Jump to content

Archived

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

J. Stargaryen

R+L=J v.163

Recommended Posts

On 2/4/2017 at 5:11 PM, Black Crow said:

Seriously, if he didn't simply claim his mother's name as Bael's son did, I think that Snow would be a logical choice in the circumstances. Jon has spent a lot of time railing against the outrageous fortune of his bastardy and how keenly he feels the stigma. What better way to banish that stigma, not simply by embracing it as Tyrion advised him to do, but destroying it by making the name Snow a royal one.

Interesting notion and I do like it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He could keep his oath and father no children. Besides, can reborn people father anything?B)

I think to remember that somewhere it's stated than Jon Snow is more Stark than the other Ned's sons, who happen to be rather Tully. Still, they bear the Stark name and heraldry. On other thoughts, when we left him he was acting as the (late?) king of the wildlings. According to wildling laws and customs, when a man steals a woman, that's as good as marry her, what makes him a legal son in his new gotten "kingdom". Not that the wildlings care much about it, I guess. Grrm hasn't found fit to give us much details of wildling uses, like wedding ceremonies, divorce or heritage, I couldn't even tell if they have houses names or just nicknames recalling their deeds or skills, like Bael the Bard, a peculiar name for a king beyond the Wall. He has been more explicit with their strange and rather primitive ways of mating, but this doesn't add much light to the question. In sum, I don't think Jon's wildling followers would object his making himself whatever, even though they might as well decide to dub him something else. Those wildlins are unruly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, finger said:

He could keep his oath and father no children. Besides, can reborn people father anything?B)

I think to remember that somewhere it's stated than Jon Snow is more Stark than the other Ned's sons, who happen to be rather Tully. Still, they bear the Stark name and heraldry. On other thoughts, when we left him he was acting as the (late?) king of the wildlings. According to wildling laws and customs, when a man steals a woman, that's as good as marry her, what makes him a legal son in his new gotten "kingdom". Not that the wildlings care much about it, I guess. Grrm hasn't found fit to give us much details of wildling uses, like wedding ceremonies, divorce or heritage, I couldn't even tell if they have houses names or just nicknames recalling their deeds or skills, like Bael the Bard, a peculiar name for a king beyond the Wall. He has been more explicit with their strange and rather primitive ways of mating, but this doesn't add much light to the question. In sum, I don't think Jon's wildling followers would object his making himself whatever, even though they might as well decide to dub him something else. Those wildlins are unruly.

I doubt the wildlings would  see Jon as anything other than a Stark bastard after the Old Gods gave him a white wolf -- the inverted Stark colors for a Stark bastard.  

Also, stealing is not the same thing as marrying in wildling culture.  The conversation Jon has with Tormund about Ygritte makes that very clear.  "Stealing" is a mating ritual,  but a wedding is still required or else any children of the union will be bastards.  Here is the quote. 

"Do you mislike the girl?"  Tormund asked him as they passed another twenty mammoths, these bearing wildlings in tall wooden towers instead of giants.

"No, but I . . ." What can I say that he will believe?  "I am still too young to wed."

"Wed?"  Tormund laughed.  "Who spoke of wedding?  In the south, must a man wed every girl he beds?"

Jon could feel himself turning red again.  "She spoke for me when Rattleshirt would have killed me.  I would not dishonor her."

"You are a free man now, and Ygritte is a free woman.  What dishonor if you lay together?"

"I might get her with child."

"Aye, I'd hope so.  A strong son or a lively laughing girl kissed by fire, where's the harm in that?"

Words failed him for a moment.  "The boy...the child would be a bastard."

"Are bastards weaker than other children?  More sickly, more like to fail?"

"No, but --"

"You're bastard-born yourself.  And if Ygritte does not want a child, she will go to some woods witch and drink a cup o' moon tea.  You do not come into it, once the seed is planted."

"I will not father a bastard."

Tormund shook his shaggy head.  "What fools you kneelers be.  Why did you steal the girl if you don't want her."

  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, The Twinslayer said:

I doubt the wildlings would  see Jon as anything other than a Stark bastard after the Old Gods gave him a white wolf -- the inverted Stark colors for a Stark bastard.  

Also, stealing is not the same thing as marrying in wildling culture.  The conversation Jon has with Tormund about Ygritte makes that very clear.  "Stealing" is a mating ritual,  but a wedding is still required or else any children of the union will be bastards.  Here is the quote. 

Where does it say that a child born out of "marriage", which is stealing, is any less important or deserving than any other child? Tormund even puts Jon in the mindset to compare himself to a bastard child and asks if Jon thinks of himself as inferior. Tormund informs Jon that the free folk culture is not like that of the south, and that woman have choices in child bearing, as we learn the woman have choices in the stealing and staying.

Bastards are not a negative issue with the free folk just as they are not a real issue in Dorne.

Quote

"Do you mislike the girl?"  Tormund asked him as they passed another twenty mammoths, these bearing wildlings in tall wooden towers instead of giants.

"No, but I . . ." What can I say that he will believe?  "I am still too young to wed."

"Wed?"  Tormund laughed.  "Who spoke of wedding?  In the south, must a man wed every girl he beds?"

Jon could feel himself turning red again.  "She spoke for me when Rattleshirt would have killed me.  I would not dishonor her."

"You are a free man now, and Ygritte is a free woman.  What dishonor if you lay together?"

"I might get her with child."

"Aye, I'd hope so.  A strong son or a lively laughing girl kissed by fire, where's the harm in that?"

Words failed him for a moment.  "The boy...the child would be a bastard."

"Are bastards weaker than other children?  More sickly, more like to fail?"

"No, but --"

"You're bastard-born yourself.  And if Ygritte does not want a child, she will go to some woods witch and drink a cup o' moon tea.  You do not come into it, once the seed is planted."

"I will not father a bastard."

Tormund shook his shaggy head.  "What fools you kneelers be.  Why did you steal the girl if you don't want her."

  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, The Fattest Leech said:

Where does it say that a child born out of "marriage", which is stealing, is any less important or deserving than any other child? Tormund even puts Jon in the mindset to compare himself to a bastard child and asks if Jon thinks of himself as inferior. Tormund informs Jon that the free folk culture is not like that of the south, and that woman have choices in child bearing, as we learn the woman have choices in the stealing and staying.

Bastards are not a negative issue with the free folk just as they are not a real issue in Dorne.

 

Nowhere.  I think you are correct that the free folk don't stigmatize out of wedlock births.  I do think the wildlings recognize the concept of marriage and bastardy, however.  

My point was just that there is a  common misconception that the wildling ritual of "stealing" equates to a marriage, and that is just not true -- as Tormund's comments to Jon make clear.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, The Fattest Leech said:

Bastards are not a negative issue with the free folk just as they are not a real issue in Dorne.

They are an issue in Dorne. Arianne cannot marry a bastard like Daemon Sand as the heiress to Dorne, and neither can bastards inherit in Dorne. The Dornishmen don't hush up their bastards, but that's all. None of Oberyn's daughter is eligible to inherit Dorne, and there are no hints whatsoever that anybody has an intention to legitimize any of them.

36 minutes ago, The Twinslayer said:

My point was just that there is a  common misconception that the wildling ritual of "stealing" equates to a marriage, and that is just not true -- as Tormund's comments to Jon make clear.  

That does seem to be the case, yeah. Tormund and other wildlings clearly understand and recognize the concept of bastardy, and if you can steal a woman without marrying her then stealing clearly isn't equivalent with a marriage.

Whether the free folk makes a difference between trueborn children and bastards in light of inheritance and other things is completely unclear, mostly because we have no idea whether they even have rules in place that a child has a right to the property of his or her parents.

One assumes that leaderships, lordships, and 'kingships' are not easily passed down from father to son among the wildlings, although that certainly can and will happen if the son has the same kind of charisma as strength as his father. Khalakkas also don't always follow their fathers as khals but on occasion they do.

But property could easily enough remain in the family - there would be no working society if anybody could take the stuff of some dead person in some village just because he or she were stronger than the children of the deceased.

You apparently can steal quite a few women (and marry them if Ygon Oldfeather is any indication), but one assumes you don't have to marry all of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

They are an issue in Dorne. Arianne cannot marry a bastard like Daemon Sand as the heiress to Dorne, and neither can bastards inherit in Dorne. The Dornishmen don't hush up their bastards, but that's all. None of Oberyn's daughter is eligible to inherit Dorne, and there are no hints whatsoever that anybody has an intention to legitimize any of them.

First, I said not a real issue, as in not as much because they can still participate and court, have respect even when born to a paramour- ya know, the unmarried concubine of a noble, the Dornish bastards has varying social standards, and King's legitimize bastards and since the Dornish do not look down on them as harshly as the other kingsdoms do, they don't seem to care about legitimizing them while they are in Dorne. Arianne can't marry who she wants because she may have to marry someone from one of the other, more "traditional" kingdoms for political reasons. And again, just like who sits the iron throne, there are no clear cut laws that say a bastard cannot inherit their lord father/mother's property, etc.

This can be found in the World book under Dorne; Queer Custome of the South.

This is also reflected in the maesters saying that Dorne and the North have more in common than they do with the other five kingdoms. I am sure that saying has a double entendre.

13 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

That does seem to be the case, yeah. Tormund and other wildlings clearly understand and recognize the concept of bastardy, and if you can steal a woman without marrying her then stealing clearly isn't equivalent with a marriage.

You have shown time and again how biased and prejudice against anyone in the north, and especially north of the wall, you are, so it is hard to take you seriously when you make these statements. We have had this same conversation in other threads where you were derogatory to a made up peoples and I'm not going to derail this thread (as what happened to the last one) by talking in great depth about how you are not correct in your assumption that the freefolk are dirtbags because they do not conform to southron traditions.

One thing that seems certain is what happens between a wildling man and woman is galaxies better than what happens between a Dothraki slaver raping and selling captured woman as slaves.

13 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Whether the free folk makes a difference between trueborn children and bastards in light of inheritance and other things is completely unclear, mostly because we have no idea whether they even have rules in place that a child has a right to the property of his or her parents.

One assumes that leaderships, lordships, and 'kingships' are not easily passed down from father to son among the wildlings, although that certainly can and will happen if the son has the same kind of charisma as strength as his father. Khalakkas also don't always follow their fathers as khals but on occasion they do.

But property could easily enough remain in the family - there would be no working society if anybody could take the stuff of some dead person in some village just because he or she were stronger than the children of the deceased.

You apparently can steal quite a few women (and marry them if Ygon Oldfeather is any indication), but one assumes you don't have to marry all of them.

Maaaybe the Thenns have a formal marriage service. Maybe. But nowhere in the books does it say they do, or any of the other free folk clans. And we see some inheritance with Tormund and his gold armbands.

Don't know about the freefolk rules to polygamy since we only have one, quick example. We should maybe check with the Targaryens to see if we find a parallel?

So, back on to RLJ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, The Fattest Leech said:

First, I said not a real issue, as in not as much because they can still participate and court, have respect even when born to a paramour- ya know, the unmarried concubine of a noble, the Dornish bastards has varying social standards, and King's legitimize bastards and since the Dornish do not look down on them as harshly as the other kingsdoms do, they don't seem to care about legitimizing them while they are in Dorne.

They do care about those differences, even in Dorne. Obara is very aware who her mother was, and in comparison to Lady Nym and Tyene and Ellaria's children (the children of an actual paramour, not a whore) she is very much baseborn, even in Dorne.

Also note that the egalitarian approach in Dornish politics - all children are innocent and worthy to be protected by their prince(ss) - is a relatively modern phenomenon, going back to Princess Daenerys, not some Rhoynish customs or ideas.

25 minutes ago, The Fattest Leech said:

Arianne can't marry who she wants because she may have to marry someone from one of the other, more "traditional" kingdoms for political reasons. And again, just like who sits the iron throne, there are no clear cut laws that say a bastard cannot inherit their lord father/mother's property, etc.

That is not what Arianne herself thinks. She thinks that as the heir of Dorne she can't marry a bastard, period. She could very well have a Dornish consort as Nymeria (and presumably many other Princes of Dorne) had but there is no precedent for a Dornish prince ever marrying a bastard.

Oberyn and Ellaria are the best example for that. Why don't they marry each other? Neither of them is married. Presumably because Oberyn as a prince of Dorne cannot marry a bastard and remain eligible to inherit Dorne one day.

I know that Dorne looks more favorable on bastards, but not as favorable as making no differences between them whatsoever.

25 minutes ago, The Fattest Leech said:

This is also reflected in the maesters saying that Dorne and the North have more in common than they do with the other five kingdoms. I am sure that saying has a double entendre.

I see that as Dorne and the North being more apart from the other (Andal) kingdoms insofar as various customs are concerned. The North retains more First Men traditions and Dorne (or rather parts of Dorne) have a stronger Rhoynish influence.

But Dorne and the North are in no ways alike. In fact, the Starks seem to be even more opposed to female inheritance and rules than the Andals. After all, George has confirmed that there was neither a Ruling Lady of Winterfell nor a Queen Regnant in the North.

25 minutes ago, The Fattest Leech said:

You have shown time and again how biased and prejudice against anyone in the north, and especially north of the wall, you are, so it is hard to take you seriously when you make these statements. We have had this same conversation in other threads where you were derogatory to a made up peoples and I'm not going to derail this thread (as what happened to the last one) by talking in great depth about how you are not correct in your assumption that the freefolk are dirtbags because they do not conform to southron traditions.

I actually am interested in this kind of thing, and it seems other people than me consider it important to be brought up here.

25 minutes ago, The Fattest Leech said:

Maaaybe the Thenns have a formal marriage service. Maybe. But nowhere in the books does it say they do, or any of the other free folk clans. And we see some inheritance with Tormund and his gold armbands.

Well, since the man actually got a formal wedding service by Melisandre this pretty much seems to be a given. In fact, it is even pretty likely that Sigorn wanted it to happen this way since Alys and Jon are both not followers of the Seven. The First Men way would have been to go to a weirwood.

But the interesting thing there is that if stealing and marriage aren't the same for the free folk - and it seems that way - then the idea that the woman has any say in the matter pretty much collapses since that might apply to the 'nice guy stealing' thing (but certainly not to the Northern women that are abducted from their homes) but not necessarily to marriages.

And we can most definitely say that neither Sigorn nor Alys love each other - they were nudged or forced into an arranged marriage by Jon Snow and Melisandre. Presumably they are supposed to both profit from that union politically and economically but whether they will be happy in this kind of relationship remains to be seen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So this has probably been discussed before but I wonder if someone could shed some light on an aspect of R+L=J? Did Rhaegar want 3 children with Lyanna? Or did he just want his Visenya? Since he and Lyanna were Fire and Ice.... did all 3 of his heads need to be from that bloodline? I know he believed Aegon was the Prince who was promised..... but if he just needed a daughter why not go to Ashara? Ashara would have been an easier solution, no? If he believes in Ice and Fire then why does it seem that he was content in his Visenya having that bloodline and not all three of his children? 

 Also, this might be a really stupid question but Why does Rhaegar assume that HE will father the prince who was promised? Viserys could easily have either been the Prince who was promised or fathered the prince. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some theorise that Rhaegar and Lyanna were in love. Also Ashara was his wife's handmaiden so it might be totes awkward if he knocked her up.

Rhaegar was working off prophecy and everything seemed to point to himself being tPtwP, then baby Aegon after the comet appeared at his conception.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 20/2/2017 at 3:42 PM, The Twinslayer said:

I doubt the wildlings would  see Jon as anything other than a Stark bastard after the Old Gods gave him a white wolf -- the inverted Stark colors for a Stark bastard.  

...

Tormund shook his shaggy head.  "What fools you kneelers be.  Why did you steal the girl if you don't want her."

  

WHAT???

When he was stabbed he was the acting King beyond the Wall, or rater the King at the Wall. Val, Tormund and lesser ones had shown him fealty. And he was about to command a wildling host. Among the wildlings, that's a king.

R stole L, and he wanted her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why all the secrecy around Jon's parentage? Short answer:

“So you say. If you are wrong, we need not fear. If the girl miscarries, we need not fear. If she births a daughter in place of a son, we need not fear. If the babe dies in infancy, we need not fear.”
“But if it is a boy?” Robert insisted. “If he lives?” - AGoT, Eddard VIII

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol, so very much GRRM - state it plainly for everyone to see. Also, kind of funny when this stuff about JS is picked by none other than JS :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, J. Stargaryen said:

Why all the secrecy around Jon's parentage. Short answer:

“So you say. If you are wrong, we need not fear. If the girl miscarries, we need not fear. If she births a daughter in place of a son, we need not fear. If the babe dies in infancy, we need not fear.”
“But if it is a boy?” Robert insisted. “If he lives?” - AGoT, Eddard VIII

 

“Robert, I ask you, what did we rise against Aerys Targaryen for, if not to put an end to the murder of children?”
To put an end to Targaryens!” the king growled.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The real question is once Robert died, why didnt Ned quickly write a letter exposing the truth of Jon's parentage for the Seven Kingdoms to see?

 

From Neds point of view it would be better to put Jon on the throne than a illegitimate bastard (Joffrey).

 

 

Saying Jon Snow is the true King would automatically cause Dorne, Highgarden, as well as the North to fight for Jon's claim, causing an easy victory (Robb Stark would have also rallied the North for Jon)

 

 

 

 

 

I know Jon Snow already joined the Nights Watch, but you dont think he would have found a way to leave when half the country would support his claim to the throne?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, jontargaryan said:

The real question is once Robert died, why didnt Ned quickly write a letter exposing the truth of Jon's parentage for the Seven Kingdoms to see?

From Neds point of view it would be better to put Jon on the throne than a illegitimate bastard (Joffrey).

Saying Jon Snow is the true King would automatically cause Dorne, Highgarden, as well as the North to fight for Jon's claim, causing an easy victory (Robb Stark would have also rallied the North for Jon)

I know Jon Snow already joined the Nights Watch, but you dont think he would have found a way to leave when half the country would support his claim to the throne?

Because Jon wasn't Robert's heir. Stannis was.

Additionally, if Eddard wanted to reveal Jon's true parentage, he would need to provide evidence.. A letter won't  be enough, as Stannis later discovers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Rhaenys_Targaryen said:

Additionally, if Eddard wanted to reveal Jon's true parentage, he would need to provide evidence.. A letter won't  be enough, as Stannis later discovers.

Ned would also have the same immediate problem he had with the Lannisters upon Robert's death. If anything, it would have looked worse for him trying to restore the Targaryans with the "rightful heir" formerly known as his own bastard (and he wouldn't even have had his paper shield to work with), but the real issue was that Cersei wasn't going to let Joffrey get outed and set aside for Jon anymore than she was for Stannis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Rhaenys_Targaryen said:

Because Jon wasn't Robert's heir. Stannis was.

Additionally, if Eddard wanted to reveal Jon's true parentage, he would need to provide evidence.. A letter won't  be enough, as Stannis later discovers.

In addition, Ned's actions with sending Jon to the Night's Watch, allowing him to be become a sworn brother, and not raising a claim for Jon in the short time he is the Lord Regent and Protector of the Realm, all point to Ned thinking either Jon has no claim or he has no chance of winning such a claim and putting one forth would mean Jon's likely death. That could well point to Ned believing Jon is a bastard, even if he thinks Jon is Rhaegar's son. That doesn't mean that is correct. Only that it is likely what Ned believes.

Share this post


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

×