assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 We were talking about proving that he IS a Targaryen by claiming a dragon.But that's the point, it proves no such thing. Him claiming a dragon is not proof that he's Targ, and him not claiming a dragon is not proof that he isn't a Targ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RumHam Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 But that's the point, it proves no such thing. Him claiming a dragon is not proof that he's Targ, and him not claiming a dragon is not proof that he isn't a Targ. I agree with the second part, but not the first. Where else is he gonna get that "right drop" of blood to be able to ride a dragon? Even if you still don't believe the blood is a requirement, the people of Westeros do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Annara Snow 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: Ligament 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? How is that a hole in the theory? Why does anyone in-universe have to believe Howland Reed, or know it's true, for it to be true? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arrow of the Morning Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 Good point. I thought the same about R+L=J, if it goes public few people would believe and those who want the Iron Throne could deny it easily. The prejudice against the crannogman does not help too. I thought that someone else could appear and confirm Jon parentage, may be Arthur Dayne (It is a crackpot, I know). But, how other here said, he doesn’t need to be the king of the Seven Kingdoms. If Jon is the Prince that was promised he needs to defeat the Others and not enter in the political disputes of Westeros. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Annara Snow Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 I agree with the second part, but not the first. Where else is he gonna get that "right drop" of blood to be able to ride a dragon? Even if you still don't believe the blood is a requirement, the people of Westeros do. Yeah, everybody totally accepted Nettles as pureblooded Targaryen the moment she rode Sheepstealer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfmaid7 Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 Ok Ok this whole thing that if GRRM wants it to be prooven it will be prooven is really just ....no. It has to make sense contextually to the story.So if he is going to create a situation whereby it happens,it has to fly. The OP is absolutely correct no one's going to give a danm what some little man from the swamps have to say. Except players of the game who may want to use Jon has a political ploy .I won't care what Howland has to say because if after 5 books you show up out of the blue for this i will say "for shame George,for shame". When oit comes to blood .Having the blood of Old Valyria will help so that doesn't only mean Targ,therefore even if for some reason "A DRAGON CLAIMS JON" that won't mean anything other than his father has the blood of Old Valyria. "If" Jon does claim the throne it will be by right of conquest.For i doubt when the dust or Snows clears the few people that remain will be to hungry,cold and angry to care who was responsible.And the way this story is going many people will claim responsibilty for saving the realm. Dany's Dragon's will rip the heart of Darkness Stannis's sword will cut the heart of darkness The Faith will pray it away. Jaime's gold had might choke the chicken of the heart of Darkness etc etc Jon sacrificing himself will do the trick but no one will know about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cas Stark Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 Ok Ok this whole thing that if GRRM wants it to be prooven it will be prooven is really just ....no. It has to make sense contextually to the story.So if he is going to create a situation whereby it happens,it has to fly. The OP is absolutely correct no one's going to give a danm what some little man from the swamps have to say. I won't care what Howland has to say because if after 5 books you show up out of the blue for this i will say "for shame George,for shame". Having the blood of Old Valyria will help so that doesn't only mean Targ,so even if for some reason "A DRAGON CLAIMS JON" that won't mean anything other than his father is of the blood of Old Valyria. "If" Jon does claim the throne it will be by right of conquest. There could be lots of things.. like a letter from Rhaegar that Howland Reed has, or that is in the Winterfell crypt. I'm sure some other witnesses could be conjured up who were there during the R/L time together and could attest to Ned taking away the child. Etc. Etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blazfemur Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 Ok Ok this whole thing that if GRRM wants it to be prooven it will be prooven is really just ....no. It has to make sense contextually to the story.So if he is going to create a situation whereby it happens,it has to fly. The OP is absolutely correct no one's going to give a danm what some little man from the swamps have to say. I won't care what Howland has to say because if after 5 books you show up out of the blue for this i will say "for shame George,for shame". Having the blood of Old Valyria will help so that doesn't only mean Targ,so even if for some reason "A DRAGON CLAIMS JON" that won't mean anything other than his father is of the blood of Old Valyria. "If" Jon does claim the throne it will be by right of conquest. agreed. furthermore, valyrians control/ride dragons, Targaryens are especially in control because of the potency of their blood (through their own incest), it's why dragons were drawn to them (keeping the bloodline pure idea) By default, even if that damnable equation proves accurate, jon is only 50% targ. he DOES NOT get a dragon. his first men blooded side weakens the potency of his valyrian side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RumHam Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 Yeah, everybody totally accepted Nettles as pureblooded Targaryen the moment she rode Sheepstealer. Who said anything about "pureblooded?" Presumably they accepted she had Targaryen blood and thus was a Dragonseed (or the descendant of one) the moment she road Sheepstealer. We really don't get enough information about what people other than Gyldayn think of her. They may have actually known she had Targaryen blood before she tamed Sheepstealer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blazfemur Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 agreed. furthermore, valyrians control/ride dragons, Targaryens are especially in control because of the potency of their blood (through their own incest), it's why dragons were drawn to them (keeping the bloodline pure idea) By default, even if that damnable equation proves accurate, jon is only 50% targ. he DOES NOT get a dragon. his first men blooded side weakens the potency of his valyrian side. EXCEPTION: Jon turns Other, and "otherizes" or "wights" a dragon. theres that debate, too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThePosterThatWasPromised Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 Even if it gets proved I doubt Jon ends up on the iron throne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Annara Snow Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 Who said anything about "pureblooded?" Presumably they accepted she had Targaryen blood and thus was a Dragonseed (or the descendant of one) the moment she road Sheepstealer. We really don't get enough information about what people other than Gyldayn think of her. They may have actually known she had Targaryen blood before she tamed Sheepstealer. Even Gyldayn, with his insistence on the awesomeness of Targ blood and the "honor" given to people on Dragonstone. ever gives an impression that he really thought she had Targaryen blood. He just leaves her without a comment. There's a bunch of people in Westeros and Essos who have Targ blood without any question but nobody gives a shit. For all the Stannis love, one thing I never see is his fans theorizing that he will ride a dragon, and he's Egg's great-grandson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfmaid7 Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 There could be lots of things.. like a letter from Rhaegar that Howland Reed has, or that is in the Winterfell crypt. I'm sure some other witnesses could be conjured up who were there during the R/L time together and could attest to Ned taking away the child. Etc. Etc. :cool4: Nooooooo a letter!!!! Just in case he didn't make it huh because there was a 50/50 chance that he might not so he wrote this down????? And addressed it "To whom this may concern".....Nah no one's going to care.They'll be arguements about forgery next and a Notary Republic would have to validate sigs and they can't track down witnesses. It will a mess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blazfemur Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 Even if it gets proved I doubt Jon ends up on the iron throne jon also turned down being lord of winterfell. i dont think he'd take the iron throne. his character, it doesnt allow for rule by conquest (even being elected lordc ommander, was chosen for him) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 I agree with the second part, but not the first. Where else is he gonna get that "right drop" of blood to be able to ride a dragon? Even if you still don't believe the blood is a requirement, the people of Westeros do. So you think it's a matter of legal surname? I'm really not understanding your point here. If he's a Blackfyre, he's just as "Targaryen" as any of the other Targs in this story. Who said anything about "pureblooded?" Presumably they accepted she had Targaryen blood and thus was a Dragonseed (or the descendant of one) the moment she road Sheepstealer. We really don't get enough information about what people other than Gyldayn think of her. They may have actually known she had Targaryen blood before she tamed Sheepstealer. Problem with that is, it's circular logic. How do they know she's Targaryen-descended? Because she rode a dragon. How could she ride a dragon? She's Targaryen-descended. Literally all I am saying is that succeeding in riding or failing to ride a dragon says pretty much nothing about whether he is or isn't Aegon. Even if you think dragon blood matters, he would still have that even if he was a Blackfyre. And if having the "right" dragon blood is "only" about being a Targaryen, then I'm sorry but that just makes no sense. Rhaenyra's three kids who were, let's not kid ourselves, bastards all rode/hatched dragons. Laenor and Laena were Velaryons and rode dragons. A Targaryen driver's license is not interchangeable with "has the right drop of blood." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfmaid7 Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 Who said anything about "pureblooded?" Presumably they accepted she had Targaryen blood and thus was a Dragonseed (or the descendant of one) the moment she road Sheepstealer. We really don't get enough information about what people other than Gyldayn think of her. They may have actually known she had Targaryen blood before she tamed Sheepstealer. Agreed with this Neetles wasn't " pure blooded" she was a Dragonseed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blazfemur Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 Where else is he gonna get that "right drop" of blood to be able to ride a dragon? Even if you still don't believe the blood is a requirement, the people of Westeros do. Blood *is* a requirement. Jon's potency is *halved* by his first men-blooded side by default. He ain't gettin a dragon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimJames Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 That's not a problem. Determining Jon Snow's parentage is as easy as taking some of his blood and sticking it in a DNA tester, because said technology totally existed during the medieval era. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordStoneheart Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 That's only assuming Jon's parentage will matter in the later political plot, and that's not set in stone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 Agreed with this Neetles wasn't " pure blooded" she was a Dragonseed. How do we know? And not just her, how do we know Ulf and Hugh were seeds, either? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.