Jump to content

The Lyanna + Rhaegar = Jon Thread


Stark Future

Recommended Posts

No, you mistake me. I meant to refute the R + L = J claim with the simplest logic available!

Well, he still doesn't look like a duck. Just saying :D . Good point still.

Artanaro

Ah, but we already went over that, and the conclusion was that occam's razor applied to all theories except R+L=J.

Only for the logically challenged.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's always fun when people declare opinions without actually reading.

Heh, what's wrong with having fun with a dead horse?

Now that I think about it, it was also concluded that R+L=J encompassed everything, including the summerhall tragedy, Ygritte, and the return of the Faceless men. Other theories were proved to be a bunch of pathetic improbable assertions complexifying and fragmenting the whole mess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heh, what's wrong with having fun with a dead horse?

Now that I think about it, it was also concluded that R+L=J encompassed everything, including the summerhall tragedy, Ygritte, and the return of the Faceless men. Other theories were proved to be a bunch of pathetic improbable assertions complexifying and fragmenting the whole mess.

Whether or not the theory is responsible for some of these other, circumstantial events does not change the fact that the theory provides the best explanation for the strange circumstances surrounding Lyanna's death, Jon's origins, the use of the blue rose symbolism, Ned's promise, and the like.

And I like to see this 'conclusion', since obviously, all fans of R + L = J are a monolithic block of people who bullheadedly ignore evidence, rather than a group of people who arrived at this conclusion through a combination of re-reading and discussion with other fans. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

okay, I'll add a smiley next time, or a blinking *not sarcasm* sign.

Maybe I should have said that the theory's key argument was aegon juggling lemon pies.

That's what emoticons are for, since I can't exactly hear your voice intonations on a computer screen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a few issues with this theory:

1 - If Jon is not Neds son it dispells all the symbolism of the dire-wolves (one for each of Ned's Children, with a different one for the bastard). I know he would still have Stark blood but i find it a tough sell.

2 - What would be the point? If he was a Targeryan to become king he would need to be legitimised to gain the throne, and as only a king can legitimise him, who would as they would be killing there own claim. (Unless done by accident to give him winterfell ala Stannis)

3 - If he wanted the character to hold true to form Jon would turn it down anyway as he did when Stannis offered him Winterfell, and he held true to his vows.

The only way he would accept is if the Nights watch was disbanded after the war the unifies the kingdom and the realm was protected by a lord like any other, then he wouldn't be abandoning his post, but this is a bit of a stretch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a few issues with this theory:

1 - If Jon is not Neds son it dispells all the symbolism of the dire-wolves (one for each of Ned's Children, with a different one for the bastard). I know he would still have Stark blood but i find it a tough sell.

2 - What would be the point? If he was a Targeryan to become king he would need to be legitimised to gain the throne, and as only a king can legitimise him, who would as they would be killing there own claim. (Unless done by accident to give him winterfell ala Stannis)

3 - If he wanted the character to hold true to form Jon would turn it down anyway as he did when Stannis offered him Winterfell, and he held true to his vows.

The only way he would accept is if the Nights watch was disbanded after the war the unifies the kingdom and the realm was protected by a lord like any other, then he wouldn't be abandoning his post, but this is a bit of a stretch.

The symbolism could just as easily be a gift from the old gods to ALL those of Stark blood who will be alive when the Others come. The old gods know. The old gods remember. Descent from Eddard need not have been the deciding factor. Eddard and Benjen didn't get them because when the Winds of Winter blow, one would be dead and the other mostly dead.

A monarch without a blood heir might well legitimize her nephew - especially if she was made sterile when blood magic was used to sacrifice her unborn child for the sake of saving her husband. And it just so happens that the rightful heir to the throne is someone just like that.

It is not only feasible but to be expected that at some point the Wall will come tumbling down. ASOIAF is a tale. That is what walls in tales do. What is the point of the Watchers on the Wall when there is no Wall to watch? (On a side note, it's gonna take a real badarse magician to rebuild that wall - another Brandon the Builder - HEY! Whattya know - we got one of those - also conveniently sterile and thus not suited for Lord of Winterfell, but well suited to be First Builder)

It would be a pretty lame tale if "And the giant Wall that was built to shield the realms of men worked perfectly. The End."

'King Jon Targaryen' isn't the only possible ending. Nor even the one I am hoping for (I kinda hope that Jon dies knowing he was not only a Targ, but a legitimate one - that Rhaegar took Lyanna as his polygamous wife - but that Daenerys is forced to turn to the illegitimate son of the usurper - Gendry). But KJT would not be an unreasonable one.

Especially in light of the parallels with the Wars of the Roses - which ultimately ended with both sides claimants exhausted and the Tudors ascending the English throne - those Tudors being related the Plantagenets through a bastard line.

ETA - A couple of quick edits for clarity

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a few issues with this theory:

1 - If Jon is not Neds son it dispells all the symbolism of the dire-wolves (one for each of Ned's Children, with a different one for the bastard). I know he would still have Stark blood but i find it a tough sell.

Not necessarily. Remember that the Mother Direwolf may have represented either the symbolic leadership of House Stark or House Stark itself (just like the antler bit probably represented House Baratheon, since it was the results of three Baratheons' actions - Robert, Joffrey, and Renly- that got Ned killed).

2 - What would be the point? If he was a Targeryan to become king he would need to be legitimised to gain the throne, and as only a king can legitimise him, who would as they would be killing there own claim. (Unless done by accident to give him winterfell ala Stannis)

It throws in some interesting complications, though. Suppose Jon is legitimized, whether as a Stark (via Robb's letter) or something else. He would be the nearest living blood relative to Daenerys (unless baby Aegon is still alive). Right now, as it stands, the only known closest living kin to House Targaryen is Stannis, who is the grandson of Aegon V's daughter.

Robb technically was a King of sorts when he legitimized him (although Cersei, Dany, and Stannis would argue the point). If Dany wins, she could legitimize him and select him as her heir (since if he is Rhaegar's son, then he's her nephew).

3 - If he wanted the character to hold true to form Jon would turn it down anyway as he did when Stannis offered him Winterfell, and he held true to his vows.

Assuming, of course, that the Night's Watch survives the books, and if Jon remains Lord Commander (if he does not, then a later Lord Commander could probably release him. At least Robb thought so.).

The only way he would accept is if the Nights watch was disbanded after the war the unifies the kingdom and the realm was protected by a lord like any other, then he wouldn't be abandoning his post, but this is a bit of a stretch.

It's not that far of a stretch. We have no guarantees that the Night's Watch will survive the War with the Others in its current form, and no guarantees that Jon will remain Lord Commander, a position for which the only person who could release himself would be . . . himself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But we know jon wouldnt release himself because stannis offered him an out but he prefered to stay and stay true to his vows, so i think the only way he would leave the nights watch is if the nights watch fell/disbanded as no longer needed

Also if Dany legitimised him he would not be her heir as (if we follow the L+R=J theory) he is rhaegors son, therefore rhaegors heir and has a right to the throne that supercedes Dany's

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But we know jon wouldnt release himself because stannis offered him an out but he prefered to stay and stay true to his vows, so i think the only way he would leave the nights watch is if the nights watch fell/disbanded as no longer needed

That was my point- if he remains Lord Commander. If he doesn't, then the next Lord Commander could probably release him from his vows. Or he could be booted out of the Night's Watch, period.

Also if Dany legitimised him he would not be her heir as (if we follow the L+R=J theory) he is rhaegors son, therefore rhaegors heir and has a right to the throne that supercedes Dany's

His rights would only supercede those of Dany's if it could be proven that Rhaegar married Lyanna. If not, then, while he has close kinship to the Targaryens, his rights would still be inferior to hers due to him being only a Targaryen bastard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But we know jon wouldnt release himself because stannis offered him an out but he prefered to stay and stay true to his vows, so i think the only way he would leave the nights watch is if the nights watch fell/disbanded as no longer needed

Not necessarily. When he turns down Stannis' offer, his feeling of not belonging, of not being a true Stark which he's gotten from those dreams ("This is not your place") and Cat, plays a big part in his decission. There's no reason to assume that any such factors would come into play if he instead was offered the throne.

But then on the other hand, being King probably wouldn't feel as tempting as being the Lord of Winterfell...

I still hope he will stay true to his vows in the end though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

His rights would only supercede those of Dany's if it could be proven that Rhaegar married Lyanna. If not, then, while he has close kinship to the Targaryens, his rights would still be inferior to hers due to him being only a Targaryen bastard.

But if he is legitimised he is no longer a bastard he becomes in effect Rhaegar's trueborn son

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guardsman Bass, if Robb legitimized Jon as a Stark, that wouldn't give him any Targaryen claim whatsoever; it might give him Winterfell or make him King in the North because those belong to the Starks, but it wouldn't move him any nearer to the Iron Throne.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not necessarily. When he turns down Stannis' offer, his feeling of not belonging, of not being a true Stark which he's gotten from those dreams ("This is not your place") and Cat, plays a big part in his decission. There's no reason to assume that any such factors would come into play if he instead was offered the throne. .

Being forced to take a wife not of his choosing and to abandon the gods of the Starks also played a role in Jon declining Stannis' offer, methinks.

Also if Dany legitimised him he would not be her heir as (if we follow the L+R=J theory) he is rhaegors son, therefore rhaegors heir and has a right to the throne that supercedes Dany's

I am pretty sure that in Westeros it would be more often than not be believed that a legitimized bastard was still sufficiently stigmatized that men would not generallly follow him with a trueborn heir to choose from. The Blackfyre Rebellion is still well remembered and Daemon Blackfyre is a name that most still curse.

If you throw out this rule, then neither Daenerys nor Jon are the rightful heir - that would be the descendents of Daemon living in the Free Cities. And virtually nobody in Westeros wants that - and certainly nobody with any power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am pretty sure that in Westeros it would be more often than not be believed that a legitimized bastard was still sufficiently stigmatized that men would not generallly follow him with a trueborn heir to choose from. The Blackfyre Rebellion is still well remembered and Daemon Blackfyre is a name that most still curse.

Robb's motivation for legitimising Jon is so that Sansa (and therefore the Lannisters) cannot claim winterfell, so surely Jon if legitimised is treated as a trueborn and as older and male is heir. If this is the case for winterfell, it is also the case for the iron throne. But as said above he would need to legitimised as a targ not a stark therefore Robb's letter has no influence

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robb's motivation for legitimising Jon is so that Sansa (and therefore the Lannisters) cannot claim winterfell, so surely Jon if legitimised is treated as a trueborn and as older and male is heir. If this is the case for winterfell, it is also the case for the iron throne.

Not necessarily so. Remember, that these are matters more of men's hearts than of strict written law. Feudal and quasi-feudal societies have a history of disregarding the strict interpretation of the law when another choice is made evident. The Wars of the Roses started because Richard II's declared heir Roger Mortimer was bypassed and Henry Bolingbroke was raised king as Henry IV. Mortimer's grandson rebelled against Henry VI and while he was never crowned, his sons Edward IV and Richard III were. GRRM describes a parallel with Aegon V becoming king partially because an heir was passed over because she was both female and a halfwit.

Back in Westeros, it is unlikely that the men of the North would accept Jon ahead of a strong (uninjured) Bran or Rickon. But Sansa, wed to the dwarf son of Winterfell's greatest rival would be a different story. Catelyn, in her oft underestimated wisdom, recognizes this fact and tells Robb that even if he believes Jon would never harm Sansa or Arya, the same cannot be said for their yet unborn grandchildren.

Robb's letter does not prevent Sansa from claiming the North. It just gives those who'd not wish to see a Lannister dwarf in Winterfell more legal justification for taking the course that Robb wants them to take.

It is also poignant that even Tywin knows that the men of the North will never accept Tyrion - his hope is for Tyrion to impregnate Sansa with a strong son.

Political legitimacy is a core theme of ASOIAF. It is the basis of Varys' famous riddle. What makes men accept a ruler? Part of it is force, part of it is the law, part of it is more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being forced to take a wife not of his choosing and to abandon the gods of the Starks also played a role in Jon declining Stannis' offer, methinks.

Abondoning the Old Gods and burning the Godswood in Winterfell did seem to be an important part of it as well, I forgot to mention that.

The wife-thing though...I didn't get the impression that he saw marrying Val as one of the problems from his own POV. The problem he saw with that, unless I misremember, was that he didn't think it would be quite as easy as Stannis thought to get her to agree to it (and he was probably right about that).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...