Jump to content

R + L = J v.167


Ygrain
 Share

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, frenin said:

No, these are facts.

The problem with your quotes is that you don't consider the context. You give me quotes pre-exceptionalism. You also ignore what I said above - that some people would accept polygamy, others wouldn't (and the relative of the first wife is hardly an example of an objectivity)

9 hours ago, frenin said:

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.

 

9 hours ago, frenin said:

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.

Again, the problem with quoting without actually giving it a thought. Yeah, polygamy is not done these days and the descendants of the Andals and the First Men in the Westerosi kingdoms have the same culture minus the religion. Yet, the olds gods, who don't have any priests or written doctrine, apparently were not concerned with legalities. The Wildlings, who never adopted the Southern way of life, still do polygamy, while they share the taboo on incest.

9 hours ago, frenin said:

Nope, the fact is that we have rumours about people entertaining on the idea.

If you entertain an idea, you think it's something you can go ahead with. An option.

9 hours ago, frenin said:

The fact is that the polygamy was never regularized as the incest was and its use was only done because of dragons.

I never said it was regularized, not even among the prior Targaryens. It was certainly considered unusual when Aegon did it. Unusual but possible. Which is what I say even about the later Targaryens: unusual but still possible. Without the dragons, highly problematic, but not outright impossible.

9 hours ago, frenin said:

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

That is an artificial dichotomy. Aegon and his sisters founded the kingdom and the royal lineage in Westeros, they are part of it.

9 hours ago, frenin said:

That's why legitimized bastards are a thing. 

Post-legitimizing Jon doesn't do the same for Lyanna's status, though. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Lady Anna said:

Oh btw I have a little question (that I'm sure has been debated before in this gigantic thread): won't the RLJ revelation need some kind of proof? Imagine someone says ''I was there, I saw Lyanna giving birth to Jon and Rhaegar was his father'', which yes ok, but why would people just believe this person, even if they know they were there? After all, Stannis could say Cersei's kids were her brother's but without proof, he wasn't in a strong position...(and in that case I guess there was physical proof but only Ned discovered that through the book; still some still don't believe it.....until things go wrong for the Lannisters). Now this has gotten me thinking that it's possible no one, or only a few, will believe in RLJ....interesting parallel there with Young Griff. Maybe these revelations and secrets won't matter as much as we're thinking, or in the scenarios we're devising.

Sure it has :-)

I believe Jon's parentage will be revealed through Howland Reed and/or Bran sitting on the weirnet, to people who might possess the means and/or have the will to do something about it. To sway the general opinion, if that's the way the story will go, I lean towards riding a dragon as a proof of Jon's Targ heritage. It would practically equal pulling Excalibur out of stone because Targs are the only people believed to be able to ride dragons.

Even the abomination hints at Jon riding a dragon as something huge (something like "What kind of man does that"), though the only thing they do with it is make Dany look miffed that she is not so speshul any more. And since GRRM gave them some broad strokes of what he was planning, Jon riding a dragon and people taking note might actually come from his points.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Ygrain said:

The problem with your quotes is that you don't consider the context. You give me quotes pre-exceptionalism. You also ignore what I said above - that some people would accept polygamy, others wouldn't (and the relative of the first wife is hardly an example of an objectivity)

I do consider the context but we're given no reason to infer anything changed regarding polygamy, i'm not giving you again the quotes that make clear that polygamy was never addressed in the Exceptionalism. Rest to say that, in the discussions about Exceptionalism, polygamy wasn't cited once, his own creator understood Exceptionalism as a tool that would make Westerosi accept  incest. An unlike incest, polygamy simply stopped being done after Maegor, it's almost impossible that no one wouldn't ever become a polygamist in the scenario that it was ok for them to do so.  You're not trying to prove that Exceptionalism was a game changer for polygamy, since right now that's impossible, you're assuming it had to be and that it had to affect how people saw Targaryen polygamy  and basing your whole argument in a preconceived idea, Exceptionalism regardless wouldn't work, the very tenet of Exceptionalism was the fact that the Targs rode dragons, without dragons to ride...

I didn't ignore what you said above, in the text it's made clear that people were terified of Aegon and her sisters but were determined to keep his descendants in check and unlike Maegor, Aegon and his sisters, Rhaegar has no stick to bully people around, there is no reason for them to consider it ok. And while incest is the main political question in Westeros thanks to Cersei and Jaime, no one has been a polygamist in the mainland for 250 years, what are the odds that people are going to address a practice that it's simply not done anymore?? You said that some people would be ok with it but you fail to answer why. Why would be your average Riverlord, Stormlord or Valelord be ok with it, polygamy is a sin on their eyes and a sin that benefits them in anything, so there is less reason for them to look the other way. 

The relative of the first wife wasn't the only one calling Alys Harroway a whore, it was a very widespread term, nor is Maegor's actions less of a sin because the High Septon may have a reason to be biased.

 

6 hours ago, Ygrain said:

Again, the problem with quoting without actually giving it a thought. Yeah, polygamy is not done these days and the descendants of the Andals and the First Men in the Westerosi kingdoms have the same culture minus the religion. Yet, the olds gods, who don't have any priests or written doctrine, apparently were not concerned with legalities. The Wildlings, who never adopted the Southern way of life, still do polygamy, while they share the taboo on incest.

I thought we were giving facts, when i give you my thoughts, you call them assertions and the play continues again and again.

Customs are influenced by religion and religion is influenced by customs, they are communicating vessels, what the wildlings do and what the first men did a millenia ago is not relevant to the topic, they would not be judged by the First Men of old nor beyond the wall, the wildlings customs are not the first men nor they are a good example and the first men did a lot of awful things that stopped being done with the coming of the Andals,  now, the first men are against polygamy. I don't consider that the first men see  no problem with slavery now just because they once did, even when we have Jorah as counterargument.

 

6 hours ago, Ygrain said:

I never said it was regularized, not even among the prior Targaryens. It was certainly considered unusual when Aegon did it. Unusual but possible. Which is what I say even about the later Targaryens: unusual but still possible. Without the dragons, highly problematic, but not outright impossible.

Outright impossible i would say, the Targs didn't regularize incest either until Jaeharys, i doubt they would've gotten away with murder without Maegor and Balerion, now they don't even have dragons to bully people, nor the people have any reason to accept polygamy.

 

6 hours ago, Ygrain said:

That is an artificial dichotomy. Aegon and his sisters founded the kingdom and the royal lineage in Westeros, they are part of it.

And what does that to say about how polygamy is viewed these days?? Because we know for a fact that Aegon his sisters were allowed to do a number of things that his descendants had to spill blood for.

 

6 hours ago, Ygrain said:

If you entertain an idea, you think it's something you can go ahead with. An option.

A fantasy i would say, like Jaime marrying Cersei  and people being nonchalant or Aerion believing he would become a dragon by drinking wildfire.

There is a pretty big difference between letting your fantasies take control of you and said fantasies being viable. I can entertain with the idea of being able to fly, that doesn't change the outcome if i were to jump from a tenth floor.

 

6 hours ago, Ygrain said:

Post-legitimizing Jon doesn't do the same for Lyanna's status, though. 

A sham of a marriage does very little to Lyanna status, a marriage only recognized by Jon Connington is hardly a step up, if he was so worried about her, the annulment or setting Elia aside is the course to take. It's not like Dorne would continue to support him without encouragement so...

Edited by frenin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Lady Anna said:

Sure he's never said who she is publicly (why would he just say it) but the showrunners knew. Since they said they got it right, and George says they got it right, and we all know what transpired in the show, it's a logical inference. It seems clear to me. But I see you disagree, that's fine.

Everyone is welcome to think what they want. The problem arises when they try to elevate non canon to the level of or above canon. What D&D did on the show has literally zero bearing on the books. It doesn't matter if George really told them Jon's mother or not. It doesn't mean his book mother is Lyanna just because the show did that. The show cannot be used to reliably construct book theories. 

The whole "Well doesn't it make sense, though?" angle doesn't hold any water either. In this case there isn't a single word in the 5 published books that requires Lyanna to be Jon's mother. Or for Rhaegar to be his father, for that matter. 

The very idea that Jon's father is a mystery in the books is itself only a fan theory. And it's a fan theory that doesn't have a single word of support in the 5 published books. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, QhorinQuarterhand said:

Everyone is welcome to think what they want. The problem arises when they try to elevate non canon to the level of or above canon. What D&D did on the show has literally zero bearing on the books. It doesn't matter if George really told them Jon's mother or not. It doesn't mean his book mother is Lyanna just because the show did that. The show cannot be used to reliably construct book theories. 

The whole "Well doesn't it make sense, though?" angle doesn't hold any water either. In this case there isn't a single word in the 5 published books that requires Lyanna to be Jon's mother. Or for Rhaegar to be his father, for that matter. 

The very idea that Jon's father is a mystery in the books is itself only a fan theory. And it's a fan theory that doesn't have a single word of support in the 5 published books. 

I thought you said you wanted to discuss the "canon text." 

 

In Eddard XII, Ned thinks to himself and lists all of his children by name in the order they were born:

Quote

If it came to that, the life of some child I did not know, against Robb and Sansa and Arya and Bran and Rickon, what would I do? Even more so, what would Catelyn do, if it were Jon’s life, against the children of her body? He did not know. He prayed he never would.

yet Jon's name is not in that list. Why isn't Jon's name in that list?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/30/2020 at 12:02 AM, QhorinQuarterhand said:

George never did anything but smile. If he even did that. Since this isn't George's words. It's D&Ds. The name Lyanna was never even mentioned. George DID NOT confirm that Lyanna is Jon's mother. Just because they went that way in the show doesn't mean Lyanna is Jon's mother in the books. 

Anyone who knows English and watches the interview I quoted can see that Kimmel asks whether the mother is the same in the books and D&D confirm that it is. Both in this interview and in others, D&D tell that they answered correctly when GRRM asked them Jon's mother. GRRM himself told that they were right.

What you do is the ASOIAF equivalent of being a borderline flat-earther. There is no point of debating with you if you don't accept 2+2 equals 4.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's the whole point of Jon being Rhaegar's son? Isn't it for him to become the King of 7K?

If Jon isn't going to become the King of 7K, then it's not necessary for him to be Rhaegar's and Lyanna's child. Because with the same outcome - not a King - he can be the son of Ned and Ashara, or Ned and Wylla, or Ned and fisherman's daughter, or Brandon and Ashara, or Brandon and Lyanna. No?

Dany won't marry with a bastard. Based on her seeing Quentyn Martell, who was a Prince of Dorne, as not good enough for her. If Jon is a bastard, then he is further in line of inheritance than Dany, even though he is a son of the Crown Prince and she is the ex-King's third child and a daughter. If Jon is a bastard, then even Rhaego is before Jon in the inheritance line of Targaryens. Not a match for Dany.

And Dany, not marrying with Jon, would be the same as if in the end of The Lord of the Rings Arwen didn't married with Aragorn. With whom else, if not with him?

Dany, getting married with fAegon, is the same as if Arwen married with an ork. The same! Targaryens are like good guys from LOTR, and Blackfyres are like LOTR's bad guys - Sauron, Saruman, Necromancers, orks, trolls and goblins. fAegon, who is a Blackfyre, is an "ork" of ASOIAF -  an instrument of Varys/ASOIAF's Sauron. No?

What would be your reaction if in the end of LOTR Aragorn didn't became the King of Gondor, and instead went to continue ranging under alias the Strider, while Arwen married with one of the bad guys, or with some random guy?

Dany won't marry with a bastard. And she won't marry with an oathbreaker. People of 7K won't accept an oathbreaker and a deserter as their King. No?

Thus, for Jon there should be some sort of legal exit out of the Night's Watch. No? Isn't there any way for him to leave NW without becoming an oathbreaker?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Ygrain said:

Let me correct: a lot of people are aware that the Westerosi nobility is very concerned about the fundament importance of a legal legitimacy. Therefore, we assume that Rhaegar most likely would have, as well.

Nah.  Legal legitimacy was an important tool for the peaceful transfer of power.  Neither the Westerosi lords nor their Targaryen overlords would want to have warfare every time a king died.  So rules were generated to allow for a peaceful transfer.  When there was a dispute a great council was called to once again try to avoid warfare.

That ship has sailed in the books.  None of the nobility have any vested interest in championing Jon Snow’s cause just because he may have a dubious claim to be Rhaegar’s “legal” heir.  And it doesn’t appear that the Lannisters will peacefully give up power because of a claim that Jon Snow is the “legal” son of Rhaegar.  Nor does it appear likely that Dany will give up her ambition to take the Iron Throne over a claim that Jon is the son of Rhaegar, just like it is doubtful that she will give up her ambitions to Young Griff for the same claim.

And to show what a fiction all this is, we have to look no further than the Blackfyre rebellion.  Ser Eustace makes it clear that in an armed conflict for power legitimacy is determined by the victors not the losers:

Quote

Treason ... is only a word.  When two princes fight for a chair where only one may sit, great lords and common men alike must choose.  And when the battle’s done, the victors will be hailed as loyal men and true, whilst those who were defeated will be known forevermore as rebels and traitors.  That was my fate.”

Egg thought about it for a time.  “Yes, my lord.  Only ... King Daeron was a good man.  Why would you choose Daemon?”

”Daeron...” Ser Eustace almost slurred the word, and Dunk realized he was half-drunk.  “Daeron was spindly and round of shoulder, with a little belly that wobbled when he walked.  Daemon stood straight and proud, and his stomach was flat and hard as an oaken shield.  And he could fight.  With axe or lance or flail, he was as good as any knight I ever saw, but with the sword he was the warrior himself.  When Prince Daemon had Blackfyre in his hand, there was not a man to equal him ... not Ultrick Dayne with Dawn, no, nor even the Dragonknight with Dark Sister.”

...

”Why, lad? You ask me why?  Because Daemon was the better man.  The old king saw it too.  He gave the sword to Daemon.  Blackfyre, the sword of Aegon the Conqueror, the blade that every Targaryen king had wielded since the Conquest ... he put that sword in Daemon’s hand the day he knight him, a boy of twelve.”

”My father says that was because Daemon was a swordsman, and Daeron never was,” said Egg.  “Why give a horse to a man who cannot ride?  The sword was not the kingdom, he says.”

The old knight’s hand jerked so hard that wine spilled from his silver cup.  “Your father is a fool.”

And there you have it.  The Blackfyre was a rebellion that deep down happened because a number of the nobles were dissatisfied with Daeron Targaryen.  When push came to shove, a number of them wanted a change.  So they seized on someone who had the right look, and had the right sword, and promised a change from the status quos.  All the talk of Daeron’s legitimacy was all window dressing.  That’s not why wars are fought.  Legal legitimacy goes out the window when the swords come out.  

If there is going to be warfare over the throne, it won’t be a dubious claim to be Rhaegar’s child that the lords are going to seize upon.  They are going to seize upon the person that can best give their side the chance to win, and the person that shares their interests.  

This is why Young Griff is being used by Illyrio and Varys to gain power.  He’s got the right look, to try to inspire the lords and commoners alike who pine for the days of the dragon kings to return.  Actual “true” legitimacy takes a back seat to giving the people whether they be lords or commoners what they want.  They will believe he is the rightful heir to the throne because they want to believe he is the rightful heir to the throne.

Which is why this argument to try and make Jon the “legitimate” heir to the throne is so silly.  If the Lords and the commoners decide that Jon is the best person to advance to take over the Iron Throne than it doesn’t matter what his legal legitimacy is.  Likewise if Jon has a dragon than it doesn’t matter what Jon’s legitimacy is. Jon having the dragon can both be useful in a war and in inspiring the people to believe that Jon should sit on the Iron Throne.  To go one step further and try to contort a polygamous “legitimacy” to Jon’s person is unnecessary.  And kind of defeats the whole purpose of this series.

Which is why I’m so dumbfounded that so many people on this board are so concerned with Jon’s legal legitimacy to be king.  How you don’t realize at this point that when push comes to shove it’s all fictitious nonsense.  It’s almost like you’ve decided that Jon Snow’s true importance as a character is tied into the fact that he be legally entitled to sit on the Iron Throne.  Utter nonsense.

  And it also seems fairly presumptuous to assume that Rhaegar is playing the same game of thrones that the other nobles are playing.  We certainly can’t take the lesson from other nobility and attribute it to Rhaegar.  Because Rhaegar has an objective that the other nobility do not have, an obsession with prophecy.  

9 hours ago, Ygrain said:

Funny, I was just thinking I should edit this bit into my previous post - a public act that convinces everyone that XY is the king's heir. Kinda like riding a dragon.

Yes, that’s my point.  Your parents don’t have to have had a “legally binding” marriage contract for a character to ride a dragon.  Riding a dragon is an optic that people whether they be lords or commoners can rally behind.  And practically speaking it can be useful to kill a lot of people opposing you.  Presumably it wouldn’t matter whether Lyanna and Rhaegar “legally married” to allow Jon Snow to ride a dragon.  Either he can or he can’t.  Do you think the dragon is going to demand to see his birth certificate or his parents marriage license?

 King Arthur was not legally legitimate.   But Arthur fulfilled the prophecy nonetheless.  

No one truly believed or cared about Daemon’s legal right to the throne.  But enough people equated the symbol of Blackfyre with the “true” Targaryen kings to rally behind this symbol.  

9 hours ago, Ygrain said:

Then you're missing crucial information. When the Wildlings are being let behind the Wall, there is Ygon Oldfather, who has eighteen wives. No-one ever comments, just like they don't comment on Craster's many wives, other than that they are his daughters (and BTW, no-one thinks they are not wives).

As our friend @frenin kindly quoted above, the First Men did polygamy. Seems like old gods don't really care.

Ah, silly me how could I forget Ygon Oldfather?  Let me clear something up.  The Old Gods probably don’t give a whit about incest or polygamy.  Craster could very well be right, that he’s a godly man because he gives his inbred sacrifices to the Old Gods.  

That doesn’t mean that the more civilized North is going to go along with it.  Nor does it mean that this encompasses how they see their religion.  Ygon Oldfather or Craster’s polygamy doesn’t mean that a polygamous marriage with a Stark girl is going to be considered acceptable or legitimate in the North.  The old gods may not care but that doesn’t mean the Northerners don’t care.  

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

58 minutes ago, Megorova said:

Dany won't marry with a bastard. Based on her seeing Quentyn Martell, who was a Prince of Dorne, as not good enough for her.

Meh, Dany found my poor Q ugly, had it been Oberyn the one being sent, i doubt she would've thought it too much.

 

Quote

What's the whole point of Jon being Rhaegar's son? Isn't it for him to become the King of 7K?

If Jon isn't going to become the King of 7K, then it's not necessary for him to be Rhaegar's and Lyanna's child. Because with the same outcome - not a King - he can be the son of Ned and Ashara, or Ned and Wylla, or Ned and fisherman's daughter, or Brandon and Ashara, or Brandon and Lyanna. No?

It's a very nice twist and in the early idea, it served the purpose of getting Arya and Jon together without Martin having to throw up, why did he think that people raising as siblings banging was somehow more okey is a question for another day.

 

The rest, I have never read the Lord if the Rings, but i shipped Aragorn and the blonde one in the movies so...

Asoiaf is not Tolkien world so, what's the point??

Edited by frenin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

King Arthur was not legally legitimate.   But Arthur fulfilled the prophecy nonetheless.  

To fulfill the prophecy about Azor Ahai Reborn Jon has to be the Prince of Dragonstone. And if Jon is a bastard, then he isn't the Prince of Dragonstone, and thus not the Prince that was Promised. If he is a bastard, then he is not a Prince at all. -> Orys Baratheon wasn't a Prince, Daemon Blackfyre wasn't a Prince, neither was Bloodraven.

In case with ASOIAF "legal legitimacy" does matter. Stannis was the Prince of Dragonstone, because people didn't knew about Jon's existence (that he is Rhaegar's legitimate son, and thus - the Prince of Dragonstone). Melisandre thought that Stannis is Azor Ahai Reborn and the Prince that was Promised, because he was an official Prince of Dragonstone.

Who is Azor Ahai Reborn and the Prince that was Promised? -> It's the Prince of Dragonstone.

And for Jon to be that, he supposed to be legitimate and not a bastard, otherwise he doesn't fit into the prophecy's parameters. All Arthur had to do, is to draw Excalibur from stone. Azor Ahai is supposed to do much more than just to wield Lightbringer. He has to be a Prince, he has to be born under the bleeding stars, he has to awake dragons from stone. That's why there are several AA-reborn, and all of them (Jon, Dany, Rhaego) are legitimate children of their parents, born in marriage, two Princes and a Princess.

Edited by Megorova
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Megorova said:

To fulfill the prophecy about Azor Ahai Reborn Jon has to be the Prince of Dragonstone. And if Jon is a bastard, then he isn't the Prince of Dragonstone, and thus not the Prince that was Promised. If he is a bastard, then he is not a Prince at all. -> Orys Baratheon wasn't a Prince, Daemon Blackfyre wasn't a Prince, neither was Bloodraven.

In case with ASOIAF "legal legitimacy" does matter. Stannis was the Prince of Dragonstone, because people didn't knew about Jon's existence (that he is Rhaegar's legitimate son, and thus - the Prince of Dragonstone). Melisandre thought that Stannis is Azor Ahai Reborn and the Prince that was Promised, because he was an official Prince of Dragonstone.

Who is Azor Ahai Reborn and the Prince that was Promised? -> It's the Prince of Dragonstone.

And for Jon to be that, he supposed to be legitimate and not a bastard, otherwise he doesn't fit into the prophecy's parameters. All Arthur had to do, is to draw Excalibur from stone. Azor Ahai is supposed to do much more than just to wield Lightbringer. He has to be a Prince, he has to be born under the bleeding stars, he has to awake dragons from stone. That's why there are several AA-reborn, and all of them (Jon, Dany, Rhaego) are legitimate children of their parents, born in marriage, two Princes and a Princess.

Nah, Azor Ahai reborn just has to be reborn in salt and smoke.  Doesn’t say anything about having to be the Prince of Dragonstone.  

Besides if we’re merely looking into what Rhaegar believed, he already believed that his son Aegon was the Prince that was Promised.

To argue that to fulfill a prophecy you have to be legally legitimate is silly.  And if you believe that Jon was the legal son of Rhaegar than he was never a prince to begin with.  He would have been born a king, no?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, frenin said:

It's a very nice twist and in the early idea, it served the purpose of getting Arya and Jon together without Martin having to throw up, why did he think that people raising as siblings banging was somehow more okey is a question for another day.

Why was it Ok for Aegon to be married with his two sister-wives, for Aerys to be married with his sister Rhaella, but for Jon and Arya to get together, there was supposed to be made an excuse that they are not closely bloodrelated, for GRRM to get them together? Isn't that kind of double standards?

He wrote Aegon+Visenya+Rhaenys, then why in Jon's case to write some sort of incomprehensive twist? That doesn't make any sense. There was no need for that sort of excuses. Thus, Jon not being Ned's son, had nothing to do with GRRM's further plans for him and Arya.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, frenin said:

Meh, Dany found my poor Q ugly, had it been Oberyn the one being sent, i doubt she would've thought it too much.

 

It's a very nice twist and in the early idea, it served the purpose of getting Arya and Jon together without Martin having to throw up, why did he think that people raising as siblings banging was somehow more okey is a question for another day.

 

The rest, I have never read the Lord if the Rings, but i shipped Aragorn and the blonde one in the movies so...

Martin seems to have a fascination with love triangles.  And this isn’t the first time he’s written about a polygamous relationship.  It’s just that his love triangles and polygamous relationships usually involve two males and one female.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

To argue that to fulfill a prophecy you have to be legally legitimate is silly.  And if you believe that Jon was the legal son of Rhaegar than he was never a prince to begin with.  He would have been born a king, no?

No, he would have remained the Prince of Dragonstone, until his 16th name day, and until then 7K would have been ruled by a Regent or a Council of Regents. Real world uses term - King-in-Waiting, but GRRM in ASOIAF is using - the Prince of Dragonstone. In other fantasy fiction, written before GRRM, if there was a son of a dead King, and that son was a child, then he remained a Prince until his maturity. For example, in the Realm of the Elderlings by Robin Hobb, 1995-2017. Jon would have remained the Crown Prince/the Prince of Dragonstone until his coronation. He's not a King if he wasn't crowned.

18 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

Besides if we’re merely looking into what Rhaegar believed, he already believed that his son Aegon was the Prince that was Promised.

Rhaegar incorrectly interpreted omens given in the prophecy. "Aegon's comet" of 281 wasn't the bleeding star from the prophecy. It's "Rhaego's comet", which is an omen of the Prince's birth - The Bleeding Star comet. Rhaegar, maester Aemon, maester Marwyn, Shiera Seastar, and Varys thought that that comet was a sign of the Promised Prince, and thus they all thought that their Aegon/fAegon is the Promised Prince.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Megorova said:

Why was it Ok for Aegon to be married with his two sister-wives, for Aerys to be married with his sister Rhaella, but for Jon and Arya to get together, there was supposed to be made an excuse that they are not closely bloodrelated, for GRRM to get them together? Isn't that kind of double standards?

I don't consider it ok, just something that happens, just like real life incest. I doubt that many people see the Bourbons or Habsburgs as great. Inbreed isn't a nice term.

Since the Targs are just that weird i don't dwelve in that, but others doing it, it's kind of revolting.

 

14 minutes ago, Megorova said:

He wrote Aegon+Visenya+Rhaenys, then why in Jon's case to write some sort of incomprehensive twist?

I don't really follow you here.

 

16 minutes ago, Megorova said:

There was no need for that sort of excuses. Thus, Jon not being Ned's son, had nothing to do with GRRM's further plans for him and Arya.

Jon and Arya were atracted to each other but only got together once they knew they were cousins instead of siblings. People don't like to bang the siblings, even in Martin's world.

 

 

7 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

Martin seems to have a fascination with love triangles.  And this isn’t the first time he’s written about a polygamous relationship.  It’s just that his love triangles and polygamous relationships usually involve two males and one female.

Is that so?? I hadn't realized.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Megorova said:

No, he would have remained the Prince of Dragonstone, until his 16th name day, and until then 7K would have been ruled by a Regent or a Council of Regents. Real world uses term - King-in-Waiting, but GRRM in ASOIAF is using - the Prince of Dragonstone. In other fantasy fiction, written before GRRM, if there was a son of a dead King, and that son was a child, then he remained a Prince until his maturity. For example, in the Realm of the Elderlings by Robin Hobb, 1995-2017. Jon would have remained the Crown Prince/the Prince of Dragonstone until his coronation. He's not a King if he wasn't crowned.

Rhaegar incorrectly interpreted omens given in the prophecy. "Aegon's comet" of 281 wasn't the bleeding star from the prophecy. It's "Rhaego's comet", which is an omen of the Prince's birth - The Bleeding Star comet. Rhaegar, maester Aemon, maester Marwyn, Shiera Seastar, and Varys thought that that comet was a sign of the Promised Prince, and thus they all thought that their Aegon/fAegon is the Promised Prince.

Why are you calling Rhaegar’s son fAegon?  

The prophecy doesn’t state that one has to be the Prince of Dragonstone.  In fact such a notion didn’t exist when the prophecy was written.  

How do you know Rhaegar incorrectly interpreted the omens?  How do we know that his son Aegon wasn’t/isn’t the Prince that was Promised?

How do you know that Aegon’s Comet isn’t the same comet as Rhaego’s comet?  After all comets tend to come back around after a certain time.

Why does Jon have to be the Prince that was Promised?  I mean is it Dany or Jon?  Both can’t be the Prince/Princess of Dragonstone at the same time.  Under your logic you have to choose.

I think you’re just being silly on purpose.

ETA: You still haven’t answered where in the prophecy it says the savior has to be the prince of Dragonstone.

 

 

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

8 minutes ago, frenin said:

Is that so?? I hadn't realized.

Yea, he wrote about one in Dying of the Light.  A male dominant with one male subservient (kind of) and one female subservient.  It was complicated.

ETA: and yes under their societal rules they were all legally, umm married.  GRRM didn’t really give a flattering light to the relationship.  But I guess that’s kind of open to debate.

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

5 hours ago, lehutin said:

I thought you said you wanted to discuss the "canon text." 

 

In Eddard XII, Ned thinks to himself and lists all of his children by name in the order they were born:

yet Jon's name is not in that list. Why isn't Jon's name in that list?

Incorrect. Ned listed all of his children but Jon. 

“No,” Jon Snow said quietly. “It was not courage. This one was dead of fear. You could see it in his eyes, Stark.” Jon’s eyes were a grey so dark they seemed almost black, but there was little they did not see. He was of an age with Robb, but they did not look alike. Jon was slender where Robb was muscular, dark where Robb was fair, graceful and quick where his half brother was strong and fast.


Robb was not impressed. “The Otherstake his eyes,” he swore. “He died well. Race you to the bridge?”
“Done,” Jon said, kicking his horse forward. Robb cursed and followed, and they galloped off down the trail, Robb laughing and hooting, Jon silent and intent. The hooves of their horses kicked up showers of snow as they went.
Bran did not try to follow. His pony could not keep up.  He had seen the ragged man’s eyes, and he was thinking of them now. After a while, the sound of Robb’s laughter receded, and the woods grew silent again.
So deep in thought was he that he never heard the rest of the party until his father moved up to ride beside him. “Are you well, Bran?” he asked, not unkindly.
“Yes, Father,” Bran told him. He looked up. Wrapped in his furs and leathers, mounted on his great warhorse, his lord father loomed over him like a giant. “Robb says the man died bravely, but Jon says he was afraid.”
“What do you think?” his father asked.
Bran thought about it. “Can a man still be brave if he’s afraid?”
“That is the only time a man can be brave,” his father told him. “Do you understand why I did it?”
“He was a wildling,” Bran said. “They carry off women and sell them to the Others.”
His lord father smiled. “Old Nan hasbeen telling you stories again. In truth, the man was an oathbreaker, a deserter from the Night’s Watch. No man is more dangerous. The deserter knows his life is forfeit if he is taken, so he will not flinch from any crime, no matter how vile. But you mistake me. The question was not why the man had to die, but why I must do it.”
Bran had no answer for that. “King Robert has a headsman,” he said, uncertainly.
“He does,” his father admitted. “As did the Targaryen kings before him. Yet our way is the older way. The blood of the First Men still flows in the veins of the Starks, and we hold to the belief that the man who passes the sentence should swing the sword. If you would take a man’s life, you owe it to him to look into his eyes and hear his final words. And if you cannot bear to do that, then perhaps the man does not deserve to die.
“One day, Bran, you will be Robb’s bannerman, holding a keep of your own for your brother and your king, and justice will fall to you. When that day comes, you must take no pleasure in the task, but neither must you look away. A ruler who hides behind paid executioners soon forgets what death is.”
That was when Jon reappeared on the crest of the hill before them. He waved and shouted down at them. “Father,  Bran,come quickly, see what Robb has found!” Then he was gone again.
Jory rode up beside them. “Trouble, my lord?”
“Beyond a doubt,” his lord father said. “Come, let us see what mischief my sons have rooted out now.” He sent his horse into a trot. Jory and Bran and the rest came after.
They found Robb on the riverbank north of the bridge, with Jon still mounted beside him. The late summer snows had been heavy this moonturn. Robb stood knee-deep in white, his hood pulled back so the sun shone in his hair. He was cradling something in his arm, while the boys talked in hushed, excited voices.
The riders picked their way carefully through the drifts, groping for solid footing on the hidden, uneven ground. Jory Cassel and Theon Greyjoy were the first to reach the boys.

No amount of twisting this text can change the fact that Ned referred to Jon as his son in Bran I.

The idea that Jon isn't Ned's son because Ned never referred to him as son is a non starter. It's nothing more than fan fiction. 

The idea that Jon isn't Ned's son because Ned left him off a list of his children is a non starter. It's nothing more than fan fiction. That quote you provided does not exist in a vacuum. 

Edited by QhorinQuarterhand
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, QhorinQuarterhand said:

No amount of twisting this text can change the fact that Ned referred to Jon as his son in Bran I.

So I asked you about Eddard XII, which involves Ned's thoughts; and your response is to deflect and dodge and talk about Bran I, which involves Ned's speech?

 

I'll gladly respond to your deflection about Bran I. After you answer my question. In Eddard XII (not Bran I), when Ned lists and names all of his children in the order they were born, why is Jon Snow's name not on that list?

6 minutes ago, QhorinQuarterhand said:

The idea that Jon isn't Ned's son because Ned left him off a list of his children is a non starter. It's nothing more than fan fiction. That quote you provided does not exist in a vacuum.

Indeed, it doesn't exist in a vacuum. But the context is not Bran I. The context is what did Cersei ask Ned?

Quote

You love your children, do you not?

That's it. Cersei didn't place any restrictions on Ned's children. She didn't say that they had to be trueborn, and she didn't say that they had to be Ned's children with Catelyn.

 

So why in Ned's own thoughts, does he name and list all of his children in the order they were born

Quote

Robb, Sansa, Arya, Bran, and Rickon

without Jon?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

Which is why I’m so dumbfounded that so many people on this board are so concerned with Jon’s legal legitimacy to be king.  How you don’t realize at this point that when push comes to shove it’s all fictitious nonsense.  It’s almost like you’ve decided that Jon Snow’s true importance as a character is tied into the fact that he be legally entitled to sit on the Iron Throne.  Utter nonsense.

Because you either suck at reading comprehension, or simply don't want to see what people mean. You keep arguing points that no-one made, and even throw back at me arguments that I made myself.

Quote

  And it also seems fairly presumptuous to assume that Rhaegar is playing the same game of thrones that the other nobles are playing.  We certainly can’t take the lesson from other nobility and attribute it to Rhaegar.  Because Rhaegar has an objective that the other nobility do not have, an obsession with prophecy.  

No-one ever claimed that Rhaegar was playing game of thrones. What I said is that a person raised in a certain culture automatically thinks in the confines and categories constructed by that culture. Westerosi culture is obsessed with legitimacy, therefore it is highly likely that Rhaegar as a product of this culture would seek the ways to make his relationship with Lyanna as well as their offspring legitimate. We are given examples of this way of thinking time and again, we are given moral norms through the Westerosi lens, we are given a certain insight into Rhaegar's character. Based on these, we are trying to deduce what Rhaegar would have done and why. Not because of some "Jon needs to sit the IT!" preconceived BS

Quote

Yes, that’s my point.  Your parents don’t have to have had a “legally binding” marriage contract for a character to ride a dragon.  Riding a dragon is an optic that people whether they be lords or commoners can rally behind.  And practically speaking it can be useful to kill a lot of people opposing you.  Presumably it wouldn’t matter whether Lyanna and Rhaegar “legally married” to allow Jon Snow to ride a dragon.  Either he can or he can’t.  Do you think the dragon is going to demand to see his birth certificate or his parents marriage license?

Which is what I said. The common perception among the people of Westeros, though, would be a stamp of legitimacy, of being a true Targ.

Quote

 King Arthur was not legally legitimate.   But Arthur fulfilled the prophecy nonetheless.  

Arthur's prophecy neither people interpreting it were from high feudalism era obsessed with legitimacy and lineages.

Quote

Ah, silly me how could I forget Ygon Oldfather?  Let me clear something up.  The Old Gods probably don’t give a whit about incest or polygamy.  Craster could very well be right, that he’s a godly man because he gives his inbred sacrifices to the Old Gods.  

Are you sure you have read the same books as the rest of us? Or even the posts in this thread? 

" incest was a monstrous sin to both old gods and new"

First Men did polygamy but not incest. Wildlings do polygamy but not incest. Incest is forbidden by the old gods. Polygamy is not. The North abandoned the custom but does not put it on the level of incest.

Quote

That doesn’t mean that the more civilized North is going to go along with it.  Nor does it mean that this encompasses how they see their religion.  Ygon Oldfather or Craster’s polygamy doesn’t mean that a polygamous marriage with a Stark girl is going to be considered acceptable or legitimate in the North.  The old gods may not care but that doesn’t mean the Northerners don’t care.  

You're leaving out one great factor - how the marriage was officiated. If they said the words before weirwood, the vow is binding. That would create quite a conundrum: having more than one wife is not OK but the vow is binding, so what next? Does the North remember the ways of their ancestors? Does it matter that the marriage with Elia was officiated only in the sept? And what did I say on multiple occasions? - That some people would accept it, some would not.

 

Edited by Ygrain
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...