Heresy 166

[WhitewolfStark]

Well, lets just wait and see, because notwithstanding my recent interest in the alternative theory that Jon's father may turn out to be Ser Arthur Dayne rather than Rhaegar Targaryen, I fear that the real problem with the R+L=J theory is not that it is or may be wrong, but that it has assumed an importance out of all proportion to its actual significance. I'm comfortable with R+L=J turning out to be true. I just think that in either event what is going to be important is that Jon is the son of Lyanna Stark, and I'm still mindful of the only significance attaching to it in the synopsis is meaning that he can get inside Arya's knickers - or will it now be Sansa's?

This sums up my beef as well. There's more to the books than whether or not R+L=J is true or not, and "big deal" if it is.

Please no Sansa/Jon. I actually like the idea of Arya/Jon... but Sansa/Jon just rubs me the wrong way.

[Black Crow]

This sums up my beef as well. There's more to the books than whether or not R+L=J is true or not, and "big deal" if it is.

Apart from anything else in political terms it is quite literally a generation since a Targaryen sat on the throne and he was hardly an advertisement for his house. Whatever Rhaegar Targaryen's accomplishments and popularity - impossible to gauge and probably much overrated he is the one who plunged Westeros into war and ultimately triggered the events which have brought it so low. Aegon, real or otherwise, has a following but in reality we have to question whether these are ancient loyalties or the desperate loyalty of the dispossessed allied with the "anybody but a Lannister" party. There's Danaerys Targaryen of course, the undoubted successor to Viserys, successor to Aerys the mad king, but she's also in GRRM's words, the last of the Dragonlords and unambiguously cast as one of the three great threats to Westeros. For Jon Snow to be proclaimed as another Targaryen is going to be tantamount to a death sentence. :devil:

GRRM has spoken before of the Jacobites being an influence and we can certainly see this in the latter history of House Targaryen as exiles, longing for a restoration, and yes with enough fools still willing to follow them, but its also worth remembering that when King James III fled into exile in 1688 the House of Stuart, although an ancient one, had sat upon the throne of England for just 85 years and of that period fully 20 years had been taken up with a particularly destructive civil war and interregnum. It was hardly a solid foundation for his heirs and successors to claim themselves to be the the rightful, lawful kings.

Exactly the same is true of the Targaryens. Westeros has a long history and the near 300 year rule of the Dragonlords only accounts for a very short part of that history. They are interlopers and without their dragons their claim to rule is pretty shallow by comparison with a son of Winterfell.

[Black Crow]

Agree.

The theory has blown so much out of proportion... if Jon, as Rhaegar and Lyanna's song was important for the line of succession or other political moves, it could have become relevant at Robert's Death or at Joffrey's. But now, I dont think anyone will give a shite about it.

Although I've never thought it would have political implications, rather magical ones... "his is the song of Ice and Fire", what's that song ? What did Rhaegar uncover in these old tales that assured him he was to become a warrior and that the Prince would be born of his line ? What is the Prince significance to the Targaryens ? Another variant of the Azor Ahai legend that almost every civilization from Westeros to Yi Ti has in its culture ?

I think the story relevant point that will come out of R + L = J is that Jon is immune to Walker's touch and/or Dragonfire (I'm not saying "fire", here !) and that he may enter in direct communication with both races (long shot I know, but I still believe Jon will be our window into the Walker's culture, motives and civilization and somehow broke a deal with them or give them what they're coming for, whatever it is).

The question of the meaning of the Song of Ice and Fire has to be pretty fundamental to the outcome. There's a general assumption in some quarters that Jon fits the bill because if R+L=J is true then he represents the union of Ice and Fire, but is that really what Rhaegar was aiming at.

Seemingly he originally thought that he himself was the chosen one. Beyond that wood witch muttering that the Prince would come of the same line as himself we don't know by what signs he was to be known. However what we do know is that Rhaegar himself was a Dragonlord - he was Fire. Then for some reason he decided it wasn't him after all but was determined to sire the hero and so we have his son Aegon, the child in the House of the Undying Vision and confirmed as such by GRRM. It is of Aegon that Rhaegar declares he has a song; "the song of ice and fire." Now once again young Aegon is a Dragonlord born this time of a Dornish mother, but he is Fire without a drop of Ice in his veins, so when Rhaegar pronounces his to be the song of ice and fire he's not talking of a union but of a battle between the two and that Aegon, he believes, is destined to fight the good fight as the champion of Fire against the Ice.

[wolfmaid7]

Is anyone able to spot a link to H164?

[Melifeather]

Good afternoon everyone. I've been away for the weekend and catching up.

Not quite. The World Book stuff about the downfall of the Targaryens was very definitely written by GRRM himself without any outside input and unambiguously fingers Rhaegar and his gang for abducting Lyanna "not ten leagues" [30 miles] from Harrenhal, early in the new year.

So far as the tower of joy is concerned, I understand that Ran does indeed adhere to the R+L=J theory [with variations] but unlike some others has not to my knowledge been so bold as to declare that its no longer a theory.

I will have to go back and read, because my interpretation was that, that is what the realm believes....not necessarily what will turn out to be the truth.

Certainly. The Lannisters contributed next to nothing during the Rebellion as the North bled and died en masse. Tywin, to use his grandson's phrase, "hid under the Rock." Then when he finally took action, it involved

• Sacking King's Landing for no reason, leading to slaughter and rape on a huge scale

• In particuar, the needless brutal murder of Elia, Rhaenys, and Aegon (Ned thinks)

• The needless rape of Elia

And despite all of this, the Lannisters married their way into the Red Keep. They contributed next to nothing to the war from which they profited the most, while doing horrifying damage to innocents for no very good reason. That's plenty of reason for Stark/Lannister enmity, if you ask me.

Yes, he has. He said exactly that in his Reddit AMA:

I have to chuckle at this sort of thing. We're only a matter of months from the RLJ Doom, and statements like that, especially if they're as recent as that one, are going to come back and bite their authors savagely, right where it will do the most harm.

Thanks for having my back, JNR! Much appreciated!

This sums up my beef as well. There's more to the books than whether or not R+L=J is true or not, and "big deal" if it is.

Please no Sansa/Jon. I actually like the idea of Arya/Jon... but Sansa/Jon just rubs me the wrong way.

I fear Sansa won't make it to the end of the story, and it may be the reason why D&D thought it OK to move ahead with the tv Sansa to marry Ramsay instead of Jeyne. I think GRRM always intended Arya and Jon to get together. Their affection for each other was apparent in the beginning, and the gift of the sword was very meaningful. He didn't take the time to make a gift for any of the other siblings.

Is anyone able to spot a link to H164?

I believe it has been deleted for too many posts about the show.

[wolfmaid7]

I believe it has been deleted for too many posts about the show.

Thank you Feather,i didn't know.

[Connartist92]

I think the story relevant point that will come out of R + L = J is that Jon is immune to Walker's touch and/or Dragonfire (I'm not saying "fire", here !)

There has never been proof, or even hints, that ANYONE is immune to dragonfire. Plenty of dragonriders in the Dance of the Dragons got burned and killed.

[Black Crow]

Add to which given that Jon had his hand burned in saving Mormont it would be very strange if dragonfire didn't affect him. GRRM has stressed that Danaerys being unburnt in the dragon hatching was a one-time magical event, not a family trait.

[Black Crow]

I think the story relevant point that will come out of R + L = J is that Jon is immune to Walker's touch and/or Dragonfire (I'm not saying "fire", here !) and that he may enter in direct communication with both races (long shot I know, but I still believe Jon will be our window into the Walker's culture, motives and civilization and somehow broke a deal with them or give them what they're coming for, whatever it is).

As to Ice, again I'm sceptical about immunity. As for providing a "window into the Walkers' culture, motives and civilisation", GRRM long ago denied they had a culture and very recently confirmed that when Sam pinked Ser Puddles with his dagger he "broke the magic holding him together". In other words the walkers are not a race at all but "demons made of snow and ice and cold"* held together by somebody else's magic.

That's not to say that Jon may not be able to communicate with them. We've long suspected a connection between the Starks and Winter and while the speech of the three-fingered tree huggers sounds like the forest and that of the walkers sounds like cracking ice, as a warg Jon might well be able to "hear" them in his mind.

* © Stannis Baratheon

[Voice]

I think the story relevant point that will come out of R + L = J is that Jon is immune to Walker's touch and/or Dragonfire (I'm not saying "fire", here !) and that he may enter in direct communication with both races (long shot I know, but I still believe Jon will be our window into the Walker's culture, motives and civilization and somehow broke a deal with them or give them what they're coming for, whatever it is).

I really don't think any human can be immune to Others or Dragons, and Jon, regardless of his parentage is a human.

I do however agree that Jon will likely be our glimpse into Hierarchy of the Others ;)

I fear Sansa won't make it to the end of the story, and it may be the reason why D&D thought it OK to move ahead with the tv Sansa to marry Ramsay instead of Jeyne.

I very much agree with this one part of your post ;). GRRM listed Sansa among his original cast in his 93 letter, and she does not seem to be among the 5 main characters that survive till the end of the series.

[Black Crow]

I very much agree with this one part of your post ;). GRRM listed Sansa among his original cast in his 93 letter, and she does not seem to be among the 5 main characters that survive till the end of the series.

Conversely, as has been argued, if per the said synopsis Jon is to wind up in bed with one of his sisters/cousins, it may well turn out now to be Sansa rather than Arya.

[Arkash]

As to Ice, again I'm sceptical about immunity. As for providing a "window into the Walkers' culture, motives and civilisation", GRRM long ago denied they had a culture and very recently confirmed that when Sam pinked Ser Puddles with his dagger he "broke the magic holding him together". In other words the walkers are not a race at all but "demons made of snow and ice and cold"* held together by somebody else's magic.

That's not to say that Jon may not be able to communicate with them. We've long suspected a connection between the Starks and Winter and while the speech of the three-fingered tree huggers sounds like the forest and that of the walkers sounds like cracking ice, as a warg Jon might well be able to "hear" them in his mind.

* © Stannis Baratheon

Oh, I'd be curious to read that GRRM confirmation, didnt find it so far !

I love the idea that Jon in a warg state could understand the Others !

I'd be disapointed if they end up only demons of ice and snow, but as you said, maybe there's a higher force cementing them. Wonder if it's a conscious force (some kind of long lost immortal Winter lord) or if it's just wild magic with no real motive other than "Hey, look, I can create Ice Monsters, so I do it because I can."

Anyway, I really hope at some point, we'll discover more about their origins and history. It would be a let down to leave them at the ranks of simple evil minions.

I do however agree that Jon will likely be our glimpse into Hierarchy of the Others ;)

Thanks for the link ! Exactly what I wanted to read now !

[Black Crow]

Oh, I'd be curious to read that GRRM confirmation, didnt find it so far !

Posted 16 March 2015 - 04:47 PM

In an interruption to our advertised program I'm watching a feature on Sky Atlantic, providing a catch up on the HBO series thus far and featuring interviews with [among others] GRRM, who has just confirmed that when Sam pinked Ser Puddles "he broke the spell holding him together."

[Black Crow]

I love the idea that Jon in a warg state could understand the Others !

I'd be disappointed if they end up only demons of ice and snow, but as you said, maybe there's a higher force cementing them. Wonder if it's a conscious force (some kind of long lost immortal Winter lord) or if it's just wild magic with no real motive other than "Hey, look, I can create Ice Monsters, so I do it because I can."

Anyway, I really hope at some point, we'll discover more about their origins and history. It would be a let down to leave them at the ranks of simple evil minions.

The communication thing goes beyond the white walkers because I deliberately invoked the parallel with the children, given that we don't know how Bran the Builder learned their speech, or for that matter how the Last Hero communicated with them or how the Pact was agreed. Hence the suggestion that some kind of telepathy based on the skinchanging magic might be the answer.

As to the walkers being snow and ice and cold held together by magic, as confirmed by GRRM, it then follows that they had to be put together by somebody in the first place. As to who that might be, opinion is divided and you'll find one theory in Voice's thread per the link. I'm much more inclined to look to the three-fingered tree-huggers, in large part because they are already part of the story and show a curious lack of interest far less apprehension about the blue-eyed lot. Nevertheless, I don't see them simply as evil minions, but perhaps more akin to the damned - not just Craster's sons but perhaps Starks as well.

[Direwolf Blitzer]

BC,

Is Daenerys really "positioned" as a threat to Westeros?

I understand the Heretical case, argued by you and others, that she is. But I'm not convinced George thinks so. I'm not sold on her survival through the end of the series, but I'd wager a beer she sits the Iron Throne at some point, and performs heroic acts. While the entirety of House Targaryen, it's claims of divine right, and it's very motto offend my modern sensibilities as a freedom-loving 'Murican, this is Westeros, and Westeros needs the iron hand of a wise monarch. There's gonna be war and a lot of dead innocents, but there always is. Her victory will still be a "win" for the Seven Kingdoms, which will once more be united under a strong ruler.

Prediction for end of series - Confidence level 17.6%: Daenerys returns to Westeros, wins the throne, she and her dragons die heroically defending Westeros, thus ends the last of the dragons and the last of the dragonlords. Boom.

[Black Crow]

If you read the original synopsis included as part of the OP Danaerys the Dragonlord is unambiguously identified as one of the three threats to Westeros and while GRRM skates over what happens in volume 2 of the proposed trilogy as it was then, it appears that by Volume 3 she has conquered Westeros and is sitting on the Iron Throne, where she finds she needs to unite everyone under her banner to face the third threat from the Others.

The story has obviously developed somewhat since 1993 and wandered in different directions, with the troubles she was due to face in ruling Westeros being visited on her in Mereen, but notwithstanding faces and locations changing the basic structure still seems to be in place and this would suggest that in the end she may indeed wind up in Westeros to fight the good fight against the Others, but [and I think its an important but] in the synopsis GRRM does lay some stress on the various parties and factions uniting against the threat which in turn argues against a single hero whether armed with a sword or riding a dragon doing the business.

[TheSmallOther]

I understand the Heretical case, argued by you and others, that she is. But I'm not convinced George thinks so. I'm not sold on her survival through the end of the series, but I'd wager a beer she sits the Iron Throne at some point, and performs heroic acts. While the entirety of House Targaryen, it's claims of divine right, and it's very motto offend my modern sensibilities as a freedom-loving 'Murican, this is Westeros, and Westeros needs the iron hand of a wise monarch. There's gonna be war and a lot of dead innocents, but there always is. Her victory will still be a "win" for the Seven Kingdoms, which will once more be united under a strong ruler.

Prediction for end of series - Confidence level 17.6%: Daenerys returns to Westeros, wins the throne, she and her dragons die heroically defending Westeros, thus ends the last of the dragons and the last of the dragonlords. Boom.

In the show it's definitely possible, these guys love Dany so much it's ridiculous. In the books - I'd disappointed if things turn that way. In fact, her own actions are going against such strong ruler. She wants to destroy bad society which she sees as unjust, but doing so she will also rule out such monarchies as we have in current Westeros.

Regarding dragons, I'm pretty sure they'll be dead again at the end of the series. This time without any remaining eggs.

[Urrax2]

... its also worth remembering that when King James III fled into exile in 1688 the House of Stuart, although an ancient one, had sat upon the throne of England for just 85 years and of that period fully 20 years had been taken up with a particularly destructive civil war and interregnum. It was hardly a solid foundation for his heirs and successors to claim themselves to be the the rightful, lawful kings....

Well, after James II two more Stuarts sat the throne, and the dynasty following them, and still there after 300 years (with some name changes), claim through a Stuart princess.

[Matthew.]

Exactly the same is true of the Targaryens. Westeros has a long history and the near 300 year rule of the Dragonlords only accounts for a very short part of that history. They are interlopers and without their dragons their claim to rule is pretty shallow by comparison with a son of Winterfell.

The fact that it's only a fraction of the continent's total history is less relevant than the fact that it's a significant chunk of the continent's recent history, and the fact that House Targaryen was the only family to ever lay claim to the entirety of Westeros, until Robert. Nobody in the Vale, Dorne, the Westerlands, etc. has ever recognized a Stark king as their liege, nor any Northerner recognized a Lannister or a Tyrell or a Gardener, but all Westerosi now have a shared history of Targaryen rule--with some being old enough to have been alive during the last regime.

Aerys II may have been unpopular with the nobility, but it's important to remember that, because of Tywin's competence, the realm prospered; for a lot of the 'average' folk, the reign of Aerys II may seem a practical golden era in comparison to Robert's bankrupting of the realm, or the chaos of the War of the Five Kings. I think, at the least, "Aegon VI" will have no shortage of popular support.

[WhitewolfStark]

Well, after James II two more Stuarts sat the throne, and the dynasty following them, and still there after 300 years (with some name changes), claim through a Stuart princess.

The male line died with Bonnie Prince Charlie though.