WTF's a Lommy Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 Not a hole in the theory but an issue that has always bothered me. If R+L=J is indeed true, and even if Rhagar and Lyanna married at some point and Jon Snow is actually Jon Targaryan: Legitimate son of Rhagar Targaryan and rightful heir to the Iron Throne, the only person who knows is Howland Reed. Why would anybody believe him? Cranoggmen are generally disliked and mistrusted to begin with and he is a notorious Stark loyalist. So, why would anyone who matters care that the Lord of the Swamp People said his dead friend's "bastard" was actually a secret king? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Selig Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 Because normal logic doesn't apply to Jon Snow the Special Snowflake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dany's Golden Fleece Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 Its all a red herring I tell ya lol. But you make a good point. If Jon (which is very likely) is the son of Rhaegar, where is the proof other than a Crannogman's word. I am sure George has something up his sleeve though. Another option could be that WE will know that Jon is Rhaegar's son, but Jon and the people around him never know, it remains a secret. Or Jon knows and keeps it a secret. Many possibilities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RumHam Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 If he claims a dragon, that will be proof enough. Especially when (f)Aegon can't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alienarea Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 Unless good old Ned hid Lyanna's wedding dress, Rhaegar's silver harp, Jon Snow's birth certificate and you nsme it in the Winterfell crypts.Dream on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 If he claims a dragon, that will be proof enough. Especially when (f)Aegon can't. That doesn't prove anything either way, for either of them. To the OP: If GRRM wants to prove in-story that Jon is Rhaegar's son, he will. If it ends up not being necessary to the plot, then he won't prove it. The author will do what he wants with it and if he needs to prove it, he will, and if he doesn't need to prove it, he won't. It's not any more complicated than that.ETA: And Howland is not the only one who knows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EddardsHead Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 Jon being the son of Rhaegar has nothing to do with succession to the iron throne, if Jon ends up on the throne it will be through saving the realm. Nobody needs to know that Jon is the son of Rhaegar because I believe it is more for prophetic reasons, Jon is TPtWP and his is the song of ice and fire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Lannister Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 Jon's going to have the same problem Aegon's going to have. Aegon has Jon Connngton's say so and no one else's that he is who he says he is. Jon won't even have that. Howland Reed? Benjen Stark? A hidden note in Winterfell's crypts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mladen Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 Because normal logic doesn't apply to Jon Snow the Special Snowflake. The normal logic doesn't apply to quite numerous things in this genre. Basically, if author wants him to be a legitimate Targ King, he will be so. Just as he made Tyrion survive so many battles, or Dany not catching some sickness, Arya being so good in killing etc. So, while I understand the obvious hate (don't appreciate it much), thing is that it all comes down to author. And, beside, I find rather difficult to believe that after all conundrum in the books, we will have the same old establishment like nothing changed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RumHam Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 That doesn't prove anything either way, for either of them.To the OP: If GRRM wants to prove in-story that Jon is Rhaegar's son, he will. If it ends up not being necessary to the plot, then he won't prove it. The author will do what he wants with it and if he needs to prove it, he will, and if he doesn't need to prove it, he won't. It's not any more complicated than that.ETA: And Howland is not the only one who knows. I don't wanna sidetrack the thread with the debate about dragonblood, but can we at least agree that the people in the story believe it's a requirement? It's said a few times in the Princess and the Queen and Rogues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingmonkey Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 rightful heir to the Iron Throne He'd have to be a secret Baratheon to be rightful heir to the Iron Throne. The Targs have been deposed and are only coming back at the head of an army. If your army is big enough, it doesn't really matter who your parents are. Most people would suggest that R+L=J is likely to have a lot more impact on the role Jon plays in the upcoming conflict with the Others and the prophecies related to that, than it does the fight for the Iron Throne. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 I don't wanna sidetrack the thread with the debate about dragonblood, but can we at least agree that the people in the story believe it's a requirement? It's said a few times in the Princess and the Queen and Rogues.Yes people believe that, but not riding a dragon successfully is not proof that you don't have Valyrian blood. Alyn, Silver Denys and Quentyn say hi. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Selig Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 Basically, if author wants him to be a legitimate Targ King, he will be so. To the OP: If GRRM wants to prove in-story that Jon is Rhaegar's son, he will. If it ends up not being necessary to the plot, then he won't prove it. The author will do what he wants with it and if he needs to prove it, he will, and if he doesn't need to prove it, he won't. Wow, really? You don't say. Let's not discuss any future developments and how plausible they would be then. The author can do anything he wants, no matter how dumb and implausible it will seem, so why bother? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knight Of Winter Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 Because Iron Throne will be irrelevant to Jon's future. Word of one man Howland Reed is certainly not enough to convince everyone that Jon is secret Targ, but kingship is not something that will be offered to Jon, IMO. Pity, I think he'd be a better ruler than either of the four kings and queens who are currently vying for the throne. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RumHam Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 Yes people believe that, but not riding a dragon successfully is not proof that you don't have Valyrian blood. Alyn, Silver Denys and Quentyn say hi. We were talking about proving that he IS a Targaryen by claiming a dragon. I never meant to suggest that failure for Aegon to claim one would be proof he wasn't descended from a dragonlord family (especially since he may well have some Blackfyre blood.) I was just saying that if he does try and fail while Jon succeeds people are going to read a lot into that. Edit: Also I don't for a second believe Silver Denys' claim he was Maegor's bastard. He probably had some Valyrian blood, but probably not from a dragon lord house. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F The King Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 Definitive proof is rumored to be in Lyanna's tomb... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mladen Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 I don't wanna sidetrack the thread with the debate about dragonblood, but can we at least agree that the people in the story believe it's a requirement? It's said a few times in the Princess and the Queen and Rogues. Yes, we can agree upon that. But, what would happen if Tyrion would ride a dragon, or Aegon, who is objectively not a Targ, snatch one? Dany is called slayer of lies, and Jon's parentage perhaps is one of the lies she needs to slay. So, publicly, it may come down to her word. Or, what I believe in, it may not play any role in him getting the Throne. I am one of those who believe that Jon Snow has more chances to become King than Jon Stark or Jon Targaryen. Wow, really? You don't say. Let's not discuss any future developments and how plausible they would be then. The author can do anything he wants, no matter how dumb and implausible it will seem, so why bother? Apple said clearly that Howland may not be the only one who knows. We also have Dany's HotU vision. There are ways to discover Jon's parentage. It most certainly wouldn't be "Hey, I am Targ, bow to me" but author have enough to create the sequence of events that would logically make sense. Because Iron Throne will be irrelevant to Jon's future. Word of one man Howland Reed is certainly not enough to convince everyone that Jon is secret Targ, but kingship is not something that will be offered to Jon, IMO. Pity, I think he'd be a better ruler than either of the four kings and queens who are currently vying for the throne. Politics, and IT itself isn't irrelevant. We should not separate politics and magic in this story for they are deeply intertwined. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cas Stark Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 Because normal logic doesn't apply to Jon Snow the Special Snowflake. LOL, well he has been gifted a lot less than that other Special Snowflake across the narrow sea. But, then I also don't think "Westeros" will ever recognize him as a Targaryen, he will embrace his Stark heritage as he has always done, even if as time progresses we see some more "fire" from him. He won't be king, he may save the world, he will probably die. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RumHam Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 Yes, we can agree upon that. But, what would happen if Tyrion would ride a dragon, or Aegon, who is objectively not a Targ, snatch one? Dany is called slayer of lies, and Jon's parentage perhaps is one of the lies she needs to slay. So, publicly, it may come down to her word. Or, what I believe in, it may not play any role in him getting the Throne. I am one of those who believe that Jon Snow has more chances to become King than Jon Stark or Jon Targaryen. Well I personally think Tyrion probably does have Targaryen blood. Aegon is a mystery at the moment but there are various theories that give him Targaryen ancestors. I agree if Jon ends up as king it will be based on merit, not the sudden revelation that he was supposed to be Rhaegar's heir. Having a blood claim will really help his case though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mladen Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 Well I personally think Tyrion probably does have Targaryen blood. Aegon is a mystery at the moment but there are various theories that give him Targaryen ancestors. I agree if Jon ends up as king it will be based on merit, not the sudden revelation that he was supposed to be Rhaegar's heir. Having a blood claim will really help his case though. Not necessarily. Westeros is in state of change. Having an "adequate" blood might even be more of difficulty than a facilitator to get to the Throne. Ancestry means side, and I think that Westeros post-WfD might need conciliator. Someone who is literal outsider to repair the country. Bringing everything to beginning, with Targ or Baratheon King would be meaningless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.