Jump to content

R + L = J v.167


Ygrain
 Share

Recommended Posts

Again, why characters that have been dead seventeen years did what they did in 282 AC, and if/how that will affect characters that are alive in 300 AC and beyond, are two completely different discussions.

If it turns out that Jon is a legitimate son of Rhaegar and Lyanna, IMO it's not going to be anything Rhaegar intentionally plotted out like that ahead of time, and I doubt Jon will ever sit the Iron Throne because of it.

There might be some readers that assume Jon will be a recognized Targaryen king on the Iron Throne and work backwards from there, but they are not in this discussion, and nobody is making their arguments here except those using them as strawmen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Amusingly, even as a noble bastard Jon begins the story relatively entitled. He rolled up to the NW expecting to run the place, probably not worlds different than Raymar Royce did. Even as a half noble bastard he was like that.

Yet that's not the Jon we know now, and not a Jon we are ever likely going to see again, whether or not he or anyone else ever learns he is a royal bastard or the legitimate product of a royal marriage between Rhaegar and Lyanna.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ygrain said:

You're kinda mixing textual support with attempts to predict an outcome but nvm.

Jon's arc also includes rising up to the occasion and assuming leadership which he didn't ask for but had to take up, anyway, because he either remained the only capable (the defence of the Wall) or through someone's politicking (the election). Could Jon again become the last candidate standing to lead the united defences? Could he again become a compromise candidate when neither of the other candidates can garner enough support? In either case, not because he wants to become king but because it allows him to fulfill his oath to defend the realms of men, by any means necessary? 

I have a hard time getting invested in a theory that doesn't have any practical effect on the overall story.  Like GRRM said, what's the point of creating a vast pack of wolves if you aren't going to use it?

The first problem is Jon makes a particularly bad candidate to advance as a claimant to the throne.  Jon is the acknowledged natural son of Eddard Stark who is now too dead to reveal the deception. (I suppose you could argue that Eddard wrote the reveal in the letter he handed Varys, the problem being Varys has already invested quite a lot in Young Griff)  Jon took an oath to the Night's Watch which for at least some of the general populace would disqualify him from becoming king.   Jon doesn't look Targaryen in the least meaning many smallfolk who pine for the days of their dragon lords would dismiss his claim out of hand.  And Jon's "legitimacy" would arise from a secret wedding that no one knows about.  

The second problem is that Jon doesn't really have anyone to advance him as a claimant that would have an interest in the Iron Throne.  His main support would be: Wildlings who care not a whit for the supposed authority of the Iron Throne.  His brothers in the Night's Watch that would probably resent him from breaking the Oath the rest of them are still taking seriously.  Finally, the Stark allies of the North who have taken pride in the fact that they have seceded from the Iron Throne and have returned the Starks to their position of Kings of the North.  It seems unlikely that they would wish to return to that yoke if Jon adopts a Targaryen identity, especially since the tale in the North centers on Lyanna's abduction and rape by a Targaryen.  And let's also not forget that no one in the North practices polygamy either.  Jon being Rhaegar's son through a polygamous marriage to Rhaegar might not be considered legitimate in the North or the South.

But we also have the issue of a character's story arc, and something that GRRM has fostered through five books.  And authors tend to treat their main character's story arc fairly seriously.  Jon's inner turmoil has been his oath to the Wall with his desire to claim his father's castle.  Tacking on becoming a claimant for a throne that the character has no personal investment in seems fairly hackneyed.  

 

1 hour ago, Ygrain said:

Because the idiom is "keep", not "have" :-) As in, keep it for later. Two mutually exclusive actions. 

No, I understand that.  In the States we generally say "have" as opposed to "keep".  But regardless, no one really collects cakes (outside of a hermetically sealed piece of wedding cake I suppose).  A better expression would be you can't sell your cake and eat it to, as those are the only two activities where anyone benefits from said cake.

Edited by Frey family reunion
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jon doesn't know who his mother is, thinks his father is Ned, and swore an oath to the NW based on that reality.

The knowledge that his father isn't Ned, his mother is Lyanna Stark, his father is Rhaegar Targaryen, they were wed, would not create pointless new turmoil that is out of character for Jon.

If anything, it would be the greatest escalation yet of the same turmoil he has already been experiencing all story, and all his life.

He swore an oath to protect humans from the Others and the dead. He isn't suddenly going to put throwing his hat in the game of thrones above that, and he isn't suddenly going to throw the Starks away to be a Targ prince.

But that doesn't mean he won't experience any inner turmoil or external pressure when he learns of it, and if others learn of it.

He swore that oath before he knew who he was, but he swore it nevertheless, and now he knows far too much about what humans are up against to pursue anything else.

Edited by Bael's Bastard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

I have a hard time getting invested in a theory that doesn't have any practical effect on the overall story.  Like GRRM said, what's the point of creating a vast pack of wolves if you aren't going to use them?

I thought Heretics were supposed to be open-minded? You are adhering to a very narrow selection of outcomes.

- To stick to the very quote you have just used: what's the point of creating the mystery of Jon's parentage if you're not going to use it? Five books into the series, there needs to be a payoff.  What does being Ned's/Brandon's/Rhaegar's/whoever's bastard bring to the plot? I hope that we can agree GRRM didn't make Jon's mother a mystery just so that he had something to angst over.

2 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

The first problem is Jon makes a particularly bad candidate to advance as a claimant to the throne.  Jon is the acknowledged natural son of Eddard Stark who is now too dead to reveal the deception. (I suppose you could argue that Eddard wrote the reveal in the letter he handed Varys, the problem being Varys has already invested quite a lot in Young Griff)  

No, I'm definitely not going to argue that, I don't believe Ned would confide this to paper. There is still Howland Reed as a keeper of the truth/proof, there is a potential symbol/proof in the crypts, there is the potential involvement of the Daynes... 

2 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

Jon took an oath to the Night's Watch which for at least some of the general populace would disqualify him from becoming king.

When the real shit is about to hit - such as facing the threat of extinction - do rules really matter?

2 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

  Jon doesn't look Targaryen in the least meaning many smallfolk who pine for the days of their dragon lords would dismiss his claim out of hand.  And Jon's "legitimacy" would arise from a secret wedding that no one knows about.  

 

Targs are known for two things, though: their looks, and their dragons. The former doesn't apply for Jon, but the latter might still work. - And, miraculously, it would also solve the issue of "how to prove it to the majority of Westeros".

 

2 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

The second problem is that Jon doesn't really have anyone to advance him as a claimant that would have an interest in the Iron Throne.  His main support would be: Wildlings who care not a whit for the supposed authority of the Iron Throne.  His brothers in the Night's Watch that would probably resent him from breaking the Oath the rest of them are still taking seriously.  Finally, the Stark allies of the North who have taken pride in the fact that they have seceded from the Iron Throne and have returned the Starks to their position of Kings of the North.  It seems unlikely that they would wish to return to that yoke if Jon adopts a Targaryen identity, especially since the tale in the North centers on Lyanna's abduction and rape by a Targaryen.  

He doesn't have such support now. Have you made a survey among the lords of Westeros if they would be willing to support Rhaegar's son (especially if he rode a dragon?)

As for the Stark allies: I am quite sure they would prefer to stay alive rather than die facing the Others on their own. But even so: when the North seceded from the IT, they did not renounce the Targaryens: "Why shouldn't we rule ourselves again? It was the dragons we married, and the dragons are all dead!" 

And BTW, we don't know what the North knows or thinks about Lyanna's abduction, all we know is the official version in Ned's own household.

2 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

But we also have the issue of a character's story arc, and something that GRRM has fostered through five books.  And authors tend to treat their main character's story arc fairly seriously.  Jon's inner turmoil has been his oath to the Wall with his desire to claim his father's castle.  

Jon's story arc is also about his identity, who he is and who he wants to be.

And sorry but I disagree that Jon's main arc is about his desire to become the heir of Winterfell. He struggles with his status as a bastard and he is confronted with situations which force him to choose between the rules and the goal.

2 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

Tacking on becoming a claimant for a throne that the character has no personal investment in seems fairly hackneyed.  

    Did you even read what I wrote? It's not about Jon wanting to sit the throne but being chosen for the task, or taking it up as means to an end, i.e. organising the defence against the Others.

2 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

No, I understand that.  In the States we generally say "have" as opposed to "keep".  But regardless, no one really collects cakes (outside of a hermetically sealed piece of wedding cake I suppose).  A better expression would be you can't sell your cake and eat it to, as those are the only two activities where anyone benefits from said cake.

I understand the part about keeping the cake as not being a glutton and leaving it for later, not keeping it  eternally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Ygrain said:

Targs are known for two things, though: their looks, and their dragons. The former doesn't apply for Jon, but the latter might still work. - And, miraculously, it would also solve the issue of "how to prove it to the majority of Westeros".

The heretics call me Ashara's son, but when the lords see me on dragonback they will know that for a lie. Only Targaryens ride dragons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know I've brought this up a couple of times already, but has anyone played, or at least heard about, Dragon Age: Origins? (other than from me)

There is a similar setting (actually, sort of inspired by ASOIAF): a country split by a civil war, an old threat arising, and Grey Wardens, an ancient order fighting the very threat by any means necessary. The Wardens don't meddle in politics (and don't hold lands, rarely marry and usually don't have children, either. Chastity is not required). Unfortunately, the current situation requires to push the claim of your Warden buddy, the late king's bastard, to unify the land in defence. So, you spend a part of the game garnering support for this guy who doesn't want to be king but agrees to because it is the only way, just like he is willing to sacrifice himself to keep his oath.

I can perfectly see Jon pursuing such a course not because he wants to be the king but because this position would give him the means and authority needed to achieve the main goal of the Watch; and just like in the game, I don't think it would be his own idea or that he would be happy about it.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Ygrain said:

The fact is that the Targaryen royal line was started by a polygamous trio.

And it started with incest too but that didn't endear the Westerosi to accept it. The First Men practiced thralldom and then came to abhor it.

 

3 hours ago, Ygrain said:

The fact is that while "incest is a sin blah blah", no such line exists about polygamy.

No, we know it's forbidden however and we know the women in such unions are called whores instead of wives. The fact is that polygamy is forbidden and not even done in the North.

 

 

3 hours ago, Ygrain said:

The fact is that several characters consider polygamy an option.

Several?? That's more than Sir Jorah for sure.

 

Since we were just repeating things over and over...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Ygrain said:

The fact is that the Targaryen royal line was started by a polygamous trio. The fact is that while "incest is a sin blah blah", no such line exists about polygamy.

That is factually incorrect as has been repeatedly pointed out:

Quote

Whilst the High Septons of King Aegon’s reign never spoke out against the king’s marriage to his sisters, neither did they declare it to be lawful. The humbler members of the Faith—village septons, holy sisters, begging brothers, Poor Fellows—still believed it sinful for brother to lie with sister, or for a man to take two wives.

Case closed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, frenin said:

And it started with incest too but that didn't endear the Westerosi to accept it. The First Men practiced thralldom and then came to abhor it.

But they tolerated it for Targaryens, and we are talking Targaryens.

18 minutes ago, frenin said:

No, we know it's forbidden however and we know the women in such unions are called whores instead of wives. The fact is that polygamy is forbidden and not even done in the North.

Those are not facts but your assertions. The fact is that polygamy is not currently practiced in Westeros, except by Targaryens in the past, and Wildlings. The fact is that in the main series, no-one ever rants against polygamy, nor do they comment that it is a sin like they do about incest.

The fact is that in the additional materials, we have the Faith stricly against both incest and polygamy and we have both characters considering polygamy an option as well as rejecting the notion. The fact is that there is no explicit statement one way or another on the legal status of polygamy.

 

18 minutes ago, frenin said:

Several?? That's more than Sir Jorah for sure.

See above.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

Hmm, baseless opinion with no support from the books.  Kind of like how Rhaegar, Elia, or Lyanna would be in any way in favor of a polygamous marriage?

But regardless, if you are so invested in Jon being the "legitimate" son of Rhaegar, I understand the need to try and concoct a polygamous relationship.  After all the alternative is the one that the HBO abomination gave us, which was Rhaegar annulling his marriage to Elia (preposterous) and naming his child with Lyanna Aegon Targaryen, basically disinheriting his first born son who he named the prince that was promised (at least in the books).  So at the very least you seem to realize how fundamentally flawed the show's version was in their attempt to make Jon a "legitimate" Targaryen.

The idea that any of the Jon story from the show is going to be reflected in the books makes no sense. He doesn't play a role in the defeat of the Others there (which he should in the books), nor is he going to play Aegon's role in the books.

And George is not going to give us two alleged Targaryen princelings claiming to be sons of Rhaegar challenging Dany's claim. That would be the worst writing ever.

Thus: If we are getting a clash between Dany and Aegon in the books - this Second Dance thing that seems to be coming - then it is out of the question that Jon and Dany are going to end up in a similar position as Dany and Aegon. Especially since the one thing they took from the books is the Jon-Dany romance, something that would also not fit well with a political rivalry.

Politically Jon Snow's parentage is most likely never going to play a role at all.

Especially since the obvious setup of George in relation to Jon is Robb's will which seems to include a legitimization decree. Jon Snow is going to become Jon Stark, son of Eddard Stark and an unknown woman. Whether he accepts this or not is another thing, as is the question whether this will have political repercussions after Stannis' death. If his death and resurrection gets him out of the NW and the will has him as a legitimate Stark then he comes first now, not Brandon or Rickon or Sansa and Arya ... because he is the eldest child of Lord Eddard still alive. And of course the best suited to rule the North as lord or king because he is actually a man grown, and not a cripple, a five-year-old, or a girl.

How this scenario - which will already be a revolution, having a guy get out of the NW with a trick, being a bastard that his legitimized - could then change yet again for him being seen as a legitimate Targaryen prince is actually beyond my capability. If that had political repercussions it would be one of the least realistic stories ever.

And one should actually abandon this idea that Howland Reed is ever going to reveal 'the truth' publicly. He is right now the guardian of Robb's last will (assuming Maege and Galbart got there alive). If that will ever resurfaces it will so only if Howland allows that ... and George also also indicated that we are going to see that will again in the future. If Howland wanted to reveal the truth about Jon's parentage would he then allow Jon Snow to be publicly legitimized as Eddard Stark's bastard son?

[All assuming said will contains a legitimization decree. We don't know that for a certainty yet.]

It could have personal significance for Daenerys and Jon and might play a role in prophecy stuff. But this is not going to play a role in the political department, especially not with Targaryen loyalists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Ygrain said:

I thought Heretics were supposed to be open-minded? You are adhering to a very narrow selection of outcomes.

- To stick to the very quote you have just used: what's the point of creating the mystery of Jon's parentage if you're not going to use it? Five books into the series, there needs to be a payoff.  What does being Ned's/Brandon's/Rhaegar's/whoever's bastard bring to the plot? I hope that we can agree GRRM didn't make Jon's mother a mystery just so that he had something to angst over.

Me, open-minded?  Nah, my goal is to become very close-minded.  I like trying to figure mysteries and twists out.  I’m also feeling less hopeful about the actual author spelling it out for me by finishing the series.  I do like the free flow of ideas though, mainly so I can mull them over and see if any actually convince me.

As for the purpose of the reveal, if Rhaegar is the father than I think it will have less to do with a Game of Thrones than it does Rhaegar’s belief in prophecy and his ideas about the Song of Ice and Fire.  Specifically, if Rhaegar believed in the Prince that was Promised Prophecy he also probably believes that the Battle for the Dawn was on the horizon.  My guess is Rhaegar was more concerned about that than he was creating a legitimate heir to the Iron Throne.

But I suppose as an example of my limited open mindedness, I haven’t settled on Rhaegar being the only option for Jon’s father.  But as an example of my close mindedness I have settled on only one other possibility, one which dovetails exactly into Jon’s personal beliefs about himself, about Eddard and about his place in Winterfell.

23 minutes ago, Ygrain said:

No, I'm definitely not going to argue that, I don't believe Ned would confide this to paper. There is still Howland Reed as a keeper of the truth/proof, there is a potential symbol/proof in the crypts, there is the potential involvement of the Daynes... 

But who’s going to believe the Crannogman?  The bigots in the South or the people in the North, who have specifically rejected the idea of a Targaryen rule.  

25 minutes ago, Ygrain said:

He doesn't have such support now. Have you made a survey among the lords of Westeros if they would be willing to support Rhaegar's son (especially if he rode a dragon?)

As for the Stark allies: I am quite sure they would prefer to stay alive rather than die facing the Others on their own. But even so: when the North seceded from the IT, they did not renounce the Targaryens: "Why shouldn't we rule ourselves again? It was the dragons we married, and the dragons are all dead!" 

And BTW, we don't know what the North knows or thinks about Lyanna's abduction, all we know is the official version in Ned's own household.

Well sure if Jon rode a dragon...  But then again if you ride a dragon who cares about the legality of his birth status anymore?  After all did anyone hunt down Aegon the Conqueror’s birth certificate before they bent the knee?  Dragons = Power which in turn creates legitimacy.  

So do you believe that Jon would only help fight the Others if the North made him a king on the Iron Throne?  The North has rejected the Iron Throne but they haven’t rejected the notion of a king.  They just returned the seat of the King in the North to Winterfell.  Which also happens to seat which is the object of Jon’s desire (at least before he died).  It’s a fairly simple delineation.  Dany desire is the Iron Throne.  Jon’s desire is Winterfell.  Both can currently be considered thrones in their own right.  

As for marrying the dragons, you make it sound like it was a consensual marriage.  Far from it.  The North, through Torrhen Stark submitted to avoid the fate of House Gardner.  And certainly the North renounced the Targaryens when the Targaryens tortured and killed their lord and first born son, whether or not they had doubts about Lyanna’s abduction.    I’m not sure Jon’s “Legitimacy” through a descent from King Aerys would sit too well with the Northerners.  Especially when that legitimacy would rise out of a polygamous marriage which the North, like the South, does not seem to endorse.  

There has been a lot of debate about whether Westeros accepts the idea of Targaryens having polygamous relations among themselves, but there hasn’t been a lot of talk about whether Westeros, and specifically the North in this case, would extend this acceptance to a Winterfell maiden being made a part of this practice.

49 minutes ago, Ygrain said:

Jon's story arc is also about his identity, who he is and who he wants to be.

And sorry but I disagree that Jon's main arc is about his desire to become the heir of Winterfell. He struggles with his status as a bastard and he is confronted with situations which force him to choose between the rules and the goal.

And where has it ever been written that Jon wants to be the King of Westeros?  That his identity is tied into this fictional title? 

 But there has been plenty of space written about Jon’s struggle with his place within Winterfell.  Being a bastard is a part of this internal conflict.  At times Jon was treated like he was part of the family, but at other times Jon was reminded, of his inferior position within the family.  Stannis tries to tempt Jon using Winterfell as the bait, which Jon struggles with before he rejects.  But even after this, Jon goes into a berserker rage when he recalls a childhood instance of Robb reminding Jon that he could never be Lord of Winterfell because he is a bastard.  Jon was kept away from the family table during the feast for King Robert.  A point he uses to get in Mance’s good graces.   The pink letter that ultimately drives Jon into abandoning his oath to strike out for Winterfell was addressed to “the bastard” and signed as Ramsey Bolton, the true Lord of Winterfell.

This whole arc becomes meaningless if Jon just up and forgets Winterfell and sits himself on the Iron Throne.   

1 hour ago, Ygrain said:

Did you even read what I wrote? It's not about Jon wanting to sit the throne but being chosen for the task, or taking it up as means to an end, i.e. organising the defence against the Others.

But that’s the point of this.  If Jon’s main concern was defense against the Others than he would stay as Lord Commander of the Night’s Watch.  After all wasn’t this the main part of his Oath, to defend the realm against the Others?  You don’t need to be the King to do that.  This goes into the crux of Jon’s conflict.  He knows he has a duty to the realm by staying with the Night’s Watch.  But he also has this personal connection to Winterfell that makes it hard for him to keep is Oath.  He almost broke the Oath to ride out and support Robb in his war.  He almost allowed himself to be tempted by Stannis to get him out of his Oath by the promise of making him Lord of Winterfell.  He did decide to break his oath when he received the Pink Letter which goaded him into marching to Winterfell to free it and his sister from Ramsay Bolton.

It’s taken George five books to set up this dynamic.  It’s doubtful that in two (or one?) books Jon’s story arc is suddenly going to veer into an entirely new direction.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ygrain said:

Targs are known for two things, though: their looks, and their dragons. The former doesn't apply for Jon, but the latter might still work. - And, miraculously, it would also solve the issue of "how to prove it to the majority of Westeros".

There are four precedents for bastards riding dragons changing nothing in regards how they were seen by the lords and people of Westeros. Instead, this revealed them to be evil witches, lowborn traitor scum, and scheming bastards.

The idea that a dragon might be *proof* for somebody heritage or ancestry was a good idea before we learned that this kind of thing is more likely to go wrong than right.

1 hour ago, Ygrain said:

He doesn't have such support now. Have you made a survey among the lords of Westeros if they would be willing to support Rhaegar's son (especially if he rode a dragon?)

There is such a son there - Prince Aegon. He actually looks like a Targaryen, and people will follow him with or without a dragon because actual great lords like Jon Connington (and soon the Martells) are going to vouch for him.

Jon Snow doesn't have any of that support within the Targaryen camp.

And to be sure: The dragons are going to have riders long before Jon Snow even lays eyes on one, much less mounts one. Why aren't you believing that Ben Plumm's unquestioned Targaryen ancestry is going to make him a king or pretender once/if he becomes a dragonrider? Or Tyrion or Victarion or Euron or whoever else is going to claim one of the dragons prior to Jon Snow?

And if those men don't turn into (Targaryen) pretenders to the Iron Throne because people conclude that having a dragon isn't enough - especially if said dragon is still pretty small - then why should we assume this is going to work with Jon Snow?

Or vice versa - why shouldn't any of the other dragonriders not be able to produce a similar ridiculous story of the type of the Rhaegar-Lya story? Tyrion could be the Mad King's son by Joanna Lannister. Brown Ben is descended from two Targaryen bloodlines (Aegon III's and Viserys II's branch), any other dragonrider could create a Jon Snow story by claiming that his official father wasn't his real father but that he was in fact secretly fathered by Aerys II, Jaehaerys II, or even Aegon V. They could also invent secret polygamous marriages (although I admit that this would be taking things a little bit too far...). Who is going to be able to disprove such fables if people wanted to believe them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ygrain said:

I know I've brought this up a couple of times already, but has anyone played, or at least heard about, Dragon Age: Origins? (other than from me)

There is a similar setting (actually, sort of inspired by ASOIAF): a country split by a civil war, an old threat arising, and Grey Wardens, an ancient order fighting the very threat by any means necessary. The Wardens don't meddle in politics (and don't hold lands, rarely marry and usually don't have children, either. Chastity is not required). Unfortunately, the current situation requires to push the claim of your Warden buddy, the late king's bastard, to unify the land in defence. So, you spend a part of the game garnering support for this guy who doesn't want to be king but agrees to because it is the only way, just like he is willing to sacrifice himself to keep his oath.

I can perfectly see Jon pursuing such a course not because he wants to be the king but because this position would give him the means and authority needed to achieve the main goal of the Watch; and just like in the game, I don't think it would be his own idea or that he would be happy about it.

 

 

 

Isn’t that a computer game?  I think I played one of the Dragon Age games (whether it was Origins or not I don’t know).  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ygrain said:

But they tolerated it for Targaryens, and we are talking Targaryens.

No, they looked the other way for Aegon and his sisters, their descendants encountered fierce opposition for both until Jaeharys settled the issue of incest with the Exceptionalism and polygamy were never done again.

If they would have tolerated Targ shenanigans there would've not been  any problem whatsoever.

 

 

1 hour ago, Ygrain said:

Those are not facts but your assertions. The fact is that polygamy is not currently practiced in Westeros, except by Targaryens in the past, and Wildlings. The fact is that in the main series, no-one ever rants against polygamy, nor do they comment that it is a sin like they do about incest.

No, these are facts.

Quote

In their marriage customs, as in their gods, the ironborn differ from mainland Westeros. Wherever the Faith prevails in the Seven Kingdoms, a man joins himself for life to a single wife, and a maid to but one husband.

 

Quote

The accord between the Faith and the Iron Throne continued all through the reign of Aegon I. From 11 AC to 37 AC, six High Septons wore the crystal crown; His Grace remained on good terms with each of them, calling at the Starry Sept each time he came to Oldtown. Yet the question of incestuous marriage remained, simmering below the courtesies like poison. Whilst the High Septons of King Aegon’s reign never spoke out against the king’s marriage to his sisters, neither did they declare it to be lawful. The humbler members of the Faith—village septons, holy sisters, begging brothers, Poor Fellows—still believed it sinful for brother to lie with sister, or for a man to take two wives.

 

 

The very vows of the Faith make it very explicit.

How many polygamist are in Westeros besides the wildlings who are considered odd by everyone and the Ironborn?? Incest is the main root of the series, the very plot starts with an incest affair and it's the incest affair the one that carries the plot. Incest is everywhere in Westeros, polygamy, again, simply isn't there, people don't talk about it because people simply don't engage on it.

 

It's also a fact that while polygamy was a first man custom, It suddenly disappeared with the coming of the Andals... Wonder why would that be.

 

 

1 hour ago, Ygrain said:

The fact is that in the additional materials, we have the Faith stricly against both incest and polygamy and we have both characters considering polygamy an option as well as rejecting the notion. The fact is that there is no explicit statement one way or another on the legal status of polygamy.

Nope, the fact is that we have rumours about people entertaining on the idea. The fact is that the polygamy was never regularized as the incest was and its use was only done because of dragons.

And ofc we have Jorah trying to get in Dany's pants and addresing Aegon and his sisters, not the polygamy in Westeros.

Why would Alys Harroway be called a whore if all was fine and people didn't shrug when it came to Targs??

 

Quote

1) the three dragon heads: there were four Targaryen siblings, but Orys didn't count. We from our current-day perspective would say that legalities don't matter, only blood and genes, but that would hardly be the mindset of someone raised in the Westerosi society. Therefore, if Rhaegar thought he needed three children to fulfill the prophecy, he would need the third child to be legitimate.

That's why legitimized bastards are a thing. 

Edited by frenin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Mithras said:

I will keep holding D&D in a much higher regard than random people on the internet who have not talked to George to learn his secrets.

Just because they picked R+L for Jon's parents on the show doesn't mean that's what George told them his parents are in the books. If he even told them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...