Heresy 188

[Balerion06]

9 hours ago, Black Crow said:

In that respect Jon is likely to be a positive force. If he really does has a Targaryen side he remains a son of Winterfell.

I've begun to consider the possibility that Martin might never even bother to explicitly spell out who Jon's father is. Especially if Lyanna was in a situation where she'd slept with more than one man (consensually or forcefully), and even she didn't know who her baby's father was. There are some decent arguments for characters like Arthur Dayne/Aerys/etc to perhaps be the father. While most evidence points to Rhaegar, that could have simply been why Ned decided to claim Jon as his own too (after all, he's the father everyone in-universe would automatically assume if Lyanna was publicly proclaimed to have had a child).

Ultimately, Jon will know he's Lyanna's son, and that no matter who his biological father was, Ned was his father in every way except by blood. In that sense, he's truly a Son of Winterfell in every way that matters.

[Black Crow]

37 minutes ago, Balerion06 said:

I've begun to consider the possibility that Martin might never even bother to explicitly spell out who Jon's father is. Especially if Lyanna was in a situation where she'd slept with more than one man (consensually or forcefully), and even she didn't know who her baby's father was. There are some decent arguments for characters like Arthur Dayne/Aerys/etc to perhaps be the father. While most evidence points to Rhaegar, that could have simply been why Ned decided to claim Jon as his own too (after all, he's the father everyone in-universe would automatically assume if Lyanna was publicly proclaimed to have had a child).

Ultimately, Jon will know he's Lyanna's son, and that no matter who his biological father was, Ned was his father in every way except by blood. In that sense, he's truly a Son of Winterfell in every way that matters.

Exactly so and even allowing for that ringing endorsement by Maester Aemon Targaryen, declaring him a son of Winterfell, everything we see of of him both inside and outside his POVs proclaims that, no matter the tiny scraps of "evidence" eagerly picked from the chaff on the threshing room floor, he is in every way the Ice to Danaerys' Fire in this story.

[Black Crow]

8 hours ago, Matthew. said:

The abnormal seasons suggest that if there ever was a "balance," it has already been upset for a long, long time. What Benerro (replaced by Kinvara in the show) espouses would probably ruin things further, but I don't know that what they're doing is any worse than what's happening north of the Wall, where an entire people have been subjected to genocide and magical afterlife slavery.

We might be generous to the Others, and say that they're preparing for a legitimate threat, but so are the Fire Priests. The Others think there's an enemy coming that's intent on destroying the sacred groves, and they're not wrong. The Fire Priests think there's an enemy coming that's intent on destroying all warm blooded life, and they're not wrong. They fuel one another.

If sorcery is a sword without a hilt, then it may be that the only way to truly secure stability is either the death of sorcery, or for someone to gain dominion over the sorcery that is running amok, and make the only ethical choice there is: the choice to not use their sorcery. Perhaps the "bittersweet ending" means a rather lonely existence for one, or several characters.

Very likely, and on the whole I agree, but as to the Others there may well be a threat to the remaining weirwoods, but I think its important to distinguish between those who are defending the green life against the all consuming Fire and their Icy servants.

[House Cambodia]

54 minutes ago, Black Crow said:

Very likely, and on the whole I agree, but as to the Others there may well be a threat to the remaining weirwoods, but I think its important to distinguish between those who are defending the green life against the all consuming Fire and their Icy servants.

Whilst this is no guarantee that it will be reflected in TWOW, it's worth noting that in the mummers' version of Bran's vision of the Others before the Heart Tree in Winter, the Weirwood looked pretty damn dead.

[Other other stark]

I am on the side of it doesn't matter who Jon snow father is. That what is important is lyanna is his mom and he is a stark. I know my religious background or views are not important but I am in the reformed Jew by birth(ashkenazi). The reason I bring this up is my wife is not. So in the eyes of the very religious Jews my daughter is actually not Jewish despite her being blessed and given a name. This is the part that is linked to this. Because if your mother is Jewish then the child regardless of how the baby is conceived or the fathers background is accepted as Jewish. The same way that Jon is a stark. The north and north of the wall is most likely all about the mothers blood. 

[The Chequered Raven]

On 2.7.2016 at 5:24 PM, Muttering Ed said:

I'm more inclined to believe that the tragedy at Summerhall was the trigger since that event almost certainly involved fire and/or blood magic and the attempted fulfillment of prophecies. Or at least an attempt at fire/blood magic. The only other trigger I might favor would be the birth of Jon (the magical Ice/Fire Combo Platter) and/or the birth of Dany (magical conqueror of the Promised Prince persuasion). It just seems that something of a magical sort needs to be involved to get the old powers woken up.

Support this.

[Matthew.]

7 hours ago, Balerion06 said:

Ultimately, Jon will know he's Lyanna's son, and that no matter who his biological father was, Ned was his father in every way except by blood. In that sense, he's truly a Son of Winterfell in every way that matters.

Lyanna being his mother is the more important part, especially to Jon's sense of self, but the arguments about the father have to do with potential plot outcomes/burdens (some of which may be outside of Jon's control); especially, for those that are either Rhaegar or Arthur Dayne proponents, there's an expectation of Jon slaying WWs as either AA or The Sword of the Morning. These things are separate from characterization, and even personal identity.

The "son of Winterfell" mantra does not give us any real guidance to what Jon's future choices and character journey might be, because it doesn't actually mean anything specific; Brandon and Eddard were also sons of Winterfell, yet pretty dissimilar in both personality and personal ethics.

Son of Winterfell is often used to implicitly suggest that all sorts of things aren't possible for Jon, yet that's not true to the way character journeys work. "Rickard is a son of Winterfell, he'd never have southern ambitions! Catelyn is a daughter of Riverrun, she'll never be the lady of Winterfell! Robert is a son of Storm's End, he'll never sit some stinkin' Targaryen throne!"

There's yet another complicating factor in determining Jon's future: he died. GRRM has said that Beric was a different character, a different man after death, and it's not yet clear what this means for Jon. Is the Jon we know "preserved" in Ghost?

[Melifeather]

On July 2, 2016 at 11:33 AM, Queen of Winter said:

Ok I hadn't heard that theory before and am going to have to look for "Some Pig's" post. Wasn't it rumored that Rhaegar was cremated? We know that Ned brought Lyanna's remains back to Winterfell, to be buried in the crypts. But I wonder if there's a chance that he buried them together at Winterfell--kind of a play on Bael the Bard--instead of living in the crypts, they're together in death. Wasn't there supposed to be something going on with the crypts of Winterfell (I know about the dragon egg rumor etc), that they were supposed to be important somehow overall to the ASOIAF books?

Parallels & Inversions: MMD's Tent Ritual and the TOJ

[Brad Stark]

8 hours ago, Balerion06 said:

I've begun to consider the possibility that Martin might never even bother to explicitly spell out who Jon's father is. Especially if Lyanna was in a situation where she'd slept with more than one man (consensually or forcefully), and even she didn't know who her baby's father was. There are some decent arguments for characters like Arthur Dayne/Aerys/etc to perhaps be the father. While most evidence points to Rhaegar, that could have simply been why Ned decided to claim Jon as his own too (after all, he's the father everyone in-universe would automatically assume if Lyanna was publicly proclaimed to have had a child).

Ultimately, Jon will know he'sLyanna's son, and that no matter who his biological father was, Ned was his father in every way except by blood. In that sense, he's truly a Son of Winterfell in every way that matters.

If Lyanna slept with Arthur,  why not pass the baby off as Lyanna and Arthur's?  Ned had to claim it was his son because if he claimed it was Rhaegar's Robert would kill him.  Any other father  (except another Targaryen) and there is no reason to hide his identify.

[Black Crow]

6 hours ago, Other other stark said:

I am on the side of it doesn't matter who Jon snow father is. That what is important is lyanna is his mom and he is a stark. I know my religious background or views are not important but I am in the reformed Jew by birth(ashkenazi). The reason I bring this up is my wife is not. So in the eyes of the very religious Jews my daughter is actually not Jewish despite her being blessed and given a name. This is the part that is linked to this. Because if your mother is Jewish then the child regardless of how the baby is conceived or the fathers background is accepted as Jewish. The same way that Jon is a stark. The north and north of the wall is most likely all about the mothers blood. 

Also just to add HBO released a family tree to clear it up for non reading viewers and rhaegar is the dad. I know it's the mummers version, but this is one aspect I think is safe to say as canon for the book as well.

As to the first yes, the importance of the maternal line is something we've long discussed on heresy.

As to the second I disagree. To quote Dan Cook, "it aint over until the fat lady sings"

Whether GRRM originally intended it or not the question of Jon's father has become "the central mystery of the books". It is the one thing which he refuses to even hint about [apart from that famous comment about Ned's fever dream]. The mummers' website has a fancy graphic which inter alia illustrates the most popular theory, but until and unless GRRM himself appears in person to confirm or deny that the mystery he has teased us with for over 20 years has now been revealed "it aint over

[Black Crow]

1 hour ago, Brad Stark said:

If Lyanna slept with Arthur,  why not pass the baby off as Lyanna and Arthur's?  Ned had to claim it was his son because if he claimed it was Rhaegar's Robert would kill him.  Any other father  (except another Targaryen) and there is no reason to hide his identify.

I refer to the answer I gave to the same question on another thread:

Something worth considering in this particular discussion is Robert's attitude towards Lyanna. We don't actually know how much contact they had before she was snatched. Probably very little and we certainly don't hear of a great love story cut short. Lyanna herself is quite pragmatic about this in her declaration that Robert was incapable of staying in one bed.

Robert is serial adulterer no.1, but yet as Ned realises and fears he doesn't hold his lawful wedded wife to the same standard. If he learns of Cersei's adultery the incest is irrelevant, what matters is her betrayal of him and how he will retaliate by killing not just Cersei and her lover but the children as well.

Switch back to Lyanna. She's the one who got away and in a sense he has remained in the same bed. The unattainable Lyanna is not merely his lost love [?] but an object of devotion and indeed obsession. She is a holy martyr, abducted, raped and now venerated. If the Seven went in for sainthood the High Septon would have been very heavily leant on long ago and candles would now be lit to her.

But give her a child and that holy martyrdom then becomes betrayal. It doesn't matter whether the father was Rhaegar, Ser Arthur Dayne or Rumpelstiltskin, she has betrayed him. Yes pregnancy can follow real rape, but all too often in life the rape victim gets blamed and when we're dealing with Robert Baratheon...

[Black Crow]

8 hours ago, House Cambodia said:

Whilst this is no guarantee that it will be reflected in TWOW, it's worth noting that in the mummers' version of Bran's vision of the Others before the Heart Tree in Winter, the Weirwood looked pretty damn dead.

Usually do in winter. One of the things we do pick up in text about the tree-huggers is that they lived in wooden cities in the trees before going underground in the winter. We actually get a practical glimpse of this in Arya's travels with Thoros and the Brotherhood when they encounter a community of refugees in a hidden tree-top village and its commented that they will have to move soon because the weather is turning and once the leaves fall they will be exposed for all to see, 

[House Cambodia]

Hadn't realised that, thanks.

[Queen of Winter]

3 hours ago, Feather Crystal said:

Parallels & Inversions: MMD's Tent Ritual and the TOJ

Thank you for the link! Wow, I've never heard of that site before. Just loved " Some Pig's" post, very intriguing. And I like how he's questioning Rhaegar's cremation/burning, in his/her other crackpot thread--they're some of the same questions I've been running through my head.

Also liked the Quiet Isle was brought up and Rhaegar's rubies. I made a speculation many years ago on one of the 900 () "Pawn To Player-Rethinking Sansa" threads that the rubies were supposed to represent seven people, and drew a parallel to the 7 men at the ToJ.

Citing this bit from AFFC:

"We have found silver cups and iron pots, sacks of wool and bolts of silk, rusted helms and shining swords...aye, and rubies."

That interested Ser Hyle.

"Rhaegar's rubies?

"It may be. Who can say? The battle was long leagues from here, but the river is tireless and patient. Six have been found. We are all waiting for the seventh."

OK, I'm shutting up now, don't want to veer off topic.....(end thread hijack)

[Matthew.]

12 hours ago, House Cambodia said:

Whilst this is no guarantee that it will be reflected in TWOW, it's worth noting that in the mummers' version of Bran's vision of the Others before the Heart Tree in Winter, the Weirwood looked pretty damn dead.

I agree with you here, as the tree in Bran's vision hasn't just withered and lost its leaves, the bark has gone black. Contrast that against the comparatively healthy tree above BR's cave, even though that tree is also north of the Wall, where winter-like conditions have been underway for years.

Maybe it doesn't mean anything, but they chose to give two sweeping shots of the tree, including two shots to highlight the spiral, as well as that bizarre gathering of the dead--they could be trying to communicate something visually. Maybe it's just meant to be a reflection of the NK's nature (as a walking personification of death), maybe its the aftermath of an attack on the tree, or maybe the Others themselves damaged the tree to sever its link from weirnet.

[Matthew.]

5 hours ago, Black Crow said:

The mummers' website has a fancy graphic which inter alia illustrates the most popular theory, but until and unless GRRM himself appears in person to confirm or deny that the mystery he has teased us with for over 20 years has now been revealed "it aint over

Not only that, but despite the fact that that image came from an official HBO blog, it was pointed out to me on another site that D&D, Bran's actor, and the director for EP10 are all maintaining the public position that Jon's father is a mystery/unconfirmed--so even if that infographic was potentially accurate, it's fair to still treat the father as open to debate, as the showrunners themselves intend for it to be open to debate.

[Black Crow]

There is a mischievous thought occurs to me anent the mystery of Jon Snow's parentage. What do we actually know - and no I'm not talking about the "evidence" itself.

In the 1993 synopsis Jon Snow is introduced simply as the bastard, but later we find a growing relationship between Jon and Arya which tortures them until the mystery of Jon's parentage is revealed in the last book and he presumably finally gets inside her knickers. Now never mind the probable substitution of Sansa for Arya, this tells us that there is a mystery and clearly implies that Ned stark is not Jon's father.

Some time later GRRM says that all necessary clues can be found in AGOT.

He also says that it doesn't matter whether people figure it out; he won't change the answer/outcome if they do.

However something which he has also said is that he doesn't like to map out his stories in too much detail and prefers to be a gardener rather than an architect.

So... we're pretty confident that Lyanna Stark is Jon's mother, but as to his father most of those concerning themselves with the mystery are sure, and in some cases fanatically sure it was Rhaegar Targaryen and no matter it seems a touch too obvious, GRRM has promised he won't change anything.

Then there's Ser Arthur Dayne - and while Ned has not thought of Rhaegar in years he has often told his children what a fine upstanding fellow Ser Arthur was, which seems an odd contrast if it was Rhaegar who fathered Jon.

Both can be identified through clues in AGoT, both would make sense in different ways, but given GRRM's dislike of literary architecture, might that argument between the two candidates also be going on in his head. Has he set up both as viable candidates, but has not yet decided which will be the better one in bringing this story to a satisfactory conclusion?

[JNR]

9 hours ago, Black Crow said:

until and unless GRRM himself appears in person to confirm or deny that the mystery he has teased us with for over 20 years has now been revealed "it aint over"

Quite true, and worth remembering for all such mysteries, of which Jon's parents is just one. 

While it's easy to suppose that X or Y must be so significant that it's a consistent milestone in both of the two increasingly different universes, that is really just a guess, as opposed to an objective truth.

Also, the HBO graphic is no more revealing than the appendices in the books (which specify Ned is Jon's father).  It  reflects the current understanding of the audience, as opposed to unchanging facts.

2 hours ago, Black Crow said:

Some time later GRRM says that all necessary clues can be found in AGOT.

I'm afraid he never did.  This is a frequently-cited canard, as opposed to a published SSM, which traces to Ran's belief, based on editorial notes, that Anne Groell was able to guess Jon's parents based on AGOT only, after being asked that by GRRM. 

But while GRRM is on record with a test question he likes to ask certain readers, that test question is not "Who are Jon's parents?" but something different.

2 hours ago, Black Crow said:

He also says that it doesn't matter whether people figure it out; he won't change the answer/outcome if they do.

He did say this, but not necessarily about Jon's parents.  GRRM said this about an nonspecified mystery, the solution to which he said he intended to publish in book six.

(As it happens, though, I do think he meant Jon's parents.)

[Muttering Ed]

14 hours ago, The Chequered Raven said:

Support this.

Are you saying that you support this? If so, thanks.

If you are, however succinctly, asking me to support my theory, then it becomes more problematic. We simply do not have any direct textual evidence to support any of our theories about what brings the Night and its chilly terrors. What I'm saying is that I don't think there was any kind of supernatural "pact" between Aegon the Conquistador and Torrhen Stark prior to the submission. The texts (including WOIAF) seem to me pretty clear that Torrhen sashayed south and then put his knee in the dirt in front of 30,000 northmen, 45,000 southmen, one king, 1 to 3 dragons, and however many riverlanders happened to stick around for the festivities. Some of the formalities and/or intentions may have been arranged beforehand by Torrhen's kinfolk, but it seems to me any truly special arrangements would be hard to keep secret from so many witnesses (and their maesters). The text doesn't really give any hints that something magical happened, just pragmatical. There also is the issue of an awfully long time (nearly 300 years) between possible cause and demonstrated effect, as Wolfmaid mentioned a couple of pages back.

But we do have notice of some mysterious and possibly magical/supernatural events that the author has teased without fully explaining. The Summerhall inferno is one such; there appear to be all kinds of rumors and suppositions among the Westerosi about what actually happened, and presumably we will eventually get answers and an explanation of how it ties into current events. The same for Jon's birth and heritage - one big mystery with all manner of tease built in. And the same for Dany. Anybody who walks into a fire and comes out with baby f-king dragons seems pretty magical to me. So in my personal opinion, it's the magical and mysterious events that seem most likely to be related to the second coming of the WW's and the reawakening of the old powers. "The trees have eyes again" or whatever the exact quote was.

I could certainly be wrong, especially about the exact event that triggered the awakening. Maybe it was Lord Commander BloodRaven leaving (?) his post and becoming a human greenseer. Did he replace someone else? Or was he the first human tree-dweller in a few thousand years? What prompted him to take up residence in a tree? Is the Night's Watch staying true if their commander communes with the Singers? Maybe there was something else untold about the tourney at Harrenhall, or something else we need to know about a wee crannogman on the Isle of Faces. My point is that for there to be this great reawakening, I don't think it was something as mundane as one human king kneeling to another since that probably happened quite often over the past few thousand years. My belief, based on the "stories" we learn, is that one of our other big mysteries is most likely to be related to the reawakening.

19 hours ago, Black Crow said:

Exactly so and even allowing for that ringing endorsement by Maester Aemon Targaryen, declaring him a son of Winterfell, everything we see of of him both inside and outside his POVs proclaims that, no matter the tiny scraps of "evidence" eagerly picked from the chaff on the threshing room floor, he is in every way the Ice to Danaerys' Fire in this story.

I agree that Jon is a son of Winterfell, in every way that is important. But I also think that blood or lineage does matter, especially among the Starks and Targs. Maester Aemon also told Jon that "there is power in king's blood," and I see Maester Aemon as one of our more reliable characters. At least when he's not feverishly muttering about Targaryen prophecies. It seems to me there is lots of anecdotal (at least) evidence that blood/genealogy matters. For example, have we heard any stories of human skinchangers among anyone other than those with First Men blood? I can't recall any. If I remember correctly, there were some non-Targaryen dragon riders before the Dance, but it's hard to imagine anyone NOT of Valeryian lineage who could light rocks on fire and give birth to dragons. Point being that I think the books have enough mention of blood and lineage to believe there is some importance to it. Blood or lineage may not be the most important thing, but I do think it matters with regards to the supernatural stuff. I'm not opposed to the idea that the direwolves brought the warging with them, but I think you still need the right receptors to make it work - and only the Stark kids seem to have those receptors south of the Wall.

[Brad Stark]

Why is everyone so hung up on who Jon's parents were?  IMO that was an important mystery of the first book, but all the clues were there.  If it turns out it is a red herring and Jon's mom isn't Lyanna, readers will just be disappointed.

What is more interesting is what the implications of Jon's parentage.  It might not be that important, Jon might never find out, even if he does, enough powerful people might never support his claim to the iron throne.  It could just be backstory, and explain part of Jon's personality.  It might have specific magical implications, as many here suspect, but I don’t see that as GRRMs style.  More likely Jon does heroic things to save the world,  but they are things another person could have done, but happen to be done by the son of a prince and an important noble.