The Rhaegar + Lyanna = Jon thread, Part VIII

[nothatso]

a King/Queen has to do it...Robb's followers who know might view him as legitimate, but they alone don't mean much, and no one else except MAYBE Dany would want him to become legitimate, and for Dany to do it it would essentially mean she's no longer really the Queen

There is always the possibility of Dany dying young and naming Jon her successor on her death bed ;)

As far as Robb's followers go, I would wager that the majority of the northern nobility would rather swear fealty to a Stark heir than to Roose Bolton. If Jon or Bran were to retake and stabilize the north, it is possible that they would have enough local support to keep it stable.

[Guest Other-in-Law]

How is that ridiculous? No wall = no Wildings to keep out. The patrols are to keep the Wildings in line.

Others.

Others, Others, Others.

They didn't build a 700 foot high wall to keep out wildlings, the whole reason the NW was created was to keep a guard against the Others returning. Wildlings had nothing to do with it, and are irrelevant for the future continuation of the NW.

There's nothing ridiculous about sending out patrols when you are guarding a wall.

No one said there was. the ridiculous part is when you claimed that the lack of the Wall meant "There's nothing to guard. Nothing to patrol." That is utterly ridiculous. Do modern day city police forces patrol their jurisdictions? Do they need giant walls for their patrols to have a purpose?

I'm pretty sure the NW didn't exist until after the Wall was built if you base it on the Lord Commanders.

What's your evidence for that?

The only reason the NW even exists in the present is because there were Wildings to guard against.

It's also a humane way to dispose of criminals, and a place for younger sons to make an honourable spot for themselves.

No one belived in the Others. Heck, before they showed up, the only thing you heard about were tories of "grumpkins and snarks" whatever those were.

What does this have to do with anything? They sure as hell believed in them after the First Long Night, and they sure as hell are starting to believe in them again. The fact that they forgot means absolutely nothing if the Wall is destroyed in the middle of a new other invasion.

[Cendres]

If we go back on topic, the traditional elements which are supposed supporting R+L=J are:

- the Kingsguards at the ToJ

- "Promise me Ned"

- the lies of Eddard Stark

- the timeline

Have the following ones been already discussed ? (I'm too lazzy to search the last 6 threads ^^)

1. When Ned and Bob are in the crypts, the king complains about his entourage, then says he nearly regret defeating Rhaegar at the Ruby ford. Then Ned states he understands. (I don't have an english version of the book so I can't quote.)

I think that can indicate he regrets the death of Rhaegar, maybe because of his sister love for him. Has anyone read this passage that way ?

2. When maester Luwin tell Ned that Jon yearns for the black cloth he seems at first "revolted" (again I don't have the right word).

Why that reaction ? I thought that the Night's Watch was well considered in House Stark.

Sorry if that was already discussed somewhere, i would appreciate the link though.

[Errant Bard]

When did "I'm too lazy" become a good excuse, or an excuse at all, already?

[Cendres]

From the ASoIaF wiki I went to the thread VI, which is 39 pages long... If all the threads are this long, I wish someone nice could help me find an answer. I admit that lazyness isn't an excuse, I could rename it too time-consuming task.

[lacuna]

1. When Ned and Bob are in the crypts, the king complains about his entourage, then says he nearly regret defeating Rhaegar at the Ruby ford. Then Ned states he understands. (I don't have an english version of the book so I can't quote.)

I think that can indicate he regrets the death of Rhaegar, maybe because of his sister love for him. Has anyone read this passage that way ?

2. When maester Luwin tell Ned that Jon yearns for the black cloth he seems at first "revolted" (again I don't have the right word).

Why that reaction ? I thought that the Night's Watch was well considered in House Stark.

1. Not really, the accurate quote is:

"There are nights I wish we had lost at the Trident. Ah, no, not truly, but..."

"I understand." Ned said softly.

Ned says he understands that Robert doesn't always want the tedium that comes with being king, nothing more. That's how I interpret it, anyway.

2. I think, at least as far as Ned lets on in front of Luwin and Catelyn, that he is mostly shocked because Jon is only fourteen, and doesn't have the life experience necessary to make such a decision. Then he turns around and says "I suppose it is for the best", and that he will "talk to Ben". (The line "Even a bastard may rise high in the Night's Watch", delivered in such an offhand way, is what makes me doubt that Jon is legitimate, regardless of who his parents are/were, but that's beside the point.)

The question then is, what will Ned discuss with Ben? "Jon wants to join, try to talk him out of it", or "Jon wants to join. Let him, and look after him", or "Jon wants to join. This is a good/bad idea because he is really Lyanna's son by Rhaegar." The possibilities are endless. (Jon had a talk with Ben about joining, but that was the day before, unless I'm much mistaken.)

If Jon is the legitimate child of R+L (or a bastard child for that matter), there would be obvious benefits of having him take the black, seeing as Robert hates Targs so much, and at the Wall he won't be a threat to anyone's claim to anything. Although I'm not sure that would be enough for Robert if he ever found out... Robert is totally convinced that Rhaegar abducted and raped Lyanna, I'm not sure anything would stop him from killing any child of Rhaegars, especially one born of Lyanna as a result of rape.

If part of Ned's oath to Lyanna was to keep Jon safe, which seems reasonable, the Wall might not be the best option, since life at the Wall isn't exactly danger free, even without the resurgence of Others. But then again, no one is "safe" in Westeros, so... :dunno:

I feel like I'm rambling, and I need to get to bed.

Edit: Fixed quote.

[SpaceCoyote]

If Jon is the legitimate child of R+L (or a bastard child for that matter)

The one thing I've never understood about this whole thing is how Jon could be anything BUT a bastard? Even if L+R=J, he would still have been born out of wedlock. I mean I have to admit I'm not exactly an expert on Westeros divorce law, but even if this did occur surely it would be well known (the Crown Prince doesn't divorce the daughter of a great house without SOMEONE hearing about it). And if I understand the timeline correctly Rhaegar died before Aerys, which meant he couldn't, as king, legitimize his bastard son.

None of which precludes the L+R=J theory... but I can't understand all the people who jump from that to 'Jon will become King' or some such. I don't mean that directed at you specifically, lacuna, just the general trend in theorizing this stuff.

[Guest Other-in-Law]

The idea has nothing to do with divorce, but rather that the Targaryens traditionally practiced polygamy; most notably Aegon the Conqueror's two wives, Rhaenys and Visenya. Apparently they haven't done so since Maegor the Cruel, but that doesn't mean they aren't legally entitled to have more than one spouse. An example of a right that was long dormant being revived is that of Trial by Seven, as seen in the Hedge Knight.

[nothatso]

I think perhaps people get a little too hung up on legitimacy of a bastard. How far back do we know details of Westerosi Law? 300 years prior to AGOT? Wasn't the last time the Others attacked/were defeated around 8,000 years ago? If Jon is Rhaegar's blood, who's to say that whatever powers at work wouldn't consider him a prince despite the laws of the establishment?

[SpaceCoyote]

The idea has nothing to do with divorce, but rather that the Targaryens traditionally practiced polygamy; most notably Aegon the Conqueror's two wives, Rhaenys and Visenya. Apparently they haven't done so since Maegor the Cruel, but that doesn't mean they aren't legally entitled to have more than one spouse.

Gotcha. I suppose this raises the question of how the faith would view it, and how politcally necessary the faith's blessing of a King born of polygamy would be in the current time. From what I remember it wasn't until Baelor the Blessed that the Targaryen dynasty really reconciled themselves with the faith... an incident that happens, ironically enough shortly after the death of the last Dragon. I wonder if that suggests anything about the political power of Dragons vs. the political power of having the clergy on your side.

This is, of course, assuming R+L=J B)

[Guest Other-in-Law]

From what I remember it wasn't until Baelor the Blessed that the Targaryen dynasty really reconciled themselves with the faith... an incident that happens, ironically enough shortly after the death of the last Dragon.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by reconciled. Baelor presumably had one of the best relationships between crown and Faith, but that doesn't mean that several kings immediately before him didn't. Maegor the Cruel was the one who actively warred against the Faith, but his nephew Jaehaerys I made peace with them and gave an amnesty to all former members of the Faith Militant who lay down their arms.

[SpaceCoyote]

... but his nephew Jaehaerys I made peace with them and gave an amnesty to all former members of the Faith Militant who lay down their arms.

This was what I meant by reconciled, thinking that this done by Baelor. I am also making the assumption that the Valaryian's (and thus the early Targaryen's) held a different faith from the Seven. As I say, this is an assumption. I have no memory of it being stated either way. My image of the history of the early Targaryen kings was that Baelor was the first who officially 'converted' as it were. I might be just projecting the whole Constantine/Christianity parallel a little far here though.

At any rate, none of that stuff really matters to my more central point which is: I wonder how important the blessing of the faith will be in the current political climate, especially considering the events of AFFC.

[Guest Other-in-Law]

I am also making the assumption that the Valaryian's (and thus the early Targaryen's) held a different faith from the Seven. As I say, this is an assumption. I have no memory of it being stated either way.

"Dragonstone's sept had been where Aegon the Conqueror knelt to pray the night before he sailed."

"The burning gods cast a pretty light, wreathed in robes shifting flame, red and orange and yellow. Septon Barre had once told Davos how they'd been carved from the masts of the ships that had carried the Targaryens from Valyria. Over the centuries, they had been painted and repainted, golded, silvered, jeweled."

[Edward the Great]

The idea has nothing to do with divorce, but rather that the Targaryens traditionally practiced polygamy; most notably Aegon the Conqueror's two wives, Rhaenys and Visenya. Apparently they haven't done so since Maegor the Cruel, but that doesn't mean they aren't legally entitled to have more than one spouse. An example of a right that was long dormant being revived is that of Trial by Seven, as seen in the Hedge Knight.

I just want to emphasize - Maegor's reign was a bloodbath precisely because the Seven Kingdoms went apeshit over a son by Aegon's 2nd wife taking the throne. Martin is telling us something about Jon's viability.

[Guest Other-in-Law]

I just want to emphasize - Maegor's reign was a bloodbath precisely because the Seven Kingdoms went apeshit over a son by Aegon's 2nd wife taking the throne. Martin is telling us something about Jon's viability.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Are you merely saying that they went apeshit because Maegor (who happened to have some distinctly problematic personality traits) was king?

Or that his being the son by a different wife than Aenys (I don't believe we know which was the first to have married Aegon, or if they were simultaneous) was the cause of all the discontent?

The former is obvious, and has no bearing on Jon (who would have plenty of problems of his own if he ever tried to become king, notably being a despised oathbreaker like Jaime Lannister). The latter is not proven in the slightest.

[SpaceCoyote]

@Other in Law

Thanks for clearing that up. In that light I suddenly have a lot of questions about the origin of the Faith of Seven which probably belong on another thread.

I just want to emphasize - Maegor's reign was a bloodbath precisely because the Seven Kingdoms went apeshit over a son by Aegon's 2nd wife taking the throne. Martin is telling us something about Jon's viability.

The faith, as well as Jon's own hang-ups in terms of his duty and honor are some of the reasons I have such a hard time thinking he will be come royalty.

And I have to admit that this is partly because I don't want ASOIAF to become another fantasy in which a young protagonist has a hidden royal heritage that improbably leads him to the throne. In fact I kind of hope that Jon IS the son of Rhaegar and Lyanna, and he DOESN'T get anywhere near the Iron Throne, simply because this would be a nice reversal of expectation.

[Cendres]

Thanks lacuna.

I just want to emphasize - Maegor's reign was a bloodbath precisely because the Seven Kingdoms went apeshit over a son by Aegon's 2nd wife taking the throne. Martin is telling us something about Jon's viability.

IIRC there was no uprising during the reign of Maegor, just the Faith militants against the royal army. And the Faith militants issue was running since Aenys I, maybe Aegon I. Jaehaerys I had no problem with the Faith, his Hand for forty years was Septon Barth. Baelor was just a crazy King and septon plagued by visions when fasting.

The faith, as well as Jon's own hang-ups in terms of his duty and honor are some of the reasons I have such a hard time thinking he will be come royalty.

It is very interesting because as far as we know Jon is a follower of the old gods and seems strong in is belief. Aegon I starts is reign from the surrender of Oldtown and his acclamation by the Great Septon, so Faith and royalty seems close. IF Jon has any right to the throne will he be like Henry IV ? Something like "King's Landing is worth a sept service" ?

[Lord Varys]

The Targaryens converted to the Faith of the Andals sometime after they arrived on Dragonstone. This can be deduced from the fact that the images of the Seven Stannis burned were made out of the ships which brought the Targaryens to Dragonstone. This either has to mean that the Targaryens preserved these ships for some time, or that they disabled the ships and preserved the wood for further use (this actually makes sense, as Dragonstone seems to provide very few natural resources). But it also could be only a nice story. As we don't know anything about Aegon's ancestors as of now, it's not that unlikely that there not much commonly knowledge in Westeros about the Targaryens on Dragonstone and those of Valyria.

I doubt that the Targaryens converted to the Faith of the Andals before the Doom took Valyria. But afterwards, when they were bereft of the cultural, religious, and military backup by the Freehold, they converted. Likely because their dealings were now mostly with the Andals living on the isles in the Narrow Sea (Claw Isle, and the like), and those of the Stormlands. Most likely these conversion was done due to political and economical reasons. They did not stop other valyrian customs like incest marriages.

But Aegon and his sister had the advantage of being members of the Faith before they started their conquest. This made things easier for them.

The Rebellion took place after Aegon's death. It has nothing to do with Maegor's rule, it started when Aegon's elder son Aenys took the Iron Throne. And it was not just the Faith Militant who rebelled, it was a broader rebellion of (the more pious) Lords and the Faith Militant. It seems that Aenys and Maegor were able to put the Lords back into their place, but the Faith Militant troubled the Targaryens through both Aenys' and Maegor's reign - despite the fact that Maegor outlawed the fighting orders.

[Guest Other-in-Law]

The Rebellion took place after Aegon's death. It has nothing to do with Maegor's rule, it started when Aegon's elder son Aenys took the Iron Throne.

I don't see how it has nothing to do with Maegor's rule, considering Aenys was a very weak king and Maegor was his Hand. Maegor would have basically been the one ruling during Aenys' reign as well as his own.

[Lord Varys]

Well, we don't know enough about Aenys to make an educated guess if Maegor completely ruled during both their reigns, or was merely unleashed after Aenys failed to crush the Rebellion. If Maegor ruled all the time, the question has to be asked why Aegon did not make Maegor his immediate heir, or why Maegor did not openly usurp Aenys. After all, he did usurp his nephew and King Jaehaerys.

Also, Rhaenys and/or Visenya might have been still around after Aegon's death, so Maegor might not have been the one and only unquestioned power at court during Aenys' and his own rule.

But my point actually was that the Rebellion had nothing to do with Maegor's rule, because my interpretation was that the rebellious Lords and the Faith Militant intended to rid the Realm of these abominations after the King who had conquered Westeros died. They had sworn their loyalty to Aegon the Dragon, not to his sons or grandsons, and they likely thought it still possible to get rid of the foreign invaders.

Maegor likely only became cruel because he fought the rebels with the same means they used, and in the ended up using the cruelest means imaginable.