Jump to content

R + L = J v.167


Ygrain
 Share

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Mithras said:

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.

Typical Faith Militant BS. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, lehutin said:

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?

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

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

without Jon?

Yikes. Typical Faith Militant BS. Twist and twist and twist. Never admit RLJ is wrong. Have fun with your fan fiction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, QhorinQuarterhand said:

Yikes. Typical Faith Militant BS. Twist and twist and twist. Never admit RLJ is wrong. Have fun with your fan fiction.

I thought you wanted to talk about the "canon text"? It took what, 10 minutes before you folded? No problem. Before I add you to my ignore list, let me point out why your Bran I dodge to my question is so laughably bad.

 

The "canon text" confirms that Ned lies! So just because he says something doesn't make it true. Under your "logic," Ned planned to murder Joffrey and believes that Joffrey is Robert's heir because he said so in Arya V:

Quote

“I swore to defend and protect his children, yet before his blood was cold, I plotted to depose and murder his son and seize the throne for myself. Let the 

High Septon and Baelor the Beloved and the Seven bear witness to the truth of what I say: Joffrey Baratheon is the one true heir to the Iron Throne, and by the grace of all the gods, Lord of the Seven Kingdoms and Protector of the Realm.”

But of course we know those statements are lies that Ned made in an attempt to save Sansa's life. Ned never tried murder Joffrey, and Joffrey isn't Robert's son.

 

We also know from Eddard XIII that that isn't Ned's first lie either:

Quote

So Ned bent his head and wrote, but where the king had said “my son Joffrey,” he scrawled “my heir” instead. The deceit made him feel soiled. The lies we tell for love, he thought. May the gods forgive me.

And we also know from Arya II that Ned admits to at least one of his own children that he lies:

Quote

“We all lie,” her father said. “Or did you truly think I’d believe that Nymeria ran off?”

...

“It was right,” her father said. “And even the lie was … not 

without honor.”

All of this is to point out something that should be obvious to anyone who self-righteously bleats about the "canon text": Ned (sometimes) lies. So just because he calls Jon his "son" in public doesn't mean Jon is his son.

 

I'm not surprised that you couldn't answer the question, but I am disappointed that your best response was "Ned called Jon his son in public." Sheesh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We really need to get back to the core of the whole issue, without getting it bogged down in the details.

If two people want to be together and their families do not consent, the centuries, even millenia, old recipe is to make off, marry in secret, return when the girl gets pregnant and beg forgiveness. If Rhaegar was single, no-one would ever dispute that this is the way to go.

However, Rhaegar's married status muddies the waters - but oh, gosh, what a bloody coincidence that just the one guy who would find it handy has a family tradition of polygamy. So he might actually try and go down this route if he thinks it necessary and that he might get away with it - and oh, my, he is the superpopular prince charming who has just found out his wife cannot give him the third child he believes he needs, what a yet another bloody coincidence.

I just don't believe in such coincidences. 

Now, remind me again: why did GRRM make the founding father of the royal dynasty polygamous?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, frenin said:
25 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.

For Aegon it was Ok to bang TWO of his sisters, so why wouldn't it be Ok for Jon to hook up with Arya, even though he thought that they were half-siblings, and were raised together? Aegon also was raised together with his sisters. Why to incorporate double standards, why to write some special excuse specifically for Jon, when GRRM's other characters didn't needed any excuses to bang whoever they wanted? Aegon and his sisters, other Targaryens and their spouses-siblings, Cersei and Jaime. Doesn't make a lot of sense to make a special case only with Jon's story.

Thus, Jon, not being Ned's bastard, wasn't written just for the sake of him getting together with Arya. Because if GRRM wanted those two to get together, then it wasn't necessary for them not to be half-siblings. Even if Jon was Ned's bastard, that wouldn't have stopped GRRM from writing Jon's love-story with Arya. Because that sort of little things didn't stopped him from Aegon+Visenya+Rhaenys, Aerys+Rhaella, Rhaenyra+Daeron, Bloodraven+Shiera, etc.

14 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

Why are you calling Rhaegar’s son fAegon?  

I'm calling Young Griff fAegon. I meant both of them as incorrectly identified as the Promised Prince - Rhaegar's Aegon and Varys' fAegon. Blackfyres/Varys/Illyrio/Golden Company think that their fAegon, who was conceived on the day of "Aegon's comet", is the Promised Prince, that he is destined to rule, destined to win where all other Blackfyres failed, destined to win Iron Throne. They think so because of that comet, that they incorrectly interpreted as the Promised Prince's omen, making the same mistake as Rhaegar did. Rhaegar's Aegon wasn't the Promised Prince, and neither is fAegon. That was the wrong comet.

24 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

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.  

Nevertheless Melisandre came from Asshai to Dragonstone, to Stannis, who was the Prince of Dragonstone, absolutely sure that he is Azor Ahai and the Promised Prince, because that's what R'hllor showed her - his champion is the Prince of Dragonstone. And, because Melisandre didn't knew about Jon's existence, she was sure that Stannis is the one for whom she was looking.

28 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

How do you know Rhaegar incorrectly interpreted the omens?

He was wrong, when he thought that he is the Promised Prince. He is dead, thus it's not him.

He was wrong, when he thought that Elia's Aegon is the Promised Prince. He's also dead.

He was wrong, when he thought that his three children (Rhaenys, Aegon, and one more child) are three heads of the dragon. Rhaenys and Aegon are dead, and even though the last of his children is indeed one of the three dragon heads, the other two are not Rhaegar's children. It's Dany and Rhaego. Because GRRM gave a ton of clues that those three - Dany, Rhaego, Jon - are three heads of the dragon, three dragonriders, and combined together are Azor Ahai Reborn.

Here's one of those clues:

Spoiler

"Over the carcass of the horse, they built a platform of hewn logs; trunks of smaller trees and limbs from the greater, and the thickest straightest branches they could find."

...

"She climbed the pyre herself to place the eggs around her sun-and-stars. The black beside his heart, under his arm. The green beside his head, his braid coiled around it. The cream-and-gold down between his legs."

...

"She heard a crack, the sound of shattering stone. The platform of wood and brush and grass began to shift and collapse in upon itself. Bits of burning wood slid down at her, and Dany was showered with ash and cinders. And something else came crashing down, bouncing and rolling, to land at her feet; a chunk of curved rock, pale and veined with gold, broken and smoking. The roaring filled the world, yet dimly through the firefall Dany heard women shriek and children cry out in wonder.

Only death can pay for life.

And there came a second crack, loud and sharp as thunder, and the smoke stirred and whirled around her and the pyre shifted, the logs exploding as the fire touched their secret hearts. She heard the screams of frightened horses, and the voices of the Dothraki raised in shouts of fear and terror, and Ser Jorah calling her name and cursing. No, she wanted to shout to him, no, my good knight, do not fear for me. The fire is mine. I am Daenerys Stormborn, daughter of dragons, bride of dragons, mother of dragons, don’t you see? Don’t you SEE? With a belch of flame and smoke that reached thirty feet into the sky, the pyre collapsed and came down around her. Unafraid, Dany stepped forward into the firestorm, calling to her children.

The third crack was as loud and sharp as the breaking of the world."

First crack - Viserion hatched with the sound of shattering stone.

Second crack, when fire got under the logs to the horse's body - Rhaegal hatched with the sound of thunder, screams of horses and voices of Dothraki.

Third crack - Drogon hatched with the sound of the breaking of the world.

Jon, the great stone beast from the vision in the House of the Undying, the last Targaryen dragon, that will be awakened from stone. Viserion's egg hatched with the sound effect, corresponding to his future rider's identity. Rhaego is the Stallion that Mounts the World, dosh khaleen, when predicting his birth, said that they hear the thunder of his hooves, and his future mount, Rhaegal, hatched with the sound of thunder. Drogon and the Breaker of Chains, as his future rider, is obvious.

46 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

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.

In Christianity the God has three avatars - The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Even though it's the same God.

The dragon from the prophecy is a singular being, same as the God in Christianity. Though, the dragon has three heads, and each of those heads is an avatar of the dragon/God - Dany, The Mother; Rhaego, the Son; Jon, the Holy Ghost (the Bible uses both terms - The Holy Spirit and The Holy Ghost).

ASOIAF is GRRM's parallel to The Book of Revelation, the final book of the New Testament of the Bible.

Azor Ahai Reborn is a parallel to the Second Coming of Jesus. The Second Long Night is a parallel to the Apocalypse, second war between angels and Satan, when the dead will rise from the dust. fAegon is a parallel to Antichrist, the false Messiah, who will arrive before the real saviour. Dany is a parallel to Jesus, and Mother Mary (when she gave birth to Jesus, led to her by the Star of Bethlehem, three wisemen from the east came to see her child. In ASOIAF's case it was - to see Dany's dragon-children, and the guiding light was the Bleeding Star), and also to the Woman Clothed in the Sun, the mother of the second Jesus, who is the Great Shepherd, and a leader of horsemen-warriors, the King of kings and Lord of lords (like Rhaego). Varys is the Great Red Dragon/Satan. Golden Company is a parallel to the Beast out of the Sea, a beast with many heads, one of which was mortally wounded and then healed itself, and because of this miracle people worshiped him (the mummer's dragon in ASOIAF, supposedly dead Aegon, whose head was smashed by the Mountain, returning to 7K alive). Euron Greyjoy is a parallel to the Scarlet Beast, and Cersei is the Great Harlot. Littlefinger is the False Propphet, the Beast out of the Earth, the beast with dragon's voice and lamb's horns. Jon is Agnus Dei/Jesus, the Sacrificial Lamb, died for his people, and was resurrected. Etc.

1 hour ago, Frey family reunion said:

I think you’re just being silly on purpose.

I'm not silly. I'm super smart :smug: (<- this smiley is sooo cute ^_^)

1 hour ago, Frey family reunion said:

How do you know that Aegon’s Comet isn’t the same comet as Rhaego’s comet?

After 281, when "Aegon's comet" was passing in the sky, and Elia's Aegon was conceived in King's Landing (and Lemore's/Jeyne Swann's fAegon was conceived in Kingswood, from which that same comet was also seen), the Others didn't came, there was no Long Night. If the Bleeding Star of 299 and Aegon's comet of 281 is the same comet, then her rotation perior is 18 years, thus it was supposed to pass Planetos in 263, 245, 227, 209, 191, etc. But it wasn't mentioned anywhere. Not even in The Hedge Knight novel that took place in 209.

Even if it is the same comet, it doesn't mean that each of her arrivals to Planetos is an omen of the Long Night, or a herald of the Promised Prince's birth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, lehutin said:

Before I add you to my ignore list

I guess now you know who JNR is.

And let me tell you this: the argument "but Ned calls Jon son in front of people" has been refuted multiple times, it's not like the Heretics never heard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Megorova said:

For Aegon it was Ok to bang TWO of his sisters, so why wouldn't it be Ok for Jon to hook up with Arya, even though he thought that they were half-siblings, and were raised together?

Because unlike the Targs, they weren't raised believing that sister fucking it's ok. Look at the trouble Cersei and Jaime are in.

I don't understand why are you focusing in this, it's just a wild idea.

 

6 minutes ago, Megorova said:

Because that sort of little things didn't stopped him from Aegon+Visenya+Rhaenys, Aerys+Rhaella, Rhaenyra+Daeron, Bloodraven+Shiera, etc.

If Arya was a Targ then you may be right, she wasn't tho.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Ygrain said:

I guess now you know who JNR is.

And let me tell you this: the argument "but Ned calls Jon son in front of people" has been refuted multiple times, it's not like the Heretics never heard.

It's in the FAQ :D

On 6/26/2020 at 8:39 AM, Ygrain said:

Ned is too honourable to lie. If he says Jon is his son, doesn't that mean he must be?

Ned tells Arya that sometimes lies can be honourable. His final words, a confession of his guilt, are a lie to protect Sansa. While a lie can be honourable, cheating on his wife isn't, so Ned's famed honour points to Jon not being his son.

I will never not find it hilarious how the heretics always accuse anyone who believes in RLJ of not reading the books carefully when they constantly say things that are just factually wrong (as opposed to a difference in interpretation).

 

Ned never lies! Ned hadn't thought of Rhaegar in years! "My blood" always means "my son"! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Frey family reunion said:

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.

Each of the three heads supposed to fulfill only part of the prohecy, not everything.

Rhaego was born under the Bleeding Star. Dany has awakened dragons from stone. Probably, the part about being born under smoke and salt, is also about her. Jon is going to wield Lightbringer. And he is the last dragon/the last Targaryen Prince/the last Prince of Dragonstone.

Dany isn't the Princess of Dragonstone, and never was. When she was born, there was Viserys. And Jon. So she isn't. This isn't part of the prophecy that is supposed to be fulfilled by her. Her role is to be the mother of dragons (Rhaego, Drogon, Rhaegal, Viserion), and the bride of fire (bride of R'hllor's champion - Jon).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, frenin said:

I don't understand why are you focusing in this, it's just a wild idea.

Because Jon, being not Ned Stark's bastard, is the core/fundament of the entire ASOIAF's plot, thus it's too vast and too important for GRRM to use merely as a tool to get together Jon and Arya. First he thought - I should hook those two together, thus I'll write that Jon isn't actually Ned's son, and then it will be Ok for him to pursue relationship with Arya. But then he decided not to ship Jon with Arya, and instead used "Jon as not Ned's bastard"-plot-device as a starting point for entirely different story (the one in which Jon, being not Ned's son, is the most important part of the plot)? Sorry, but that's ridiculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Ygrain said:

However, Rhaegar's married status muddies the waters - but oh, gosh, what a bloody coincidence that just the one guy who would find it handy has a family tradition of polygamy.

That family tradition does not exist. 

an inherited, established, or customary pattern of thought, action, or behavior (such as a religious practice or a social custom)

 

There is a tradition of incest, but 2 people doing polygamy in 300 years it's not really a tradition.  A tradition would've been done more than twice.

 

 

51 minutes ago, Ygrain said:

and oh, my, he is the superpopular prince charming who has just found out his wife cannot give him the third child he believes he needs, what a yet another bloody coincidence.

 

- I wonder he would remain a superpopular man once he involves himself with heresy, Aenys was a well liked dude at the beginning and people were cheering for him right until he married his children with each other. 

 

- That's why bastards are a thing, that's why legitimized bastards are a thing. You don't need to remarry to pull that off. You just need the Throne... Which oh, becomes more and more unreachable with every step he makes. 

 

He needs armies to do all that, he needs armies to oust his father, to quell rebellions and to shut dissenters that call him sinner. He needs armies to get Westeros to accept polygamy since he doesn't have dragons. How is he going to get them?? How is he going to get the Lords to accept heresy?? What's in it for them??  What's in it for the Martells, the Tyrells, the Arryns, the Baratheons, the Tullys and the Greyjoys?? What's in it for Aerys?? Nothing.

What's in it for the minor lords?? Nothing.

What's in it for the Faith?? Nothing.

What's in it for the Starks if people treat Lyanna as a whore?? Nothing.  

 

51 minutes ago, Ygrain said:

Now, remind me again: why did GRRM make the founding father of the royal dynasty polygamous?

I think Dany is going to be polygamist, if anyone is Aegon the Dragon come again is her.

Or ofc it can be just worldbuilding. I doubt that the fact the First Men and the Andals were slavers in the past means that they will do it again. Or the Martells know how to use water magic. Polygamy and incest was also a pain in the ass to the early Targ kings so...

 

8 minutes ago, Megorova said:

Because Jon, being not Ned Stark's bastard, is the core/fundament of the entire ASOIAF's plot

Hard disagree.

 

9 minutes ago, Megorova said:

Sorry, but that's ridiculous.

It is, i said it was a wild idea.  The idea that Jon needs to be Aragorn or his necessity as a character is wasted does seems ludicrous tho.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ygrain said:

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.

No I already addressed your point.  You argued that it was your position that the nobles will be concerned with the fundamental concept of legal legitimacy.  I showed why during wartime that’s bullshit.  And I brought up the example of the Blackfyre rebellion as an example of why that was bullshit.

 It’s my further takeaway from this convoluted theory with no textual support whatsoever that the only reason this idea is being championed is that it is very important for many of the posters here to make Jon a “legitimate” heir to a Targaryen succession that stopped existing once the Targaryens were forcibly removed from power.  

And to argue that no one believes it is fundamentally important for Jon to be legitimate is obviously not true, a point @Megorova helped illustrate in her argument that one must be the legal (whatever that means anymore) inheritor of the title of Prince of Dragonstone to be able to fulfill the prophecy of Azor Ahai because all of the people who fulfilled the prophecy of Azor Ahai were the legal inheritors of Dragonstone (a bit bootstrapping but whatever).  

Now granted that’s not your specific point, and maybe it’s unfair of me to attribute that sentiment to you, but that’s my takeaway.

1 hour ago, Ygrain said:

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

I mean I suppose it’s possible but that’s not my take on Rhaegar’s character.  Reasonable minds can certainly differ on this.  Because as Jorah said, no one truly knew Rhaegar’s mind.  I think Rhaegar was playing a different game than everyone around him , which may be part of the reason we are struggling with his motivations.

1 hour ago, Ygrain said:

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.

Perhaps, but Jon riding a dragon wouldn’t be dependent on any polygamous wedding ceremony.  Which is my point.  While the peasants may believe that a dragon rider is proof of being a “legitimate” Targaryen, you and I both know that this is incorrect.  And who knows what the peasants would believe at this point?  After all they and their parents before them and for most probably their grandparent never observed a “legitimate” Targaryen or anyone else on a dragon.

 

1 hour ago, Ygrain said:

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.

That’s certainly true Cat who uttered those words.  And it is certainly true of the vast majority of Westeros save for an outlier here or there.  And it is true in at least some of the wildling villages.  It’s certainly not true of Craster.  He worships the Old Gods and believes he is more godly than anyone else because he gives them their due.  Who’s to say that Craster’s wrong and the other Wildlings are right?  After all back in the day some First Men apparently gave the Old Gods a human sacrifice.  That part of the North’s religion apparently didn’t survive to the present day.  But it apparently existed at one point.  Religion is like everything else.  It’s based on a people’s belief system.  If you’re looking for an inherent truth in any of this I think you’re reading the wrong series.

But you can’t cherry pick the practices and beliefs of a specific wildling and then attribute those beliefs to everyone who professes to worship the Old Gods.  I mean some of the Wildlings practiced cannibalism, we can’t attribute that to all Northerners.  

After all the Northerners hated the wildlings.  They were told horror stories about the Wildlings practices and customs.  To argue that the Starks or the other Northern lords would be ok with polygamy or believed it was allowed by their religion because some strange wildling,  Ygon Oldfather, practiced it is folly.

1 hour ago, Ygrain said:

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.

I didn’t’ realize that now, we have evidence that not only did Rhaegar marry Lyanna but he married her in front of a weirwood tree.  And you accuse me of fan fiction.  So I guess poor Jeyne Poole is screwed because she was forced to marry Ramsay in front of a Weirwood tree.  Or does she get a legal loophole (knothole) because she was cast in the part of Arya?  And if so does that mean Arya is screwed because the oath taken in front of the Weirwood tree was wedding her to Ramsay?  

Do you see how silly this is?  Are the northerners going to sit around and say, oh fuck, I can’t stand this Jon Snow oathbreaker but it appears that Rhaegar married Lyanna in front of a Weirwood, so I guess we got no choice boys but to call him our King.

Here is the deal.  If Jon is presented as a claimant to the Iron Throne, then it won’t matter what his actual legal legitimacy is.  Either people will want him as their King or they won’t.  Having Howland Reed get up on a tree stump and tell everyone that Lyanna became Mrs. Targaryen in a polygamous marriage in front of a weirwood, isn’t going to sway anyone.  The North who would be in favor of Jon would be in favor of him as Jon Stark not as Jon Targaryen.

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

@Megorova

If your argument is that Rhaegar believed that the Prince that was Promised/Azor Ahai had to be the legal inheritor of the title Prince of Dragonstone, than this is a decent argument.  I do believe that there is text support that Rhaegar was conflating the two concepts and I do believe that Rhaegar believed TPTWP had to come from House Targaryen.

So it’s a logical possibility that Rhaegar believed that the Prince that Was Promised had to also be the Prince of Dragonstone.

But I would point this quote out as a possible argument against this:

Quote

“It was a prince that was promised, not a princess.  Rhaegar, I thought ... the smoke was from the fire that devoured Summerhall on the day of his birth, the salt from the tears shed for those who died.  He shared my belief when he was young,...

Here Aemon is specifically equating the requirement of being born/reborn amidst Salt and Smoke, not with the title of Prince of Dragonstone that Rhaegar would ultimately inherit but with the actual tears and smoke present at Summerhall.  A belief that for a time Rhaegar seemed to share.

It was the location of Dany’s birth, not necessarily her status as Princess of Dragonstone that led Aemon to change his mind:

Quote

Daenerys is the one, born amidst salt and smoke.  The dragons prove it.

So here we have the physical location of her birthplace, Dragonstone as the deciding factor for Aemon.  

Melisandre sure believes that the salt and smoke part of the prophecy references Dragonstone.  Which I think you’re correct in the fact that this initially led her to Stannis.

Of course it doesn’t mean that Melisandre is right does it?  I mean after all, we think Melisandre is wrong in proclaiming Stannis as the Prince that was Promised.  And we think that Rhaegar is wrong in naming his first born son, Aegon, as the Prince that was Promised.  So the possibility definitely exists that assuming that Dragonstone being the fulfillment of the salt and smoke part of the prophecy is wrong as well.  

And nowhere does it state in the prophecy that you have to be the legal inheritor of the title of the Prince of Dragonstone does it?  I mean can’t some peasant born of on Dragonstone technically fit the bill as well?  I mean Jesus was titled the King of Kings despite never having the legal title of King.

Or how about the characters that themselves were literally “reborn” amidst Smoke and Fire?  There are two characters in fact, who’s lives were forever changed following the Battle of Blackwater Bay who were in essence baptized into a Smoking sea water Bay.

Let’s not be so presumptuous that saviors have to be legitimate royalty.  After all, most of our heroes of legends were in fact bastard born.

As for discounting Aegon and Rhaenyra’s merely because they are dead seems a bit unfair.  After all Azor Ahai is dead as well, yet he is apparently set to return according to prophecy.  And who in fact knows if Aegon is truly dead?  

And there is nothing to say that Rhaegar believed that there was more than one Prince that was Promised is there?  He merely seems to believe that the Prince that was Promised, his son Aegon, was to be one of the three heads of the dragon.  Certainly no requirement that the other two heads also be considered Princes/Princesses that were promised.

But regardless without knowing a little bit more about the Prince that Was Promised prophecy a lot of this is supposition isn’t it?

I mean where did the prophecy come from?  Is it a Valyrian prophecy?  If so it seems passing strange that a thousand years ago, they would make their future messiah a Prince.  After all the Valyrians had no Princes.

But interestingly enough a thousand years ago, the Valyrians were at war with another culture, who’s sovereign was a Prince.  The Rhoynes.  And usually the cultures who come up with a messiah prophecy aren’t the cultures that are controlling everything.  Usually it is the culture that is being subjugated.  

Quote

This series of conflicts reached a bloody climax a thousand years ago in the Second Spice War, when three Valyrian dragonlords joined with their kin and cousins in Volantis to overwhelm, sack, and destroy Sarhoy, the great Rhoynar port city upon the Summer Sea. The warriors of Sarhoy were slaughtered savagely, their children carried off into slavery, and their proud pink city put to the torch. Afterward the Volantenes sowed the smoking ruins with with salt so that Sarhoy might never rise again.

Hmm, a civilization destroyed in salt and smoke, so that it may never rise again.  A civilization, who’s main sovereign was a Prince.  It wouldn’t surprise me that the Rhoynes took the Azor Ahai prophecy as their own, and foretold a day when a Prince would rise from the ashes, from the salt and the smoke that was left of their old civiliziation.

Perhaps a prophecy that travelled with the Rhoynes to Dorne and ultimately made it’s way into House Targaryen when a Targaryen King married a Martell bride.   A prophecy that we dont’ here about until the reign of Aegon V, the son of a Dornish mother and the grandson of a Dornish/Martell grandmother.

But then again :dunno:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ygrain said:

Now, remind me again: why did GRRM make the founding father of the royal dynasty polygamous?

The Aegon/Visenya/Rhaenys triumvirate is probably a reference to the Adam/Lilith/Eve triumvirate: Lilith, in Hebrew mythology, being made from the same clay as Adam, Adam’s first wife and associated with witchcraft and the Occult (i.e. Visenya) Eve on the other hand the wife that was the mother of the human race (Rhaenys being the mother of the Targaryen dynasty).  I think probably the same homage that give’s us Aegon’s Garden on Dragonstone.  

As for a parallel to Aegon the Conqueror and perhaps the one more likely to take two  spouses, we have Daenaerys presumably the future conqueror, who’s unique upbringing would probably make her more open to the concept of polygamy than Rhaegar “Baylor the Blessed come again” Targaryen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours 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. 

RLJ predates the show by many many years. It's not so much built on it, as reinforced by it. But we'll agree to disagree on this. About your last paragraph, sure it's a theory, but then if you don't consider it a mystery then there's nothing here to debate, in your understanding, is that correct?

I just think you're mostly concerned about exact words, either from George himself or the books, and like I said that's fine. But others disagree and that's also fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Queen Alysanne summarizes her view on polygamy pretty thoroughly here, when condemning Ser Lucamore Strong of the Kingsguard:

Quote

Then Queen Alysanne spoke up, saying, “You made a mockery of your oaths as a knight of the Kingsguard, but those were not the only vows you broke. You dishonored your marriage vows as well, not once but thrice. None of these women are lawfully wed, so these children I see behind you are bastards one and all. They are the true innocents in this, ser. Your wives were ignorant of one another, I am told, but each of them must surely have known that you were a White Sword, a knight of the Kingsguard. To that extent they share your guilt, as does whatever drunken septon you found to marry you. For them some mercy may be warranted, but for you … I will not have you near my lord, ser.”

This is quite damning, especially if you think about it that Ser Lucamore's first marriage should have been valid, just as the children from that union shouldn't have been seen as bastards. That is, unless her view is that marriage vows of KG are invalid by default ... which would limit the validity of marriage vows in general (as is also be seen by the two weddings of Jaehaerys-Alysanne as well as Maegor-Ceryse).

This is House Targaryen at its apex, the dragons were multiplying, and the royal pricks could do whatever the hell they wanted ... but this is how they see polygamy.

There is just no way that anyone but a polygamy freak would view this as 'normal' if Prince Rhaegar did it over 200 years later, dragonless, crownless, and without the king's ear and support. Instead, one should assume that pulling something like that should cost Rhaegar most of the friends and supporters he had left in the Realm at large. He never was a people person, and an aloof guy doing that would be seen as preettty fucked-up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

No I already addressed your point.  You argued that it was your position that the nobles will be concerned with the fundamental concept of legal legitimacy.  I showed why during wartime that’s bullshit.  And I brought up the example of the Blackfyre rebellion as an example of why that was bullshit.

 It’s my further takeaway from this convoluted theory with no textual support whatsoever that the only reason this idea is being championed is that it is very important for many of the posters here to make Jon a “legitimate” heir to a Targaryen succession that stopped existing once the Targaryens were forcibly removed from power.  

And to argue that no one believes it is fundamentally important for Jon to be legitimate is obviously not true, a point @Megorova helped illustrate in her argument that one must be the legal (whatever that means anymore) inheritor of the title of Prince of Dragonstone to be able to fulfill the prophecy of Azor Ahai because all of the people who fulfilled the prophecy of Azor Ahai were the legal inheritors of Dragonstone (a bit bootstrapping but whatever).  

Now granted that’s not your specific point, and maybe it’s unfair of me to attribute that sentiment to you, but that’s my takeaway.

I mean I suppose it’s possible but that’s not my take on Rhaegar’s character.  Reasonable minds can certainly differ on this.  Because as Jorah said, no one truly knew Rhaegar’s mind.  I think Rhaegar was playing a different game than everyone around him , which may be part of the reason we are struggling with his motivations.

Perhaps, but Jon riding a dragon wouldn’t be dependent on any polygamous wedding ceremony.  Which is my point.  While the peasants may believe that a dragon rider is proof of being a “legitimate” Targaryen, you and I both know that this is incorrect.  And who knows what the peasants would believe at this point?  After all they and their parents before them and for most probably their grandparent never observed a “legitimate” Targaryen or anyone else on a dragon.

 

That’s certainly true Cat who uttered those words.  And it is certainly true of the vast majority of Westeros save for an outlier here or there.  And it is true in at least some of the wildling villages.  It’s certainly not true of Craster.  He worships the Old Gods and believes he is more godly than anyone else because he gives them their due.  Who’s to say that Craster’s wrong and the other Wildlings are right?  After all back in the day some First Men apparently gave the Old Gods a human sacrifice.  That part of the North’s religion apparently didn’t survive to the present day.  But it apparently existed at one point.  Religion is like everything else.  It’s based on a people’s belief system.  If you’re looking for an inherent truth in any of this I think you’re reading the wrong series.

But you can’t cherry pick the practices and beliefs of a specific wildling and then attribute those beliefs to everyone who professes to worship the Old Gods.  I mean some of the Wildlings practiced cannibalism, we can’t attribute that to all Northerners.  

After all the Northerners hated the wildlings.  They were told horror stories about the Wildlings practices and customs.  To argue that the Starks or the other Northern lords would be ok with polygamy or believed it was allowed by their religion because some strange wildling,  Ygon Oldfather, practiced it is folly.

I didn’t’ realize that now, we have evidence that not only did Rhaegar marry Lyanna but he married her in front of a weirwood tree.  And you accuse me of fan fiction.  So I guess poor Jeyne Poole is screwed because she was forced to marry Ramsay in front of a Weirwood tree.  Or does she get a legal loophole (knothole) because she was cast in the part of Arya?  And if so does that mean Arya is screwed because the oath taken in front of the Weirwood tree was wedding her to Ramsay?  

Do you see how silly this is?  Are the northerners going to sit around and say, oh fuck, I can’t stand this Jon Snow oathbreaker but it appears that Rhaegar married Lyanna in front of a Weirwood, so I guess we got no choice boys but to call him our King.

Here is the deal.  If Jon is presented as a claimant to the Iron Throne, then it won’t matter what his actual legal legitimacy is.  Either people will want him as their King or they won’t.  Having Howland Reed get up on a tree stump and tell everyone that Lyanna became Mrs. Targaryen in a polygamous marriage in front of a weirwood, isn’t going to sway anyone.  The North who would be in favor of Jon would be in favor of him as Jon Stark not as Jon Targaryen.

Trying to talk sense into RLJers is like leading a horse to water and watching it die of thirst because it refused to stop eating the rocks. Except this horse could talk and it spent the whole insisting that the rocks were the only source of nourishment.

Regardless of where you go on the internet the only thing you ever get out of the Faith Militant is outright dismissal,ridicule, abuse, or some twisted fan fiction version of the text or George's words. Or D&Ds words. Whatever they need to twist to fit their fan fiction. Whatever they can make up to support their non starter of a theory. 

We have to pretend Jon's father is a mystery? We have to pretend Ned never called Jon his son? We have to pretend George confirmed Lyanna is Jon's mother in the books? That Ned's fever dream placed Lyanna inside the tower of joy and that the KG were guarding a never mentioned baby Jon and Rhaegar ordered them to kill even Ned if he showed up looking for her? We have to pretend that our the Faith Militant interpretation of Ned's fever dream is the only possible correct interpretation? Even though it was a fever dream? We have to pretend that Rhaegar and Lyanna were in a legal polygamous marriage? We have to pretend that Lyanna is the best possible candidate for the KOTLT? We have to pretend whatever we need to in order to maintain our RLJ fanfiction and dismiss, ridicule and abuse whoever dares question our obvious fan fiction? 

RLJers: NO PROBLEM! 

Not even George proving their fanfiction wrong will deter them either. Not one bit. You see, many of them have already thought of that and have been screaming from the rooftops for years that if their absolutely delusional interpretation of the text doesn't become canon then George RR Martin IS A LIAR! HE CHANGED IT! NO GIGANTIC HIVE MIND EGO DETECTED!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lady Anna said:

RLJ predates the show by many many years. It's not so much built on it, as reinforced by it. But we'll agree to disagree on this. About your last paragraph, sure it's a theory, but then if you don't consider it a mystery then there's nothing here to debate, in your understanding, is that correct?

I just think you're mostly concerned about exact words, either from George himself or the books, and like I said that's fine. But others disagree and that's also fine.

Nothing from outside canon can reinforce the canon. 

I'm concerned with interpreting the text correctly instead of bending it to fit a theory. It isn't a question of whether or not a few words are off. It isn't anything so close as that. It's that every piece of "evidence" for RLJ is incorrect in one manner or the other. I do not say lightly that there isn't a single word of evidence in the books that supports RLJ. I do not say lightly that it is a non starter of a theory anyway because Jon's father isn't even a mystery in the books. Isolating quotes in vacuums and pretending Ned never called Jon son doesn't count. And that's the problem. Twisting is always necessary when it comes to RLJ evidence. It is at minimum a fan construct of quotes that may or may not be at all related. None of which ever mention Rhaegar, Lyanna and Jon together. None of which ever puts even two of them together. None of which ever even hints that Rhaegar is Jon's father, or that Lyanna is Jon's mother. 

Do you have any quotes to show that I'm wrong? I'd love to see 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...