cannot leave Aery's side unless another KG relieves him of his guard duty. When the 7 KG meet up, they proceed through a ritualized dialogue where they inquire about the King's safety."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do we know that the Tower of Joy was a free standing tower not part of a castle or settlement? In another thread someone was asking why it isn't marked as a ruin on the maps. Is it possible the tower was where Rhaegar and Lyanna's quarters were but there was also another keep that for some reason Martin doesn't want us to know the name of via the maps?







Yeah, the Targ succession differs from the rest of Westeros by excluding females. There is a SSM for it somewhere.





There is, it's old and a little iffy. Better to use the worldbook, but unfortunately the worldbook muddied the waters a bit:




In the eyes of many, the Great Council of 101 AC thereby established an iron precedent on matters of succession: regardless of seniority, the Iron Throne of Westeros could not pass to a woman, nor through a woman to her male descendents.





So now it seems like succession laws aren't codified at all, and the "no girls allowed" rule isn't accepted by everyone. In fact what Gyldayn says there is plainly untrue, as we see with Robert. Maybe in the original text he continued "...unless there are no male claimants." and the excerpt just cuts off there.


Share this post


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

×