Jon was born a bastard and remains a bastard.

[Ralphis Baratheon]

7 hours ago, BalerionTheCat said:

Or what they did was more important than winning a war on the Trident. More important than keeping a mad man on the throne (anything would be better than that). More important than supporting the claim of that said mad man's worthless brat (how could they know that already?).

Maybe you need to re-evaluate the importance of what they were protecting? What if they knew the prophecy and its implication?

Well they said Aerys would still be on the Throne had they been in King's Landing instead of Ser. Jamie so I'm not sure they wanted Aerys dead if Rhaegar died before him. Unless they were lying.

So you don't think seeing the White Bull Ser. Gerold Hightower and the Sword of the Morning Arthur Dayne on the field fighting with them at the Trident would have raised the spirits of the Royalist Army? Wasn't it said the rebels fought harder after seeing Robert leading the fight and destroying foe after foe like the Demon of the Trident he was that day?

Why couldn't the Targaryens have won the war and kept Jon and the other Targaryens safe? By winning the war they would have had a far better chance of protecting the Targaryens long term I would think. By losing they were in a worse position to protect the Targaryens and the prophecy if they had believed it. If it had been someone else other then Ned Stark that arrived at the Tower of Joy Rhaegar's last son could have been killed like Aegon. If Ned was a different man Jon could have been put to the sword, he could have made a different decision. Obviously the Kingsguard had thought that possible or else they wouldn't have fought Ned and his men trying to kill them all. The 3 Kingsguard at the Tower in Dorne ultimately failed anyways as Lyanna died and Jon Snow fell into the hands of a rebel leader, it was just lucky happenstance that the rebel happen to be Ned who loved his sister and honored his promise.

Like someone else mentioned 3 Kingsguard would not have been enough to protect Jon Snow after the rebels won anyway. It all came down to Ned be an honorable man who chose to keep his sister's promise even though her actions directly or indirectly resulted in the deaths of Ned's father and brother and thousands of others. If you had been in Ned's position would you have forgiving Lyanna so easily and went against your best friend and King to protect him? Jon Snow got extremely lucky that it was only Ned and his Northmen that came to Dorne . It wasn't like it was Rhaegar's doing that ensured it was Ned and his Lords that came to the ToJ instead of say Tywin or Stannis or there men. What if Ned himself died at the Trident? Rhaegar seemed to have lucked out that he didn't and someone else didn't come to rescue Lyanna in Ned's place because literally anybody else would have told Robert of Lyanna's child I would think.

There was no fighting in Dorne and Lyanna may have been better off having one Kingsguard 10 Knights and a maester to help deliver Rhaegar's child.  The other two well known Kingsguard could have changed the outcome of the war if they had fought in the rebellion. After Robert smashed Rhaegar the loyalist army was pretty much done fighting and Barristan himself switch sides. What would have happened if Arthur Dayne faced off against Robert instead of Rhaegar and actually guarded his prince using his prowess with a sword instead of staying in Dorne and standing guard outside of a Tower that wouldn't have needed much guarding had the Targaryens won. If Ser. Arthur or Ser. Gerold killed Robert would the rebel armies have fallen apart seeing their leader killed? I think the loyalists would have at least won the battle had they killed Robert and Ser. Arthur most likely would have been by Rhaegar's side during the whole battle and could have faced off against Robert.

Wouldn't Aerys have wanted his best sword and his Lord Commander of the Kingsguard at the Trident instead of baby sitting Lyanna Stark? They are directly under the command of their King and not the Crown Prince. On top of it all they failed, Rhaegar's mistress/wife./captive/beloved died giving birth with no maester present(as far as I know) and his son fell into the rebel's hands. I'm pretty sure that they failed the commands of the Crown Prince who had no authority to give the commands in the first place.

Maybe I shouldn't just reevaluate King's Aerys II Kingsguard but reevaluate the Kingsguards purpose and effectiveness in general. Following orders that go directly against the best interest of the people you are sworn to protect is counterproductive. The Targaryens might as well have just bought and installed Unsullied as their Kingsguard instead of having Knights if they wanted to have mindless body guards who would follow any order without question no matter how foolish that order is. 

[King Ned Stark]

As with most of Martin's riddles, he has covered his tracks well, and while I do not think it's necessary for to the story for Jon to be legitimate, there are subtle clues that Martin has planted that I feel should not be hand-waved away.

Most notably, the Faith Militant uprising, which came about due to three transgressions of king Aenys, which has somewhat of a nice symmetry with the events of the past twenty years within asoiaf.  Stannis resembles lord Goren Greyjoy who ousted the faith of the seven from the Iron Islands.  Joffrey is a parallel to "King Abomination".  And lastly,  the one I found most peculiar, is that Martin decided to have prince Maegor take a second wife, against the wishes of his king and the high septon.  So we have a precedent of a prince, not a king, taking a second wife.  That should tell us that neither the king nor the faith of the seven have to okay a marriage, or that they have the authority to annul such a marriage against someone's wishes.

Later we see Targaryen kings bend more to the will of the Faith, but is this a clever way of hiding Rhaegar's polygamy?

Couple that with @Lady Blizzardborn's point ( I think, if not my apologies) that I had not thought of before; that perhaps Rhaegar was looking for an "heir and a spare", or the high septon was playing politics and thought Rhaegar must win.

How much do we really know about the events that happened in that time?  Is it possible that Rhaegar's Aegon was a stand-in, until the prince could get a legitimate heir?  Maybe not, I'm not good with the timeline.  Or that Rhaegar was skeptical that he could overthrow his father whilst ensuring the safety of his children?

So, for me, it could go either way, and I'd be fine with it.

 

[The Weirwoods Eyes]

12 hours ago, Protagoras said:

This is not a hard question.

At this point in the book series neither Jon nor anyone has an idea about his mother. He has been presented to the reader and the world as a bastard. And everyone in the book indeed see and treat him as one. Lets call this "default status".

In order for said status to change, hard evidence not open to interpretation needs to be given. Said evidence also need to meet and explain why said parents were married. You can´t just say that they were because you think so - you actually need to prove it. And no, where the kingsguards are are NOT hard evidence, since it is very much open to interpretation (which this thread and other threads have done ALOT of). At best - they are supporting noise.

The main point here is that in order for Jon to be something but a bastard, 1. The default status need to be changed by evidence. 2. Until said evidence shows up he will be defined by said default status. And this forum have a tendency out of Jon bias to simply ignore this logical chain of work just because they want to. For me, that is a sign of low intelligence - your feelings have no logical value for anyone but yourself and should have zero convincing-power in a discussion since people do feel different. If you need to feel the same way and hold the same biases in order to "get" an argument, then you are not presenting arguments anymore, you are presenting a cult. 

So, right now - with what we have to work with, Jon is a bastard. This might change later, but for now that is what should be assumed.

 

 I really dislike engaging in any discussion with you because I don't think you have a healthy grasp on things. 

But one thing which I feel is pertinent to point out to you is that there is a large difference between discussing the in world status of a character. As you have stated in your post as evidence that Jon is a bastard, that no one in world has any reason or evidence currently to the contrary = he is a bastard  

And the wider discussion of the work as a piece of literature, in which consideration should be given to in text clues, the authors comments on their writing style and inspirations, real world parallels which may be being used in order to add depth and quality to the narrative and a general understanding of story structure & writing technique. 

In which yes people absolutely can assess the likelihood that it will turn out Jon is not really a bastard at all, and it is irrelevant that in world currently no one we are seeing a POV from openly suspects or knows that he is not. 

The fact you have an inability to grasp the difference between what fictional characters may be able to ascertain using the knowledge the author has currently granted them in his fictional writing, and literary analysis by real life people using standard techniques most people might learn in a GCSE level Eng Lit class is a little disconcerting. 

 

[Lord Varys]

8 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Neither am I but Robert seems to say he wasn't focused on the throne from the start:

Yeah, that is clear. There is an SSM, though, where George specified that Robert first declared his intention to take the throne around the time of the Trident. Him killing Rhaegar personally in some sort of single combat would have only strengthened that claim.

I could see Jon Arryn having a drop of Targaryen blood somehow. The Arryns intermarried three times with the Targaryens in the past, although it seems no blood remained in their family from those unions (but I guess it is possible that Alys Arryn, the wife of Prince Rhaegel, had herself some Targaryen blood through one of the Targaryen-Hightower girls).

In Ned's case such a distant kinship seems to be completely out of the question.

I think it is actually much more likely that Robert wasn't too keen on the prospect of having to rule the kingdom - and thus downplaying his own blood claim, saying something like 'we are all rebels', or something of that sort - but was forced/nudged into that role by Ned and Jon (and the other rebels) due to his blood claim as well as his almost superhuman charisma.

If Robert really was so great at making friends then a lot of those friends may have really liked the idea of this great guy being king, irregardless whether he had a (good) claim or not. We see the same kind of thing happening with Renly later on.

Quote

Of course I'm aware that this is Robert being Robert. Still, I think Robert at least pretended that he was convinced by his friends to take the throne. And seriously they'd just ended the ruling Targaryen dynasty, I'm sure they could have put someone without Targaryen blood on the IT if they'd really wanted to.

The decision was apparently not made after the Trident nor after Rhaegar's death.

Now, that's the thing - they did not end the Targaryen dynasty. A scion of the female branch of House Targaryen led a successful rebellion against the king. This is basically the same as Henry IV deposing Richard II or the strife during the Wars of the Roses. We have two rival branches of the same royal line fighting each other. But there was no clear dynastic break in the sense that a complete outsider with no blood relation to the royal family took over.

The royalty/nobility of blood is a very deeply embedded into the society of Westeros. Most of its (former) royal and noble houses can trace their lineages back hundreds and thousands of years. The only time some nobody could take over a kingdom in Westeros was when the Teagues conquered all the Riverlands in the aftermath of a long period of anarchy.

The Realm as a whole is still far away from such a scenario, and if you ask me it would rather disintegrate into smaller pieces then ever favor the rule of a completely new dynasty with no blood relation to House Targaryen. If we look at the Realm right now we can safely say that the only way to reunite is by the way of a Targaryen restoration (Aegon or Dany). Euron, Stannis, Cersei's children are all just going to invite a large part of the Realm to enter into a state of permanent rebellion against the Iron Throne. And if that's going on too long then a state of perpetual civil war might be become the norm rather than the exception (as it was during the Thirty Years' War in Europe).

7 hours ago, khal drogon said:

But what if it is a daughter? What happens if Ned didn't find them and the Targaryens dead? How would they have proceeded? How would they prove they were indeed protecting the heir of the kingdoms? Why would they risk it?

Simple explanation they were ordered by a prince and they can't flee from their commitment. KG doesn't need a convincing reason to obey the royal prince. They must obey. 

They could most likely have decided not to obey (after all, there were human beings) but the fact that they are were they are when Ned finds them proves that they did obey some commands, commands that were, most likely, given to them by Rhaegar.

I always try to point out here that the original purpose of this whole thing might also been to protect (or guard, watch, imprison) Lyanna. When Rhaegar left their child was not yet born, and we don't even know whether Rhaegar knew that Lyanna was with child (possibly). Lyanna may have been less than happy (to put it mildly) that Rhaegar was intending to finally come to the aid of his wretched mad father (who had burned her father alive and strangled her eldest brother), facing her former betrothed Lord Robert (a man she may not have loved but still be fond of) and her brother Lord Eddard in battle.

Whatever we know about Lyanna indicates that she would have had an opinion on all that, an opinion that can most likely be summarized as 'I want to see the head of your crazy father on spike' and 'I would gladly press Aerys' onto the bloc so that Ice can cut it off'. Rhaegar obviously had a different opinion, which could have led to Lyanna's confinement in the tower rather than her accompanying Rhaegar to KL and her helping him to reach an understanding with Ned and the other rebels, ending the war. Lyanna certainly had a chance to get threw to Ned, but even Robert himself might have listened to her.

Even if that's crap, the crucial point is that the original charge of the three knights was Lyanna, not her child. That only came later. It may be that Rhaegar deemed the child important but while it was yet unborn Lyanna was the important person. And the child's importance for the dynasty was pretty slim while the gender was undetermined.

6 hours ago, Lame Lothar Frey said:

I disagree.  Those men were 100% loyal to Aerys all the way to their bitter end.  Read Hightower's words carefully.  Aerys would yet sit the throne if they had had their way.  They were away because Aerys must have sent them to look for his idiot son's whereabouts else they would have stayed and protected Aerys with their very lives.

That is one of the reason why we can't trust that dream. We have good reason to believe that Oswell Whent plotted with Rhaegar against Aerys II when they arranged the tourney of Harrenhal and we have every reason to believe that Rhaegar's best friend, Ser Arthur Dayne, would have stood with Rhaegar in all things, not Aerys.

Hightower is possibly another animal but he was still at the tower and not with Aerys. And you have to keep in mind that sitting the Iron Throne is not the same as being in charge or ruling in your own right. Minor kings like Joffrey, Tommen, or Aegon III may also sit the Iron Throne, but they do not rule. Aerys II may have still sat the Iron Throne - in the sense the Kingsguard would have prevented the fall of KL and the murder of Aerys at Jaime's hand - but they might still have supported Rhaegar in a coup against his royal father, resulting in the actual government of the Realm being transferred to him (say, as Prince Regent, Lord Protector of the Realm, and Hand of the King).

The madman might then still sit the Iron Throne but it would no longer matter.

1 hour ago, King Ned Stark said:

As with most of Martin's riddles, he has covered his tracks well, and while I do not think it's necessary for to the story for Jon to be legitimate, there are subtle clues that Martin has planted that I feel should not be hand-waved away.

Most notably, the Faith Militant uprising, which came about due to three transgressions of king Aenys, which has somewhat of a nice symmetry with the events of the past twenty years within asoiaf.  Stannis resembles lord Goren Greyjoy who ousted the faith of the seven from the Iron Islands.  Joffrey is a parallel to "King Abomination".  And lastly,  the one I found most peculiar, is that Martin decided to have prince Maegor take a second wife, against the wishes of his king and the high septon.  So we have a precedent of a prince, not a king, taking a second wife.  That should tell us that neither the king nor the faith of the seven have to okay a marriage, or that they have the authority to annul such a marriage against someone's wishes.

Prince Maegor was exiled over this entire affair, and it is quite clear that 'the whore of Harroway' (the High Septon's own words) wasn't welcome at court. King Aenys and the entire Realm saw Ceryse Hightower as Maegor's lawful wife, not Alys.

Maegor is later able to force the Realm to accept his polygamous ways when he usurps the throne but he is eventually overthrown and the rightful heir of Aenys I is restored to the throne.

This whole thing raises the interesting question what defines a marriage. In a medieval/ancient marriage is essentially the public declaration that a woman belongs to you now, and no longer to her father, and that you can have sex with her whenever you want and that the children from such a union are undoubtedly yours (unless you doubt their parentage).

The public aspect of a marriage is crucial. It is done in front of a lot witnesses so that people know that this woman is now yours (and not yet available for any man interested in her).

In Westeros as well as in medieval Europe marriage was also a religious matter, with the Church/Faith overseeing and conducting it (that's not the case in all cultures and societies, of course). The way to marry somebody in Westeros is to go through the Faith (in the North and the Iron Islands certain minorities go a different road).

Maegor didn't go through the Faith when he married Alys (he had Visenya conduct a Valyrian ceremony), which means the Faith - the predominant religion in Westeros and a belief the Targaryens themselves follow (at least technically) - has no reason to consider it valid. The same goes for King Aenys I who, as the king, rules over the marriages made in his house and has the right to throw people out of his house and family.

The other thing is that Maegor's second wedding apparently was a secret marriage, meaning that the public aspect is missing which means that all the Realm has as 'proof' that such a wedding took place is the word of a bunch of people - Maegor, Alys, Visenya, and some Harroways, presumably. Such words can be doubted. Technically a secret marriage is no marriage at all. It is only a marriage if people have a good reason to believe you are married. Whether you are married in the eyes of (the) god(s) is irrelevant.

Finally there is the problem of the status of any child being born from such a second wife. If Rhaegar had become king he could have named a child from Lyanna his heir, and the same is true for Maegor and Alys, but we don't know whether the people of Westeros had accepted that.

[Rippounet]

2 hours ago, The Weirwoods Eyes said:

The fact you have an inability to grasp the difference between what fictional characters may be able to ascertain using the knowledge the author has currently granted them in his fictional writing, and literary analysis by real life people using standard techniques most people might learn in a GCSE level Eng Lit class is a little disconcerting.

That's a pretty condescending post. I think most of us have taken literary classes at some point or another, and we don't necessarily reach the same conclusions. One might easily say that to focus on what may be clues or parallels easily distracts from what's actually on the page and allows one to project their fantasies onto a work of literature. That would indeed be GCSE level Eng lit class as you say ; uni might teach you some different, more subtle approaches.

[Protagoras]

16 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

@Protagoras

That sums it up pretty fine. Often enough people fail to discuss or entertain the details how this story might unfold and instead put all emphasis on the claim that it has to unfold.

Perhaps we can talk a little bit about the how here. Do you have a scenario in mind how Jon's status from Eddard Stark's bastard to Rhaegar Targaryen's bastard or even Rhaegar's son, a royal prince of House Targaryen, could change?

If leave the whole Others plot out of that to keep things somewhat simpler (although the real setting most likely is not going to be a simple as that) then I'd give the following criteria as starting point for this thing (also ignoring the effect the resurrection/whatever might have on his psyche - that is impossible to predict right now):

1. Jon Snow has to receive good information about his true parentage (that excludes things like prophetic visions and dreams and other dubious talk).

2. Jon Snow has to believe the person telling him about his true parents.

This is already a pretty big conundrum. Whom would Jon believe that he is Rhaegar's son by Lyanna? Bran, perhaps. Howland Reed is considerably less like since Jon has - for all we know - never met that man. Wylla or some Daynes seem to be too far away to ever end up in a position to talk to Jon Snow. If Bran talks to Jon, convinces him that he actually has accurate visions of the past (say, by telling Jon stuff about his own past only Jon would know), then Jon could believe what he says. While he might listen to the stories Howland might tell him I think his stories would be considerably less convincing. That leads us to the next point.

3. Jon Snow actually has to want to believe and accept that he is not, in fact, Eddard Stark's son but in fact Lyanna Stark's son by Rhaegar Targaryen.

That is going to be a hugely important point. Jon Snow's self image right now is that of Eddard Stark's bastard son. Eddard Stark is his father. He looks up to the man, tries to emulate him, tries to make him proud of his accomplishment. It was his love he wanted to win, the love of a father who would, once Jon had finally proven himself to be 'a true Stark' and proper son to be formally declared a true Stark.

Being Eddard Stark's son is a core part of Jon Snow's identity, and we can all imagine that he is not going to like that being taken away from him. After all, Eddard Stark was a good and honorable man and the only father Jon Snow ever knew. So I think we all can agree that Jon Snow himself won't be all that keen to hear some story about his true parents, and that many great heroes died so he could be raised as the bastard son of his own uncle. If I put myself in Jon's shoes for a moment imagining some friend of my father's (whom I had never met) would show up and tell me that I wasn't my father's son but instead his nephew, etc. I'd not like that story all that much.

Jon is not going to interpret the truth about his parentage as act of liberation. Tyrion might. Everything is better than being Tywin Lannister's son, even being Aerys Targaryen's bastard (especially if that comes with a dragon) but I'm not sure it is so great to lose Eddard Stark as a father only to see him replaced by a man who is long dead and actually rode to war against the man you thought was your father.

Irregardless how Jon learns the truth I don't think he is likely to act quickly on that 'revelation'. His first impulse might even be to ignore this story entirely.

The only thing I think that could convince him to accept this whole thing as the truth is if the Targaryens are about to become or already have become important in his life. Say, through something Aegon is doing or because Dany has already arrived in Westeros. He might have to send envoys to them to ask for help in the fight against the Others or may have received such envoys from them.

If we assume Jon finally gets around to see himself as Lyanna's son (and not Ned's) then we have the next point:

4. Something has to happen so that Jon and House Targaryen form some sort of connection.

Where Jon is right now (at the Wall/in the North) there are basically no or only very few Targaryen loyalists. Nobody who might actually care that he is Rhaegar Targaryen's son (regardless whether trueborn or bastard). If the North has a royal house right now it's name is Stark (or Baratheon if Stannis lives and is accepted as king by a majority of the Northmen), and that's not going to change soon.

If Jon is ever tempted to take on Robb's mantle as king or succeed him as Lord of Winterfell (which would be really tiresome because he rejected that whole thing so often already) then the truth about him merely being a Stark (bastard) through the female line is not going to help with that. The claims of Sansa, Arya (and of course Rickon) would easily supersede that.

One imagines that the only thing over which there could be any sort of connection between Jon and 'the Targaryen camp' (Aegon's people - Dorne, the Golden Company, various other houses declaring for Aegon - and Dany's people - whoever she brings with her) could be formed would be the threat of the Others (in that sense this whole thing figures into this whole topic, after all) because there is no way, NO POSSIBLE WAY, that a single man in Westeros is going to believe that Jon is Rhaegar's son and thus an 'important person politically' if he doesn't figure somehow in a much larger picture. The people in the North are way too weak to ever become political players in the South ever again in this series, and even if they did they are not very likely to play the 'Jon Snow is a Targaryen' card against other Targaryen pretenders whose identity is either clear or much more convincing than somebody's word that Jon is a Targaryen.

Thus we have

5. The something mentioned in (4.) is most likely some sort for another head of the dragon, ally in the fight against the Others, third dragonrider, whatever.

The Targaryen faction - either Aegon's or Dany's, more likely the latter - must receive good information on the possible existence of a true (or another) son of Rhaegar's (possibly due to interaction with some Daynes and further magical prophecy events). This will then lead to some sort of meeting/alliance/union that results in Jon being adopted into House Targaryen, either by being recognized as Rhaegar's trueborn son (if the Targaryen doing this believes in Rhaegar's second marriage) and a royal prince or by being formally legitimized as a Targaryen (the latter could be done in either case to placate people who challenge the validity of a bigamist marriage).

Without (5.) there isn't any chance for Jon to become accepted by anyone as a Targaryen.

From there he could even sit the throne (for time), either as Dany's heir (if she dies) or as her prince consort and co-ruler (at her side/in her absence). I'm more inclined that he will not survive the series (due to the whole resurrection thing - not liking undead kings) but he could still sit the Iron Throne for a short time before the final battle against the Others.

The idea many people are tossing around that there might be some Great Council in the end choosing him seems very strange to me. The story is structured in such a way that there won't be need of such an anticlimactic moment at the very end. It is more likely that Jon would end up in a position of supreme leadership at Dany's side during the final battles and thus simply continuing her work should she die untimely. He is not likely going to be the hidden prince who is handed the kingdom by some people who finally realized who he is and feel now obliged to give him his due because he has proven his worth.

That's the childish dream Jon had when he was young. The one that had Ned recognize his worth and make him a true Stark. This story is not going to make such dreams come true. If Jon wants the kingdom he will have to take it. And the only way I could see him doing that is through Daenerys. Anything else is not going to work.

I think the sort of only realistic way is something like this: Bran convinces Jon of 1 and 2 with visions. 3. Jon runs into Daenerys somehow, they get along well and 4. Daenerys see the truth about their marriage by more visions. She 5. declare him his heir and claim to the world that he is the trueborn son of Rhaegar and Lyanna (and let her dragons eat those that have any objection). So, yes - an adoption is going to be necessary in one form or another. 

In short, for Jon to be seen as a non-bastard by the world, it is going to require magic (with two different people having magical dreams), plot power and a very sympathetic Daenerys who will remove obstacles he can´t remove himself. Normally this would be impossible. In Jons case however, I would just call it unlikely. Nor do I think the story will go this way. I agree that just giving him a kingdom is very clichée fantasy and I have more respect for GRRM than that. But I wouldn´t say it can be completely excluded. 

[Protagoras]

5 hours ago, The Weirwoods Eyes said:

 I really dislike engaging in any discussion with you because I don't think you have a healthy grasp on things. 

Then don´t respond to my posts. Simple. No one forces you to it and you need to learn, just as everyone else, that the Internet are full of different opinions. You are not a special little snowflake and, like Jon, shouldn´t get the world adapted to you and be able to influence people without giving others have the same option. 

There are alot of posters I think are complete idiots too and those persons usually end up on Ignore list. I recommend you learn how to use it. But I don´t think those posters have to adhere to my rules about what the can or can´t post and respond to. Because why should they - we have no working relation that should be preserved. Nor do we.

As for the rest of it - if people or going to assess the likelihood that it will turn out Jon is not really a bastard at all, based on zero facts, a biased mindset and ton of unbased speculation that you and others have the guts to claim is "literary analysis" , then I am certainly going to point that out. And again, if you don´t like how I think, then don´t respond. The person unwilling to hear others opinions yet wants to say their piece in a safe-space environment is the person who should stay forever silent. 

[Protagoras]

3 hours ago, Rippounet said:

That's a pretty condescending post. I think most of us have taken literary classes at some point or another, and we don't necessarily reach the same conclusions. One might easily say that to focus on what may be clues or parallels easily distracts from what's actually on the page and allows one to project their fantasies onto a work of literature. That would indeed be GCSE level Eng lit class as you say ; uni might teach you some different, more subtle approaches.

Exactly! And it always happens with characters the audience sympathises for and is made with the purpose to reinterpret the written words in order to sell said persons own fan fiction, later using said fiction as fact and claiming that you are "analysing" (usually with a hint that you, as a creative, sensible, intellectual person have "seen" something few others have understood - an objective truth we mere morals can´t grasp and that we also should listen so that we can see more than the cave-wall that block us, poor readers).

I think some people of this forum should consider that not all analysis is good analysis but often biased analysis.

[Julia H.]

I think the polygamous marriage scenario is at least plausible. The presence of the Kingsguard in the TOJ might be explained in various ways, however, it is conspicuous that they are not only present, but they also specifically emphasize that they are the Kingsguard, while Ser Willem - "a good man and true" currently fleeing with Viserys - is not. The emphasis may subtly imply that the real king is still guarded by them and not by Darry, in their opinion at least.  

Anyway, the reason why I think this scenario would suit GRRM is that it would create the kind of situation he seems to like very much: an ambiguous one. If the characters in-universe found out about Rhaegar's polygamy at a point where Jon was an important political figure, they could argue just as we are doing here depending on whether they would want to see Jon as a king or a true Targaryen (you name it) or not. There would be ground to say he is legitimate and there would be ground to say he is a bastard, as would suit the different individuals. Ultimately, I think this scenario would result in the realization that Jon's status as bastard or legitimate does not matter at all. In the end, it will be Jon's personal qualities, achievements etc. and the current national / political need that determine his position. If the realm needs Jon to be a leader in a critical situation, people will readily overlook the "problems" with his birth. On the other hand, those who don't want to see him in a leadership position will obviously use the bastard argument for ever, no matter what proof of legitimacy might be unearthed. 

If we look at real history, we see that while good birth was generally very important in medieval societies, sometimes people of low birth and even bastards were able to defy the conventions and reach a high position due to talent, personality and determination in the right circumstances. One of the greatest heroes in the medieval history of my country came from a rather obscure background, but through talent, valor and leadership qualities he rose to be one of the greatest (richest and most powerful) lords of the country and certainly the single most important political figure of his age with regard to historical legacy. His son became a king. And guess what: due to his greatness and his achievements, there started rumors and romantic legends about this man being a secret royal bastard associated with different rulers (no proof whatsoever). It was his historical importance (he was a commander who defended the country against invading forces and won great victories) that made people want to invent a more distinguished ancestry for him. Similarly, when Spring comes after the Long Night, the bastard may become the hero of the noblest birth in the songs at least, and the rest simply won't matter any more.  

[The Ned's Little Girl]

22 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

And that's only if we take the fever dream conversation at face value (which I do not since George himself has cast doubts on it).

I think that saying that George has "cast doubts" on the dream is going a bit too far. George's words about this dream ("our dreams are not always literal" [emphasis mine]) say to me that we needn't worry about the dream's accuracy and focus instead on the dream's truth. My assumption, of course, is that "accuracy" and "truth" can be different; that something can be truthful while not being strictly accurate.

(Additionally, frequently the interpretation of this quote is "our dreams are always not literal", which is quite a different thing than what George said. He's a cagey one  .)

It's my belief that the fever dream sequence will turn out to be the most important passage in all of the books, probably even surpassing the final resolution to the story. It contains the seed from which the entire saga germinated. As such, it seems to me to be a bit dismissive of it to say that the author has "cast doubts" upon it (because I don't think he did, really - judging by his words) or that readers should take it with a grain of salt because it may not be accurate at face value.

[WalkinDude]

On 3/20/2017 at 8:59 AM, Knight Of Winter said:

Oh, and one more thing. Suppose, by some miraculous chance, that everything went out splendidly - R+L married, had a son, but Aerys didn't burn Rickard and Brandon, so no civil war happened etc. What exactly what Rhaegar's plan wrt Lyanna, Jon, Elia and her kids, but also Starks, Martells, Aerys and others. Come to court and publicly proclaim he took daughter of a LP as second wife? Keep Lyanna and Jon hidden somewhere? Send her back to WF leaving her disgraced? Whatever options I list, one seems worse than the other.

Rhaegar also told Jamie changes would be made when the war was over.  If Rhaegar planned to claim the throne and remove Aerys, as King, he could easily have Lyanna and Ellia at his side.

[The Bastards Giant Friend]

9 hours ago, The Weirwoods Eyes said:

 I really dislike engaging in any discussion with you because I don't think you have a healthy grasp on things. 

But one thing which I feel is pertinent to point out to you is that there is a large difference between discussing the in world status of a character. As you have stated in your post as evidence that Jon is a bastard, that no one in world has any reason or evidence currently to the contrary = he is a bastard  

And the wider discussion of the work as a piece of literature, in which consideration should be given to in text clues, the authors comments on their writing style and inspirations, real world parallels which may be being used in order to add depth and quality to the narrative and a general understanding of story structure & writing technique. 

In which yes people absolutely can assess the likelihood that it will turn out Jon is not really a bastard at all, and it is irrelevant that in world currently no one we are seeing a POV from openly suspects or knows that he is not. 

The fact you have an inability to grasp the difference between what fictional characters may be able to ascertain using the knowledge the author has currently granted them in his fictional writing, and literary analysis by real life people using standard techniques most people might learn in a GCSE level Eng Lit class is a little disconcerting. 

That was pretty mean.

I like the idea of Jon being a bastard regardless of his parentage. It's part of him, even if we as readers get to see that he is legitimate. Nothing will change how he was raised. So should he ever find out who his mom was, I hope he still associates himself as a bastard and wears it like Tyrion told him to.

In the book, it all goes back to power being where it is perceived. The people of Westeros won't ever know for certain that Jons parents are indeed who X says they are, they will or will not follow him because they perceive his to be the most powerful claim. (And therefore beneficial to them from a survival and possibly financial standpoint)

As readers, Jons legitimacy is open to our interpretation. I personally don't think I would view it as more or less tragic/heroic/significant if Jon was somehow legitimate. Those factors, for me, are going to be determined by how everything else plays out for his character.

[marsyao]

On 3/20/2017 at 1:22 AM, Damsel in Distress said:

I looked at every reasonable scenario and read many opinions from many forums.  Here are those scenarios.

• Ned Stark + Daughter of a Fisherman = bastard Jon
• Ned Stark + Ashara Dayne = bastard Jon
• Mance Rayder + Lyanna Stark = wildling bastard Jon
• Brandon Stark + Lyanna Stark = bastard Jon
• Brandon Stark + Ashara Dayne = bastard Jon
• Rhaegar + Lyanna = royal bastard Jon
• Ned Stark + Wyla = bastard Jon

Polygamy is not an accepted practice.  Aegon married both his sisters before the conquest began.  While it is possible for Ned to have married Ashara, he later married Catelyn.  This scenario makes Catelyn's children the bastards.  I doubt this is the case.  It is also possible that Brandon married Ashara, in which case Jon would be legitimate but then why would Brandon agree to marry Catelyn.  It doesn't make sense.  I can see Brandon doing something that doesn't make sense but too many people would have known and objected.  Rhaegar was already married to Princess Ellia of Dorne.  He cannot legally marry Lyanna even if he wanted to.  Rhaegar was not the king and he doesn't have the authority to approve polygamy nor did he have the power to legitimize a bastard. 

My verdict?  Jon is a bastard

I can not agree more, it is exactly my opinion all along

[Lord Varys]

44 minutes ago, The Ned's Little Girl said:

I think that saying that George has "cast doubts" on the dream is going a bit too far. George's words about this dream ("our dreams are not always literal" [emphasis mine]) say to me that we needn't worry about the dream's accuracy and focus instead on the dream's truth. My assumption, of course, is that "accuracy" and "truth" can be different; that something can be truthful while not being strictly accurate.

There is an SSM where George explicitly casts doubts on that dream, specifically.

44 minutes ago, The Ned's Little Girl said:

It's my belief that the fever dream sequence will turn out to be the most important passage in all of the books, probably even surpassing the final resolution to the story. It contains the seed from which the entire saga germinated. As such, it seems to me to be a bit dismissive of it to say that the author has "cast doubts" upon it (because I don't think he did, really - judging by his words) or that readers should take it with a grain of salt because it may not be accurate at face value.

That is rather unlikely. There are so many crucial scenes to this story, and Jon Snow is just one character among many. His parentage is an interesting mystery but it is hardly the point from which the entire saga germinated.

2 hours ago, Julia H. said:

I think the polygamous marriage scenario is at least plausible. The presence of the Kingsguard in the TOJ might be explained in various ways, however, it is conspicuous that they are not only present, but they also specifically emphasize that they are the Kingsguard, while Ser Willem - "a good man and true" currently fleeing with Viserys - is not. The emphasis may subtly imply that the real king is still guarded by them and not by Darry, in their opinion at least.

Royal princes and even kings are not necessarily protected by the Kingsguard all times. In fact, Joffrey Baratheon's sworn shield for years wasn't even a knight, and Princess Rhaenyra's sworn shield for a couple of years was Ser Harwin Strong, a man who didn't wear a white cloak. And even King Tommen is occasionally guarded by non-Kingsguard like Ser Garlan Tyrell when the Kingsguard is having meetings and the like.

We know that the three knights where with Lyanna because they were assigned to her by someone. Else they wouldn't have been there when the child was born.

And they had no way of knowing about or influencing Aerys II's decision to name new Kingsguard after the deaths of Lewyn Martell and Jonothor Darry at the Trident. Ser Willem could easily enough have died wearing a white cloak given to him by Aerys II, Queen Rhaella, or King Viserys III.

2 hours ago, Julia H. said:

Anyway, the reason why I think this scenario would suit GRRM is that it would create the kind of situation he seems to like very much: an ambiguous one. If the characters in-universe found out about Rhaegar's polygamy at a point where Jon was an important political figure, they could argue just as we are doing here depending on whether they would want to see Jon as a king or a true Targaryen (you name it) or not. There would be ground to say he is legitimate and there would be ground to say he is a bastard, as would suit the different individuals. Ultimately, I think this scenario would result in the realization that Jon's status as bastard or legitimate does not matter at all. In the end, it will be Jon's personal qualities, achievements etc. and the current national / political need that determine his position. If the realm needs Jon to be a leader in a critical situation, people will readily overlook the "problems" with his birth. On the other hand, those who don't want to see him in a leadership position will obviously use the bastard argument for ever, no matter what proof of legitimacy might be unearthed.

I've great difficulty seeing a scenario where 'the Realm' would want to see Jon Snow as a leader. He is stuck at the Wall (or the North), and that's basically at the periphery of the Realm, not at a place where 'the general public' would look towards him for leadership. And once the Others make their move it should even be tougher to communicate Jon's successes (if he has any) to the people down south, especially if they don't even by that the enemies he is allegedly fighting against is real.

Even the story of his assassination and resurrection is not likely going to be believed south of the Neck. That is basically in the same league as the tale that Stannis controlled the boar that killed Robert or that Sansa transformed herself into a winged wolf after she had killed Joffrey.

We have to keep the distances in mind, too, especially in winter.

I certainly could see Jon becoming an important political player in the North (in a sense he is that, already) but that's not going to bring him closer to the Targaryens and their allies (all people who have nothing to do with the Northmen), nor is he in good position to connect with Robb's old allies (Catelyn and Brynden essentially hate him) - and even if he did, the Riverlands are even more ravaged than the North, and are likely to deteriorate even further (just as the North is right now, thanks to Roose and Stannis).

How we go from there to Jon becoming a leader of the entire realm I really can't see. Even if Dany makes him her consort there might still people who object to this thing - just as half of the Realm or more is going to object to the idea of a 'King Tyrion' as Dany's other consort.

The days where charismatic people (which Jon isn't really) could win the love and admiration of a lot of 'summer knights' are long over. And a Stark bastard looking like a Stark bastard is not going to win any sympathies with some real Targaryen loyalists.

But quite honestly, I'd it prefer if George would hand the entire hidden prince story to Aegon now, and let Jon go down the heroic path of self-sacrifice fighting against the real danger. Neither Jesus nor Gandalf stayed with their people for long after they came back from the dead.

4 hours ago, Protagoras said:

I think the sort of only realistic way is something like this: Bran convinces Jon of 1 and 2 with visions.

Do you think Bran could show his visions to Jon? He could perhaps send him some dreams and the like but I doubt that no-greenseers can see the stuff greenseers can draw from trees. Thinking about that, Jon could also have some sort of divine revelation about this whole thing, with Bran playing the role of an old god. Although it is sort of dubious why he wouldn't reveal himself to him if he was speaking through one of the weirwood faces.

4 hours ago, Protagoras said:

3. Jon runs into Daenerys somehow, they get along well and 4. Daenerys see the truth about their marriage by more visions. She 5. declare him his heir and claim to the world that he is the trueborn son of Rhaegar and Lyanna (and let her dragons eat those that have any objection). So, yes - an adoption is going to be necessary in one form or another. 

If they actually fall in love and have some sort of 'ice and fire romance' going then the truth about his parentage wouldn't be all that important for her decision to make him her heir or co-ruler. Any consort of hers could move himself in such a position. Even Hizdahr did, after she disappeared.

But I think Dany might get sufficient information both through people who know stuff (some Daynes, other old courtiers with memories who just need to hear the theory to connect some dots, etc.) as well as through prophetic dreams. That blue rose is most likely going to pop up in them in later books.

4 hours ago, Protagoras said:

In short, for Jon to be seen as a non-bastard by the world, it is going to require magic (with two different people having magical dreams), plot power and a very sympathetic Daenerys who will remove obstacles he can´t remove himself. Normally this would be impossible. In Jons case however, I would just call it unlikely. Nor do I think the story will go this way. I agree that just giving him a kingdom is very clichée fantasy and I have more respect for GRRM than that. But I wouldn´t say it can be completely excluded. 

If we look at the original Targaryen trinity one of them - Queen Rhaenys and her dragon - died early. That could be a hint that one of Dany's consorts might go down prematurely, too.

I think it is a very hard call to decided whether George would kill Tyrion or Jon but with him having killed Jon already once I'm reasonably positive that he might sacrifice himself for the good of humanity in the end. And, who knows? Perhaps Dany gets her own little Aenys from Jon just as Aegon got his eldest son and heir from Rhaenys.

[BalerionTheCat]

15 hours ago, Lame Lothar Frey said:

I disagree.  Those men were 100% loyal to Aerys all the way to their bitter end.  Read Hightower's words carefully.  Aerys would yet sit the throne if they had had their way.  They were away because Aerys must have sent them to look for his idiot son's whereabouts else they would have stayed and protected Aerys with their very lives.

 

13 hours ago, Ralphis Baratheon said:

Well they said Aerys would still be on the Throne had they been in King's Landing instead of Ser. Jamie so I'm not sure they wanted Aerys dead if Rhaegar died before him. Unless they were lying. ....

It is not really what would have been possible. Possibly it was pure bragging, but I think it was what they were thinking, believing. Quite possibly, Robert would have died at the Trident, if he had faced Arthur Dayne rather than Rhaegar. And with Robert dead and Rhaegar alive, who knows? I know some despise Pycelle advices, but:

“For the realm! Once Rhaegar died, the war was done. Aerys was mad, Viserys too young, Prince Aegon a babe at the breast, but the realm needed a king...

Saying "Aerys would still be on the Throne" and Jamie was a traitor doesn't mean they cared that much for the Mad king. If they cared that much they would not be at the Tower. They were confident in their power, not on the King's safety without them.

But you are right about everything. Why letting the Targaryens fall and putting Jon in the hands of the rebellion? On a very uncertain future.

My answer is "they were directed so by the prophecy". But not knowing this prophecy, it is an empty affirmation. I have Rhaegar interest for prophecies. His sadness after visiting Summerhall. Was he meeting the Ghost of High Heart there? Was he knowing something? Bloodraven was probably already active at the time...

If someone has a logical explanation, for the Tower, the rebellion, Lyanna abduction, and everything, I'll buy it.

[The Twinslayer]

4 hours ago, Julia H. said:

I think the polygamous marriage scenario is at least plausible. 

One of the reasons I think this never happened is that Jon Connington -- described as "the next best thing to Rhaegar" -- is only aware of Rhaegar having one wedding.  We get this from Connington himself:  "Jon Connington remembered Prince Rhaegar's wedding all too well.  Elia was never worthy of him."  I think that if Rhaegar had gone through a second wedding ceremony with Lyanna Stark, Connington would have known about it, since he was one of Rhaegar's best friends and the world book strongly suggests that Connington was with Rhaegar when he set out on the journey that led to Lyanna's abduction.

I also think that if this is something Rhaegar thought possible, Connington would at least entertain the idea that it was possible.  After all, not only was he one of Rhaegar's best friends, he also was a high lord who served for a time as Hand under the last Targaryen king.  Yet, when it is suggested to him that Aegon marry a Westerosi noblewoman, Connington says:  "Daenerys Targaryen may yet come home one day.  Aegon must be free to marry her."  Now, if polygamy is allowed for Targaryens, why would a marriage now prevent a marriage to Dany in the future?  Note that Connington says that if Aegon has a wife, he won't be "free" to marry Dany -- not that it would make Dany less willing to marry him.  So Connington thinks that taking two wives is something Aegon is prohibited from doing -- even though he also knows that there is nothing to stop Aegon from engaging in incest with his aunt.  

 

 

[Protagoras]

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Do you think Bran could show his visions to Jon? He could perhaps send him some dreams and the like but I doubt that no-greenseers can see the stuff greenseers can draw from trees. Thinking about that, Jon could also have some sort of divine revelation about this whole thing, with Bran playing the role of an old god. Although it is sort of dubious why he wouldn't reveal himself to him if he was speaking through one of the weirwood faces.

It is certainly possible that Bran can do that by religious means, but due to that he is also a warg and maybe could reveal himself to Jon through a "shared wolf dream" I think it is more likely it will happen in more of a direct communication sort of way. A combination of his two powersets if you will. Or, simply that Bran somehow run into him and tell him then. Jon has certainly an identity as a Stark but he has been curios for the truth about his mother a long time now and when he find out about Brans abilities, he might just ask him.

Quote

If they actually fall in love and have some sort of 'ice and fire romance' going then the truth about his parentage wouldn't be all that important for her decision to make him her heir or co-ruler. Any consort of hers could move himself in such a position. Even Hizdahr did, after she disappeared.

Yup, and I don´t necessery think if they were married or not will have a plot significance. Daenerys will know that A. Jon is their kid and B. That they loved eachother. Assuming that she is not hostile to Jon and the North due to some north supremacy shit, I don´t think Daenerys is going to really care about a possible marriage or not. She might see the intent in her vision. Wherether or not they were married legally might not even be touched upon at all. But (and this is why I commented this thread initially) this doesn´t mean he is necessary trueborn. In general I think people misinterpret the "Bastards should not hurt princes"- dialogue. That Jon is a "prince" is more a hint of his secret identity, hidden in the North while Joffrey is a bastard, also with a secret identity. And if Rhaegar had won at Trident, then maybe Jon had been trueborn.

Quote

But I think Dany might get sufficient information both through people who know stuff (some Daynes, other old courtiers with memories who just need to hear the theory to connect some dots, etc.) as well as through prophetic dreams. That blue rose is most likely going to pop up in them in later books.

Still, I do wonder if we will ever see any real proof. We might see visions from Daenerys where we see baby Jon with Rhaegar, but will we really see a wedding scene? And if we see a wedding scene - will it be legal. Certainly, Rhaegars intent might have been that, but he is not king and in no position to change the rules. So we might have a "if a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it does it make a sound" situation. After all, a ceremony of this scale need witnesses. In all the other marriages we see, there are people who can testify. And can Rhaegar even do this without Aerys consent?

If we have had scenes like this, there might have been reason to speculate on a possible marriage but the Jon-crowd tend to make things up, regardless of what is in the books.

Quote

If we look at the original Targaryen trinity one of them - Queen Rhaenys and her dragon - died early. That could be a hint that one of Dany's consorts might go down prematurely, too.

I think it is a very hard call to decided whether George would kill Tyrion or Jon but with him having killed Jon already once I'm reasonably positive that he might sacrifice himself for the good of humanity in the end. And, who knows? Perhaps Dany gets her own little Aenys from Jon just as Aegon got his eldest son and heir from Rhaenys.

I have been speculating for a while that one of Daenerys dragons (not Drogon) are not long for this world, possibly connected to Euron and his plot or Aegon do something to one that triggeres their war. I doubt GRRM will give Daenerys 3 superweapons when she invades.

As for the riders, I think Jon is indeed the one close to death. Jon will be changed when he returns. Darker, less moral. More "wolflike" if you will. GRRM is not going to give him that resurrection for free and as you said, undead kings do strike me as an unlikely ending.

It has been speculated if Daenerys will go dark, but she has always have some darker streaks of anger and justice in her. it wouldn´t be much of a twist. If anyone should go full sith, Jon is by far the best, most shocking and most interesting suggestion. A slow walk, of course where Jon do more and more questionable choices and dies as the enemy he initially tried to stop do pack a strong punch.

As for Tyrion and Daenerys, they can both certainly die. Tyrion because he is GRRMs favorite (which increases his chances of death - not decreasing it. His opinions about Rowling do say alot about this) and because his near-experiences with it. Daenerys because, GRRM want to do a more tragic ending and because when people have done their arc, they tend to die. The childbirth death would certainly tie her story together.

[The Ned's Little Girl]

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

There is an SSM where George explicitly casts doubts on that dream, specifically.

I was quoting the most-commonly used SSM, where Martin said, "Our dreams are not always literal". Are you perhaps referring to another SSM?

My point is that the words I did quote don't necessarily "cast doubt" on the dream so much as invite the reader to consider the deeper truth of it, as well as a caution not to get lost in it's literal accuracy or lack thereof. Such is the way of dreams, at least those which are important and most meaningful; the dreaming mind rarely concerns itself with reportorial accuracy; it's the symbolic meanings which are generally the truest.

 

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

That is rather unlikely. There are so many crucial scenes to this story, and Jon Snow is just one character among many. His parentage is an interesting mystery but it is hardly the point from which the entire saga germinated.

Time will tell, of course. (Also, there is a reason why I wrote "It's my belief" at the beginning of the sentence.) But once the complete story has been told, I think there is a very good chance that my belief will be borne out. Especially if Jon Snow turns out to personify The Song of Ice and Fire, to which plenty of hints attest.

[Lord Varys]

1 hour ago, BalerionTheCat said:

 

It is not really what would have been possible. Possibly it was pure bragging, but I think it was what they were thinking, believing. Quite possibly, Robert would have died at the Trident, if he had faced Arthur Dayne rather than Rhaegar. And with Robert dead and Rhaegar alive, who knows? I know some despise Pycelle advices, but:

“For the realm! Once Rhaegar died, the war was done. Aerys was mad, Viserys too young, Prince Aegon a babe at the breast, but the realm needed a king...

Saying "Aerys would still be on the Throne" and Jamie was a traitor doesn't mean they cared that much for the Mad king. If they cared that much they would not be at the Tower. They were confident in their power, not on the King's safety without them.

But you are right about everything. Why letting the Targaryens fall and putting Jon in the hands of the rebellion? On a very uncertain future.

My answer is "they were directed so by the prophecy". But not knowing this prophecy, it is an empty affirmation. I have Rhaegar interest for prophecies. His sadness after visiting Summerhall. Was he meeting the Ghost of High Heart there? Was he knowing something? Bloodraven was probably already active at the time...

If someone has a logical explanation, for the Tower, the rebellion, Lyanna abduction, and everything, I'll buy it.

It is also possible that they were just very loyal men, to Rhaegar personally. Just as Stannis expects Justin Massey to continue the war in Shireen's name Rhaegar may have expected from the men he charged with taking care of Lyanna to continue to that, even if he died.

That kind of commitment is hardly unheard of. Just look how Rhaenyra's Blacks continued the fight in the wake of her demise. But the straw man scenario asking the question why they did not send one of their own to Dragonstone disallows for the men to have felt that kind of commitment to Rhaegar's memory and/or the duty to fulfill a given order/never refuse to go through with a task that is part of your Kingsguard duty.

Prophecy and belief in prophecy could also have played a role but it is not really necessary to explain their behavior.

1 hour ago, The Twinslayer said:

One of the reasons I think this never happened is that Jon Connington -- described as "the next best thing to Rhaegar" -- is only aware of Rhaegar having one wedding.  We get this from Connington himself:  "Jon Connington remembered Prince Rhaegar's wedding all too well.  Elia was never worthy of him."  I think that if Rhaegar had gone through a second wedding ceremony with Lyanna Stark, Connington would have known about it, since he was one of Rhaegar's best friends and the world book strongly suggests that Connington was with Rhaegar when he set out on the journey that led to Lyanna's abduction.

I also think that if this is something Rhaegar thought possible, Connington would at least entertain the idea that it was possible.  After all, not only was he one of Rhaegar's best friends, he also was a high lord who served for a time as Hand under the last Targaryen king.  Yet, when it is suggested to him that Aegon marry a Westerosi noblewoman, Connington says:  "Daenerys Targaryen may yet come home one day.  Aegon must be free to marry her."  Now, if polygamy is allowed for Targaryens, why would a marriage now prevent a marriage to Dany in the future?  Note that Connington says that if Aegon has a wife, he won't be "free" to marry Dany -- not that it would make Dany less willing to marry him.  So Connington thinks that taking two wives is something Aegon is prohibited from doing -- even though he also knows that there is nothing to stop Aegon from engaging in incest with his aunt.

You raise pretty strong points here, and I'm one of the people who maintain that the court must have known/eventually learned that Rhaegar had married Lyanna if that was the case. Either before they went underground or after Rhaegar had returned to KL. Rhaegar would have been forced to give his royal parents and the council some sort of explanation about his recent actions.

However, I think George is really phrasing things carefully there. Connington never so much thinks of Lyanna as of yet, and he may not have attended Rhaegar's second wedding (if there was one). In fact, I think he was one of Rhaegar's companions and may even have been with him when he took Lyanna but when he learned about the idea of a wedding he saw red and returned to court, trying to calm down Aerys and eventually becoming Hand.

If Rhaegar's second marriage showed the Targaryens that polygamy was completely impossible it may explain why Connington insists on the Dany marriage. However, here Connington might have an ulterior motive. He is not likely keep to allow Aegon a wife who ends up putting ideas in his head that he, Connington, does not share. At least not while the war is not yet won.

The curious thing indicating that Connington might have known about a second marriage of Rhaegar's can be seen when he formally introduces Aegon to the Golden Company as 'Prince Rhaegar's firstborn son by Elia of Dorne'. Mentioning his mother is well and good, it is proper procedure and all, but it is still interesting.

45 minutes ago, Protagoras said:

It is certainly possible that Bran can do that by religious means, but due to that he is also a warg and maybe could reveal himself to Jon through a "shared wolf dream" I think it is more likely it will happen in more of a direct communication sort of way. A combination of his two powersets if you will. Or, simply that Bran somehow run into him and tell him then. Jon has certainly an identity as a Stark but he has been curios for the truth about his mother a long time now and when he find out about Brans abilities, he might just ask him.

I'm pretty sure Bran will also eventually want to tell him, especially if that's 'important' for prophecy reasons. The wolf dream thing happened once already and Bran might actually have told Jon the truth, actually, but he simply cannot remember. Remember, Bran and Rickon both were visited by Eddard's ghost when he (apparently) took his place amongst the dead Starks in the crypts, and Bran recalls that Ned told him something about Jon. Now, he doesn't consciously remember this, either, but his dream self might, and that dream self talked to Jon when he had his wolf dream involving Bran speaking through a weirwood face.

It might be that Jon being stuck in Ghost now for a while will have recover that memory - a memory that might be buried in Ghost's rather than Jon's mind, because Jon was in Ghost when he first heard it.

45 minutes ago, Protagoras said:

Yup, and I don´t necessery think if they were married or not will have a plot significance. Daenerys will know that A. Jon is their kid and B. That they loved eachother. Assuming that she is not hostile to Jon and the North due to some north supremacy shit, I don´t think Daenerys is going to really care about a possible marriage or not. She might see the intent in her vision. Wherether or not they were married legally might not even be touched upon at all. But (and this is why I commented this thread initially) this doesn´t mean he is necessary trueborn. In general I think people misinterpret the "Bastards should not hurt princes"- dialogue. That Jon is a "prince" is more a hint of his secret identity, hidden in the North while Joffrey is a bastard, also with a secret identity. And if Rhaegar had won at Trident, then maybe Jon had been trueborn.

I'm with you there, especially since George really hammers it home that this bastard concept is just stupid medieval elitism. That's there from the start. I mean, we have it with Daemon Blackfyre and Illyrio's 'red or black, a dragon is still a dragon' talk. Daemon Blackfyre was nothing but a bastard with a piece of paper and he still nearly became king.

45 minutes ago, Protagoras said:

Still, I do wonder if we will ever see any real proof. We might see visions from Daenerys where we see baby Jon with Rhaegar, but will we really see a wedding scene? And if we see a wedding scene - will it be legal. Certainly, Rhaegars intent might have been that, but he is not king and in no position to change the rules. So we might have a "if a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it does it make a sound" situation. After all, a ceremony of this scale need witnesses. In all the other marriages we see, there are people who can testify. And can Rhaegar even do this without Aerys consent?

As you might now, I consider it reasonably likely that Rhaegar's public marriage to Lyanna without Aerys' consent (say, at Maidenpool, where Rhaegar had friends and Florian the Fool and Jonquil could watch over the young lovers) led to the outbreak of the Rebellion. It caused Aerys to conclude that Rhaegar and the Starks were indeed plotting against him, leading to Rhaegar's disappearance and the execution of the Starks.

In such a scenario George would have been carefully dancing around that fact. He is awfully quiet about the details around the abduction and the trials against the Starks and why Rhaegar and Lyanna disappeared suggesting that there is a lot of knowledge that is widely known in Westeros but has of yet not been revealed to the reader.

But even that would, of course, not be proof that Jon Snow is a child born from that union. And such an unfolding of events would, of course, mean that polygamy is not legal in Westeros and that any child born from such a union would not be a royal prince.

If there was some sort of secret wedding, only attended by Whent, Dayne, and Lonmouth then this becomes almost a trivial and irrelevant issue. Secret marriages are no marriages at all, and Jon would need Dany's blessing/support irregardless whether his parents were secretly married or not. She might even be forced to formally legitimize him while knowing (and considering) Rhaegar and Lyanna to be married simply because her people and the Realm are not buying this story.

45 minutes ago, Protagoras said:

If we have had scenes like this, there might have been reason to speculate on a possible marriage but the Jon-crowd tend to make things up, regardless of what is in the books.

Bran's visions could certainly show us such a secret wedding but as you say that would essentially just be one guy at the end of the world hearing the tree that fell in the forest.

45 minutes ago, Protagoras said:

I have been speculating for a while that one of Daenerys dragons (not Drogon) are not long for this world, possibly connected to Euron and his plot or Aegon do something to one that triggeres their war. I doubt GRRM will give Daenerys 3 superweapons when she invades.

I think we touched upon on that when we recently discussed the House of the Undying visions (that was you, right? I remember discussions and board members but have difficulties keeping those dots connected). I don't think Dany's dragons will become real super weapons - they are still too small for that, and winter storms might greatly reduce their use in battle - and we have no idea whether all three will have riders when she comes to Westeros. Rhaegal and Viserion could be claimed by Brown Ben, Tyrion, and Victarion but not all of these characters have to live to return to Westeros, making at least one of the dragons riderless and thus of little or no use.

45 minutes ago, Protagoras said:

As for the riders, I think Jon is indeed the one close to death. Jon will be changed when he returns. Darker, less moral. More "wolflike" if you will. GRRM is not going to give him that resurrection for free and as you said, undead kings do strike me as an unlikely ending.

Yeah, I could see (and actually hope for) him becoming consumed by the the near-inhuman task ahead of him. Defeating - or even resisting - the Others is no small task, and if 

Spoiler

Stannis is likely going to burn his only child in an attempt to accomplish that

then (one of) the real savior(s) certainly has to go through an even darker darkness. He might still succeed in the end, and save everyone (at a very huge cost, though) but it is not going to get easy, and it most likely will cause him to lose everything he ever loved and was. That is true sacrifice, and sacrifices will be necessary in this war.

If things got this ugly when mortals were fighting mortals we all have to expect the Others raise the stakes to an entirely different level.

45 minutes ago, Protagoras said:

It has been speculated if Daenerys will go dark, but she has always have some darker streaks of anger and justice in her. it wouldn´t be much of a twist. If anyone should go full sith, Jon is by far the best, most shocking and most interesting suggestion. A slow walk, of course where Jon do more and more questionable choices and dies as the enemy he initially tried to stop do pack a strong punch.

Dany certainly seems to take a more no-nonsense approach now, but she is right now in a pretty comfortable position. Unless Euron and Aegon are going to become major problems for her, threatening her very life and survival, I don't see her going down a very dark path. 

45 minutes ago, Protagoras said:

As for Tyrion and Daenerys, they can both certainly die. Tyrion because he is GRRMs favorite (which increases his chances of death - not decreasing it. His opinions about Rowling do say alot about this) and because his near-experiences with it. Daenerys because, GRRM want to do a more tragic ending and because when people have done their arc, they tend to die. The childbirth death would certainly tie her story together.

I think at least one of these three has to survive. Else their end could mark the beginning of a new struggle for dominance and we have to get some sort of real closure on that game of thrones plot (that game could be played again while they are rebuilding if nobody keeps the people in check) If Jon is a goner it could be either Tyrion or Dany or only one of them. If Tyrion becomes one of Dany's consorts (but not the one she loves) then this could become a somewhat sad ending for them. If Dany's in childbirth this would be some sort of weird epilogue since I don't think she is going to lead the war against the Others in the seventh or eighth month of pregnancy. If Rhaenyra is any indication then you can't ride a dragon when you are in the advanced stages of pregnancy.

36 minutes ago, The Ned's Little Girl said:

I was quoting the most-commonly used SSM, where Martin said, "Our dreams are not always literal". Are you perhaps referring to another SSM?

Yeah, but I don't have a link right now. Someone is asking George for details on the tower of joy thing and he is basically saying that this a fever dream that is not portraying the things that transpired accurately. And that could very well include the dialogue. It does not sound like stuff those people would be saying in real life.

36 minutes ago, The Ned's Little Girl said:

My point is that the words I did quote don't necessarily "cast doubt" on the dream so much as invite the reader to consider the deeper truth of it, as well as a caution not to get lost in it's literal accuracy or lack thereof. Such is the way of dreams, at least those which are important and most meaningful; the dreaming mind rarely concerns itself with reportorial accuracy; it's the symbolic meanings which are generally the truest.

But then this dream would essentially be representing a lot of the innermost feelings of Eddard Stark, just as Dunk's dream in TSS reflected his anxieties and fears, or many other dreams - Jon's of the crypts, for instance, or Tyrion's of being some sort of Maelys the Monstrous creature, with a laughing and a weeping head, fighting at the sides of both Bittersteel and Barristan - reflect the innermost thoughts of those characters.

This dream is not a magical or prophetic dream (like Dany's dream of Drogon, Jaime's weirwood dream of Brienne, the Kingsguard, and Rhaegar, etc.) nor is it some sort of genuine vision of the past or future (like the visions in the House of the Undying).

In that sense this dream provides us with a key to better understand Ned, not to better understand some central mystery at the heart of the story. It also provides us with clues towards the truth about Jon, to be sure, but even those are only important insofar as they shape Ned's political decisions - to offer mercy to Cersei and her children, to protect Robert from the truth, etc.

36 minutes ago, The Ned's Little Girl said:

Time will tell, of course. (Also, there is a reason why I wrote "It's my belief" at the beginning of the sentence.) But once the complete story has been told, I think there is a very good chance that my belief will be borne out. Especially if Jon Snow turns out to personify The Song of Ice and Fire, to which plenty of hints attest.

The Song of Ice and Fire is the entire story. The story is not revolving around Jon. He may be a pale reflection of the grand Song of Ice and Fire, but he is not the song (and quite honestly, there is nothing fiery in Jon that we can see - he is basically every inch a Stark).

The Starks are not ice, and the Targaryens are not fire (although they more fiery than the Starks are icy). There are so many metaphorical meanings to fire and ice in those stories. We see fire as something that consumes (as in the fire magic inside Beric consuming his memories) and ice something that preserves (allegedly Maester Aemon's life) but if that's the case what is it that the ice in the Others is preserving? Cold, calculating, and justified vengeance, perhaps? Much, much older than anything Wyman Manderly or the Starks might remember? Pretty likely, actually.

The Others are the true ice, and the dragons are the true fire. And perhaps even the dragons are not true fire. After all, the fires of the Doom burned the dragons, so there is always something that hotter. And there is definitely something that's colder than the Starks (the Others and just common ice).

[Lady Blizzardborn]

On 3/20/2017 at 2:52 PM, Lord Varys said:

<snip

And no reason to assume that it ever changed. The High Septon is still under the thumb of the Baratheon kings until the High Sparrow rises to power.

Aerys might have been crazy but he was still the king and in charge of the Realm. He was no comatose nor was their a Regency established.

That is way too much baseless speculation for my taste. Remember, we have no reason to assume that Rhaegar even cared for such a dispensation. After all, we don't even know he knew he would take Lyanna after he left Dragonstone and began his journey with his companions. 

The idea that Rhaegar could do anything in KL without Varys knowing about it is very far-fetched. Aerys would have learned about Rhaegar's talk with the High Septon.

We have no reason to assume Rhaegar ever interacted with the High Septon, though, aside from him officiating during his wedding in the Great Sept. A fact that makes it even more unlikely the High Septon would ever grant Rhaegar a second wife unless being actually forced by the king. An heir is more or less nothing, even more an heir who is mistrusted by his royal father who might actually decide to burn him alive the next day.

I'm reasonably confident that Rhaegar and Lyanna had some sort of wedding. But that doesn't make their child a trueborn child in the eyes of the world. It might if Rhaegar had been king (and not dead) by the time Jon was born. But he wasn't.

<snip

And no reason to believe it couldn't have.

I've already explained how and why it would have been possible to get around Aerys. 

Yes I've noticed you don't care for baseless speculation unless it's your own.

Again you twist my words into something not remotely resembling what I said. Didn't I ask you to stop replying if you couldn't keep from doing that? Varys knowing doesn't mean Varys telling.

We have no reason to assume that Rhaegar didn't interact with the High Septon. Anyone can go see the HS any time, and royalty are more likely to be granted interviews. 

Rhaegar being king when Jon was born would not change the kid's legitimacy, either way. If he got a dispensation and married her, then Jon would be legitimate. If not, then Jon is a bastard. There's no middle ground. He could not have gotten a dispensation that said "valid as soon as you become king, and retroactive at that point."