Jump to content

[Book Spoilers] R+L=J, A+J=T and other theories on HBO V.4


Suzanna Stormborn

Recommended Posts

42 minutes ago, UnmaskedLurker said:

I agree those are all possibilities. My point is that many people seem to assume that the horn can bind a dragon to its master -- and we have reason to believe that it likely is not that simple.

Also, while Rhaegal and Viserion are not bound -- they are from a line of dragons that presumably are already subject to a "spell" that makes them bindable only to a Targ (assuming that unbound dragons really were specific to a dragonlord family and not able to be bound to any dragonlord of any family) -- so how can the horn make them also bindable to a new bloodline? That would mean that one dragonlord family could have taken a dragon from another family's dragon line and be able to bind it by use of a horn. Which again -- makes the whole incest thing unnecessary (unless they somehow lost all the horns). So I don't see how the horn can create the ability to bind a dragon (more likely just control or "calm" the dragon to make the binding process easier than what is described in the side books). And most to the point, I don't see why so many people merely assume it most likely will work as Euron and Moqorro advertised.

Well, if it only works on unbound dragons (meaning dragons without riders), it would only be effective during very limited periods. Such as on young dragons that have not bonded to a rider yet, or on dragons whose riders have recently died and have not yet bonded to a new rider. And on wild dragons, of course.

And whose to say that such horns were not incredibly rare, even in Valyria? Maybe each of the 40 Dragonlord familes had one. And guarded it jealously. And this Horn could only be used on wild dragons or by sneaking it close to the dragon breeding pen of a rival family, to try and use it on some newly hatched or youngish dragons that are not bound yet. And the risk would be extreme, since if you are caught, the Horn risks being lost to your family and confiscated by your rival.

On a battlefield it would prove of limited value, since all dragons engaging in such a battle would have riders by default, making them immune to the Horn. There are many ways to limit the effect of such Horns, while still making it capable of ensorcelling a dragon under specific conditions.

EDIT

Say for example you defeat a rival Dragonlord's family in pitched battle. And now you want to claim their dragons for your own. Perhaps the Horn allows such an act. Because if you have just killed the dragon's rider, and it is now unbonded to a specific rider, the Horn could in my current scenario allow you to join the dragon to your bloodline. Effectively forcibly overriding the blood bond of the previous, now dead, family.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Dragonbinder could bind dragons to a new bloodline of future dragonlords then we would most likely get some sort of Greyjoy override there. Euron's and/or Victarion's blood is Greyjoy blood. If their blood could make Dragonbinder work then Rhaegal and/or Viserion could become permanently a 'Greyjoy dragon'.

That could mean not only Euron and Victarion are potential dragonriders but also Theon and Asha and all those bastard sons Euron has among the crew of the Silence, not to mention other Greyjoy cousins among the Ironborn.

I don't find that particularly likely. The way George is describing Euron right now the man doesn't really need a dragon to be impressive or intimidating. Vice versa, dragonriders shouldn't exactly have that great a chance against Euron.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Truth is we just don't know at this point. There are various possibilities.

1. It doesn't work at all. Which makes the Horn plot pretty pointless.

2. It can temporarily distrupt the bond between rider and Dragon, but that seems somewhat unlikely to me, and would not produce much gain to the Horn's master, other than a brief tactical advantage during the heat of battle.

3. It can only work on an unbonded Dragon (meaning only Rhaegal and Viserion at this point). I kind of favour this option. Meaning that for a new family to bond a dragon lineage to it for the first time, a Horn would be used. Thereafter, this bond is carried on through the blood of both the rider and the dragon, to their respective descendents.

4. The horn provides some kind of temporary ensorcelment of the Dragon that wears off after a while. Maybe the Horn just lures the Dragon to Westeros, but once there Euron finds he cannot control it. And then Aegon arrives and claims it as his own through his Blackfyre blood.

5. Some other scenario we haven't even imagined yet.

I believe it is #4. 

 

Due to the issues Unmasked Lurker mentioned above. That euron/vic are not Valyrian and therefore would never be able to truly master one of Dany's dragons. I think the horn will subdue/trick a dragon temporarily. For a Valyrian family this would be enough to bond it to your blood eventually. But for Euron it wont work the same way. 

 I do think Vic will get a dragon at Slaver's Bay, travel back, then somehow Euron will get it killing Vic when they all get back to Westeros. 

 

On HBO dany lands back in westeros with the Ironborn fleet. In the books I think her and Vic will be temporarily united to cross the sea then it will all go to hell.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I more or less agree with SS that #4 is the most likely answer, but I want to expand a bit. I have been thinking about the evidence we have. I largely discount what Euron and Moqorro say about the horn because they might be mistaken or lying. But we have some information.

We have the quote I gave above -- that the dragonlords used spells and horns -- while Dany used words and a whip. We also know from the side books that the Targs apparently had no horns but bonded with dragons without them. So we know that horns are not needed to bond -- and that they apparently are not easy to get or the Targs would have had them. But if the horns were that central to bonding -- the Targs most likely would have done whatever they needed to do to get one -- but they did not.

The other piece of information that we have that I believe is relevant is that in the side books -- people died trying to mount and bond with a dragon. So trying to bond with a dragon is a dangerous proposition. The horns likely made that process less risky.

More specifically, based on those clues -- what do I think the dragon horns did? I think they calmed the dragon through some enchantment that made getting on the dragon and forming the bond easier.  Back to the quotes from ADWD. Dany did not have spells or horns -- she had words and a whip. The other Targs in the side books also did not use spells or horns. Targs no longer need spells -- as long as they have the right "drop" of Targ blood, they have the ability to bond with a dragon. So the lack of a spell by Dany is a red herring in a way. No Targ needs a spell anymore to bond with a dargon -- the spell was only needed for the first group of family members to form the bond (and no spell presumably was needed for any of the dragonlord family members in Valyria other than the initial spell to tie dragons to their bloodline going forward). So the horn (not really the spell) must be the substitute for the words and the whip. Rather than having a horn to get control of the dragon long enough to bond with the dragon -- Dany used other means (words and whip). 

So yes, the horn probably can calm a dragon (or at least an unbonded dragon). So blowing the horn might make a dragon calm for the moment -- which might allow Victarion to get onto a dragon and appear to mount it -- but the lifetime bond that a dragon can form with a dragonlord member will not be able to be formed because Victarion does not have any Targ blood -- and once the calming enchantment wears off -- Victarion will be in a heap of trouble sitting on the back of a dragon that does not want him there.

One other piece of evidence that supports the theory that the horn cannot cause a bond is the use of incest by the dragonlord families. Here is the money quote from WOIAF:  "It had long been the custom amongst the dragonlords of Valyria to wed brother to sister, to keep the bloodlines pure." If the horns were enough to form the bond, this custom would have been less utilized -- incest really is not a natural phenomenon unless some survival element makes it important. Here, keeping the bloodlines as pure as possible (i.e., keeping as close a genetic link to the original dragonlord that was used to form the bond with the dragons using some sort of "blood magic" spell, presumably) was critical to maintaining the ability to bond with dragons. If horns were a viable alternative -- horns would have been used more extensively and incest less so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is really idle to speculate there since we simply have no clue what use the Valyrian dragonlords actually had for those magical horns. If they could claim their dragons the way the Targaryens of Westeros did - and we have no reason to believe they could not do that - then they would have had no use for such horns to claim dragons.

Could be that such horns helped them steal other dragons who were already claimed or to deepen their control over the dragons they already had so that they could fly off and do certain tasks without a rider directing them. I mean, the dragonlords were the really powerful guys there, not the Targaryens of Dragonstone and Westeros. They are a pale shadow of the glory of the Freehold. The dragonlords of Valyria may have been able to do things with their dragons that the Targaryens of Westeros could not.

The idea that a horn like Dragonbinder could temporarily make any dragon susceptible to be controlled by a non-Valyrian/non-dragonlord doesn't sound very convincing to me. If the Valyrians made such magical artifacts that they would have made themselves very vulnerable because some of their slaves, servants, non-dragonlord Valyrian enemies, or foreigners could have stolen some such horns and then used them to take temporary control of the Valyrian dragons and destroy the Freehold (or at least a huge chunk of it).

I mean, it is quite clear that the horn Dragonbinder somehow fell in the hands of the enemy/outsiders since it ended up with the warlocks of Qarth. How they acquired it unclear as of yet - perhaps the Undying once traveled to Valyria after the Doom, perhaps the ancient Qartheen just once won a battle against the dragonlords or they stumbled on the remains of a dragonlord and his dragon in the Red Waste where some dragonlords might have fought each other during one of their many civil wars and conflict? The thing is - we don't know.

But I'm inclined to believe that the magic Dragonbinder works must be much more powerful and deeper than the natural bond between dragon and dragonrider. I mean, there must be a reason why the Targaryens don't have such a horn. That indicates they are exceedingly rare and may have been so even back in Old Valyria. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Suzanna Stormborn said:

Ok HBO officially confirms everything about RLJ. Hallelujah

I think that may be the only thing that is the exact same as the books.

What do you think about Jon's real name being Aegon? I thought Aemon was the most likely candidate for the books, and I'm curious what other people think of the idea that the show and books may actually differ on this point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Shmedricko said:

What do you think about Jon's real name being Aegon? I thought Aemon was the most likely candidate for the books, and I'm curious what other people think of the idea that the show and books may actually differ on this point.

Why would they differ? What's the benefit? GRRM almost certainly told them Jon's real name when he revealed all of the other Jon-related details to them. Why change this when they've seemingly stuck with most of the other stuff?

The book-only case for Aegon is just as strong as for Aemon. That's why I don't think their choice is a coincidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, J. Stargaryen said:

Why would they differ? What's the benefit? GRRM almost certainly told them Jon's real name when he revealed all of the other Jon-related details to them. Why change this when they've seemingly stuck with most of the other stuff?

The book-only case for Aegon is just as strong as for Aemon. That's why I don't think their choice is a coincidence.

:cheers: Good job on calling this one. I used to think that Aegon as Jon's real name didn't make much sense until reading your break down. Think it is now quite likely that Jon's real name will be Aegon in the books as well. Of course there are some who are so married to the idea of Aemon that they will happily brush this off as a show only invention due to personal bias.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Consigliere said:

:cheers: Good job on calling this one. I used to think that Aegon as Jon's real name didn't make much sense until reading your break down. Think it is now quite likely that Jon's real name will be Aegon in the books as well. Of course there are some who are so married to the idea of Aemon that they will happily brush this off as a show only invention due to personal bias.

Thank you. :cheers:

Aegon doesn't make much sense, in the same way, that Lyanna doesn't make much sense as Jon's mom. I think GRRM is using the same type of trick to conceal an otherwise obvious truth. So, it can't be Lyanna because Ned is Jon's father, and the Starks don't get down like that. And, it can't be Aegon because Rhaegar already had a son with that name. 

Once you realize Lyanna can be the mother, RLJ becomes obvious. And once you realize that R+E=Aegon isn't an obstacle, it becomes obvious that the secret Targaryen in the story should bear the Targaryen name. "What better name for a king?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it really matters what Jon's "real" name is -- everyone's going to keep calling him Jon, including himself. I read a theory that D&D may be trying to incorporate elements of Young Griff into Jon's story, so him being named Aegon is probably a homage to the books. I can't think of any logical reason why Jon's real name would be Aegon in the books. As far as I know, there are no examples of siblings having the same first name (maybe among the Freys, but seeing as they're portrayed as the degenerates of Westeros, I doubt that's a tradition practiced by many other families), and as far as Lyanna knew, Elia's Aegon was still alive at the time of Jon's birth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

I don't think it really matters what Jon's "real" name is -- everyone's going to keep calling him Jon, including himself. I read a theory that D&D may be trying to incorporate elements of Young Griff into Jon's story, so him being named Aegon is probably a homage to the books. I can't think of any logical reason why Jon's real name would be Aegon in the books. As far as I know, there are no examples of siblings having the same first name (maybe among the Freys, but seeing as they're portrayed as the degenerates of Westeros, I doubt that's a tradition practiced by many other families), and as far as Lyanna knew, Elia's Aegon was still alive at the time of Jon's birth.

Exactly this. Nothing is more nonsensical than Rhaegar telling Elia that their newborn son is named Aegon and then saying he needs one more son named Aegon just as he declares that this son is the PWiP.  This is a setup for Dany's eventual meeting with Aegon.  Not only does Rhaegar believe this; I think it's fair to say that he thinks he needs a Dornish wife to produce TPWIP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is quite clear that Jon's true name - as well as this plot that it is important that Jon is a trueborn Targaryen prince - is a nod to/variation of the Aegon story in the books. The point of that is to create false tension between Jon and Daenerys as to who is in charge now, never mind that Jon already bent the knee. This is most likely going to create as much false tension as the Winterfell plot this season did.

The idea that Rhaegar had two sons named Aegon doesn't make any sense in the books. But Elia's children are basically non-existent in the show so why not make Jon another Aegon there? After all, Aegon is the most prominent and important Targaryen name.

And it is not that they care about staying true to the books in the uncovering of this back story as the 'High Septon Maynard' crap and the ridiculous annulment story already show. Hell, they even cut one Kingsguard from the tower of joy flashback. Why should be assume they care about accuracy when it comes to names? I mean, we have Robin Arryn, Yara Greyjoy, etc. in this show, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Lord Varys made most of the points I was going to make in opposition to Jon being names Aegon, but I will add a bit. I don't see any way that Rhaegar would have picked out that name as his first-born son, Aegon, was still alive when Rhaegar died. So if Jon is Aegon in the books, either Rhaegar and Lyanna never picked out a name or they picked out a different name and Lyanna changed it. Why would Lyanna change it -- she would have honored Rhaegar's pick? So if we assume that Rhaegar and Lyanna did not pick out a name before Rhaegar went off (seems odd as he could not be sure he would return before the birth, but possible), then why would Lyanna pick Aegon and not Rhaegar? Why would Lyanna choose to honor the dead son of Rhaegar by Elia rather than pick a different name -- like Rhaegar, for example. The show can gloss over these points because the show hardly acknowledges the existence of Rhaegar's son by Elia. But in the books, it makes no sense.

So that raises the question of why would the show change the name? Perhaps for the same reason, as LV pointed out, that it changed Robin and Yara -- to avoid any confusion. The show has had a character with the name Aemon (which is the name I have always thought Jon has as a real name) but never a character named Aegon. And D&D might have wanted to emphasize Jon as the warrior -- naming him after Aegon the conqueror -- rather than as a wise person (as naming Jon after Maester Aemon would do). The choices made by the show can be baffling, but assuming that show would keep the same name as the books is not a safe assumption. The show has changed many items, including names, even when the show could have stuck with the book version.

And the books have the clues -- being Aemon the Dragonheart and Jon saying he is no Aemon Targaryen -- that have ironic effect if Jon really is Aemon. But if Jon really is Aegon, then why not have Jon pretend to be Aegon the Conqueror (which I don't think Jon ever did). In sum, the logic of the books (notwithstanding the attempts to make the alternative logical -- which I have read but found unpersuasive) dictate that Jon's name is not Aegon.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, UnmaskedLurker said:

@Lord Varys made most of the points I was going to make in opposition to Jon being names Aegon, but I will add a bit. I don't see any way that Rhaegar would have picked out that name as his first-born son, Aegon, was still alive when Rhaegar died.

Rhaegar would never have picked that name, for obvious reasons. We had a discussion about that in the Rhaegar-Lyanna thread in the book section and the best (and only) argument as to why Jon's true name could be Aegon is if the name was chosen by Lyanna after she has heard that Elia's children were dead - assuming she ever learned that and believed that it was true (which isn't clear at all).

But that raises the problem as to why Lyanna would want to give her son a Targaryen name. Sure, that's not completely impossible but she could just as well have named him Brandon or Rickard to name him after her dead brother or father - but if she had done that Ned wouldn't have had any reason to change the name to Jon Snow (unless we assume Lyanna named Jon after Rhaegar's buddy Jon Connington - which is very unlikely).

If Lyanna herself picked a Targaryen name she would most likely have gone with Rhaegar, to honor the father of the boy who recently died in battle, rather than with some traditional Targaryen name. Lyanna was presumably close to Rhaegar Targaryen but not exactly to Rhaegar's family or the Targaryen dynasty in general.

But the more likely scenario is anyway that Rhaegar and Lyanna chose a name together - and if they chose a Targaryen name then Aemon and Jaehaerys are the most likeliest candidates. Daeron or Duncan are not that unlikely, either, considering Rhaegar's two uncles.

Aegon and Aemon are confirmed names for pairs of Targaryen children - we have Jaehaerys I name his two eldest sons Aegon and Aemon, and then later on Viserys II names his two sons Aegon (the Unworthy) and Aemon (the Dragonknight). Maekar does it again but in a different order (Maester Aemon is older than Egg). Daemon Blackfyre also named his twins Aegon (the eldest son) and Aemon (the younger twin).

1 hour ago, UnmaskedLurker said:

So if Jon is Aegon in the books, either Rhaegar and Lyanna never picked out a name or they picked out a different name and Lyanna changed it. Why would Lyanna change it -- she would have honored Rhaegar's pick? So if we assume that Rhaegar and Lyanna did not pick out a name before Rhaegar went off (seems odd as he could not be sure he would return before the birth, but possible), then why would Lyanna pick Aegon and not Rhaegar? Why would Lyanna choose to honor the dead son of Rhaegar by Elia rather than pick a different name -- like Rhaegar, for example. The show can gloss over these points because the show hardly acknowledges the existence of Rhaegar's son by Elia. But in the books, it makes no sense.

Exactly.

1 hour ago, UnmaskedLurker said:

And the books have the clues -- being Aemon the Dragonheart and Jon saying he is no Aemon Targaryen -- that have ironic effect if Jon really is Aemon. But if Jon really is Aegon, then why not have Jon pretend to be Aegon the Conqueror (which I don't think Jon ever did). In sum, the logic of the books (notwithstanding the attempts to make the alternative logical -- which I have read but found unpersuasive) dictate that Jon's name is not Aegon.

I guess we have 60-70% chance that Jon is an Aemon in the books, and a 30-40% chance that he is another Jaehaerys. Rhaegar's great-granduncle and grandfather should be the most important male Targaryens he was looking up to. He may even have considered naming a son Aerys - not so much because of his own father but because of the scholar king Aerys I after whom Aerys II was also named (either by Aegon V or Jaehaerys II) but I doubt that was an option after Rickard-Brandon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

do you all agree that bookDany and bookJon will not have any qualms at all about being related?

I cannot believe D&D are already focusing on the fact that the 'incest' will be an issue for D&J's relationship on the HBO. It's like they are taking a 21st century American stance on this issue for whatever reason.

Targaryens dgaf about being related and I cannot see bookJon caring much either once he finds out.  They did not grow up together so it's not really weird.  Cersei and Jaime growing up together, knowing what they are doing is wrong and doing it anyway is 'weird'. but marrying a stranger who you happen to be related to would raise no eyebrows in bookWesteros if you ask me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Rhaegar would never have picked that name, for obvious reasons. We had a discussion about that in the Rhaegar-Lyanna thread in the book section and the best (and only) argument as to why Jon's true name could be Aegon is if the name was chosen by Lyanna after she has heard that Elia's children were dead - assuming she ever learned that and believed that it was true (which isn't clear at all).

But that raises the problem as to why Lyanna would want to give her son a Targaryen name. Sure, that's not completely impossible but she could just as well have named him Brandon or Rickard to name him after her dead brother or father - but if she had done that Ned wouldn't have had any reason to change the name to Jon Snow (unless we assume Lyanna named Jon after Rhaegar's buddy Jon Connington - which is very unlikely).

If Lyanna herself picked a Targaryen name she would most likely have gone with Rhaegar, to honor the father of the boy who recently died in battle, rather than with some traditional Targaryen name. Lyanna was presumably close to Rhaegar Targaryen but not exactly to Rhaegar's family or the Targaryen dynasty in general.

But the more likely scenario is anyway that Rhaegar and Lyanna chose a name together - and if they chose a Targaryen name then Aemon and Jaehaerys are the most likeliest candidates. Daeron or Duncan are not that unlikely, either, considering Rhaegar's two uncles.

Aegon and Aemon are confirmed names for pairs of Targaryen children - we have Jaehaerys I name his two eldest sons Aegon and Aemon, and then later on Viserys II names his two sons Aegon (the Unworthy) and Aemon (the Dragonknight). Maekar does it again but in a different order (Maester Aemon is older than Egg). Daemon Blackfyre also named his twins Aegon (the eldest son) and Aemon (the younger twin).

Exactly.

I guess we have 60-70% chance that Jon is an Aemon in the books, and a 30-40% chance that he is another Jaehaerys. Rhaegar's great-granduncle and grandfather should be the most important male Targaryens he was looking up to. He may even have considered naming a son Aerys - not so much because of his own father but because of the scholar king Aerys I after whom Aerys II was also named (either by Aegon V or Jaehaerys II) but I doubt that was an option after Rickard-Brandon.

I think it'll be Aemon in the books. due to Jon liking him as a kid, and Maester Aemon's death, and like you all said, Rhaegar already had a son named Aegon, and even if Lyanna heard that Elia's children had been killed she wouldnt change what Rhaegar had already told her to name the kid.  She would do what they had previously decided, and there's no way Rhaegar woulda wanted to name 2 of his male children the same thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Suzanna Stormborn said:

do you all agree that bookDany and bookJon will not have any qualms at all about being related?

I cannot believe D&D are already focusing on the fact that the 'incest' will be an issue for D&J's relationship on the HBO. It's like they are taking a 21st century American stance on this issue for whatever reason.

Targaryens dgaf about being related and I cannot see bookJon caring much either once he finds out.  They did not grow up together so it's not really weird.  Cersei and Jaime growing up together, knowing what they are doing is wrong and doing it anyway is 'weird'. but marrying a stranger who you happen to be related to would raise no eyebrows in bookWesteros if you ask me.

Since they aren't brother and sister this shouldn't cause them much trouble, certainly not in the books and most likely also not in the show.

It is not that they built up the whole thing as a suddenly 'forbidden love story' with the music indicating that they were doing 'an evil thing' now that the audience knows that they are aunt and nephew (assuming they do).

The false tension they did set up is this whole 'Aegon Targaryen is the rightful heir to the Iron Throne' thing - a fact that shouldn't matter at all considering that nobody apparently cares about the Targaryen claim in this show anyway and that Jon publicly bent the knee to Daenerys already - not so much the whole 'they are closely related' thing.

Some new information about Jon's background cannot really change what he did - just as Ned's and Robb's deaths didn't enable him to leave the NW or Stannis' letter didn't suddenly lead to Joffrey realizing that he was the false king, etc. - nor did it cause Joff's sworn vassals and subjects to abandon him.

Jon did choose Dany as his queen, and he would be the greatest hypocrite on earth if the revelation about his parentage would suddenly cause him to decide he wants to rule all by himself. 

But the show might try to play the Dany-Jon thing now in a similar way as they played Arya-Sansa this season. Although I'm pretty sure that would work even less. They have a war to fight and them both being Targaryens and in love should actually make things much easier for them, instead of harder. Once they have the Iron Throne of their ancestors they can decide who sits it most of the time. They will reach an agreement amongst themselves - nobody else is going to be consulted about that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only logic that I have read that makes it seem at all plausible for Jon to be Aegon is if Rhaegar convinced Lyanna that TPTWP was named Aegon -- which is why Rhaegar named his son by Elia Aegon. Then when that Aegon dies, Lyanna realizes that he could not be TPTWP (as he is dead) so Jon must be TPTWP, and Lyanna gave Jon that name in a belief that given the prophecy that Rhaegar told, Jon is the only viable candidate left so he must be TPTWP and thus must be named Aegon. I am not convinced by this argument -- but it is the only one I have heard that gives any remotely plausible explanation for how Jon could have come to be named Aegon.

As to why I think Aemon so much more likely than any other Targ name -- the reason (in addition to the textual clues) is what the name would mean to Jon. Aemon is the only Targ name that might make Jon be proud to be a Targ. Jon has no connection to any other Targ name. Jon admired Maester Aemon (and apparently Aemon the Dragonheart, as Jon pretended to be him as a child -- one of the clues in favor of Jon as Aemon). So finding out his real name is Aemon could be impactful for Jon's thinking regarding being a Targ -- any other name would mean nothing to Jon (other than maybe Aegon -- but as noted above, Aegon seems unlikely to me for other reasons, and Jon never pretended to be Aegon the Conqueror, but rather Aemon the Dragonheart).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Suzanna Stormborn said:

do you all agree that bookDany and bookJon will not have any qualms at all about being related?

I cannot believe D&D are already focusing on the fact that the 'incest' will be an issue for D&J's relationship on the HBO. It's like they are taking a 21st century American stance on this issue for whatever reason.

Targaryens dgaf about being related and I cannot see bookJon caring much either once he finds out.  They did not grow up together so it's not really weird.  Cersei and Jaime growing up together, knowing what they are doing is wrong and doing it anyway is 'weird'. but marrying a stranger who you happen to be related to would raise no eyebrows in bookWesteros if you ask me.

Dany won't care, but Jon might. He spent a great deal of time among the wildlings, who thought that even marrying someone in the same tribe as you was blasphemy. If he embraces the ways of the free folk post-resurrection (which wouldn't be that unexpected, since they're the ones most familiar with wargs, and Jon's consciousness is currently floating around inside of his direwolf) he may be troubled by the realization. I imagine discovering that Ned Stark, his idol, is not his father is also going to take an emotional toll on him.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...