R+L=J v 61

[finger]

You are entitled to your own beliefs, but I want to point out a little inconsistency in your logic. Azor Ahai or the Prince that was Promised is likely to defeat the others, but GRRM is not certain. He has said that it may end with Tyrion looking at a world of graves, or similar. For Jon to be tPtwP, R+L=J must be true, and Jon trueborn, to make him a prince. For this prophecy to pan out, it seems that the Prince will end the books ruling. Why else would Rhaegar have been so obsessed?

I personally don't like the idea of the hero ending by being king, it has happened so many times in so many stories, but that seems to be the direction that GRRM is taking us. He is orchestrating it in new and unique ways.

I don't like the idea of Daenerys taking the throne, for more reasons than just if there are any male heirs, and Stannis is one and Jon is another. The Seven Kingdoms need to be united under one king to win the battle, and all the more reason that Jon should be on the throne at the end of the story. Jon would not have any ambition towards becoming king, but as I see things unfolding be forced to take the throne to unite the Seven Kingdoms and (hopefully) win the Battle for the Dawn II.

If I were you, I wouldn't pretend to know more than Master Aemon. He has no problem with Daenerys being the Prince that Never Comes to Fulfill the Promise. :P

Eta: I think there are SSM,s about it. Otoh, PTWP=AAR=LTH. Otoh, not necessarily the same person. My take is the three heads will do the three heroes, and since one person has one head, three ppl are needed. Three persons, one only hero; sounds theological, like the Holy Trinity.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

If I were you, I wouldn't pretend to know more than Master Aemon. He has no problem with Daenerys being the Prince that Never Comes to Fulfill the Promise. :P

He's not infallible. And actually we do know more than Aemon: We know about the real parentage of Jon and the existence of possibly Aegon, meaning that we're aware of candidates that he isn't. He has no problem settling on Dany because he thinks she's the only one left; we know that's not true.

[Alia of the knife]

And, what's a happy ending?

As long as the story goes, if they just stop killing each other, and succeed to reject the WW, it'd be good enough, no matter how many kingdoms survive or who sit the bloody throne (it cuts.)

I think the characters have shown their personality, and they must find their place in this world. Maybe the happy ending is that each one will follow theit bias, not acting as supposed.

Jon Snow is tied to the Wall, and the lands and people beyond. He won't care for the IT, whoever his father was. Val will care his balls don't freeze.

More so, when his bother Aegon at last comes back from Asshai :-)

His aunt Daenerys is tied to the east. She'll go west with her dragons just to dicover that she has nothing to do there, hers is fucking on the grass under the stars. She has to see Narth and the Vasilisk Isles, meet the Volanteen slaves who're waiting for their Mhysa, and ride the Dothraki sea by a new Khal Drogo reborn.

Uncle Tyrion will die as a giant, victim of his loose tongue. He'll ofer to thrust a dragon into the the Heart of the Winter.

Varys' lie will be discovered, and it'll be the end of the mummer's dragon.

LF will controll the Vale and the Riverlands. He'll do for the rest of the Freys. Big Walder will pledge and inherit the Twins.

Lannisters are doomed.

I don't know when or how Stannis will die, but I've never seen a future for him. He's lived too much.

Sansa is pure ambition. She'll manage to get rid of LF, take the Vale and the Riverlands, and marry Aegon. North is too cold and boresome.

Arya has taken the revenge's path. When there's none interesting to kill in Westeros, she'll probably run for the black and white temple's "pope."

Rickon was wild enough, but after being raised by Osha in Skagos, he must be utterly unbearable. Anyway, he'll probably have some good times with Lord Manderly, eating Boltons and Freys.

Dorne will join Aegon.

Margaery will be a victim of the High Septon.

The Hound will study in the Quite Isle. Then he'll run to be the next High Septon, challenging the incumbent to singular combat (remember his horse is called after the last of the Seven.)

Enough. Some day I'll go on with Sam, Tormund and the rest.

I think the ending will be what Martin thinks it will be and what makes sense to the story, but I don't think he should be confined to a box by his fans based on what they want it to be. In that case, they should write their own stuff.

For example, I'm not at all fond of the notion that Arya and Jon could feasibly marry.

But, I must say that would be something that Martin might very well make happen since it would not be out of the bounds of why people historically married.

From a historical standpoint, people married for political reasons to unite houses, kingdoms, or for RE-unification.

If Jon is the last Targaryen Prince which he may be, then he would inherit the IR, (and no, another notion I'm personally not fond of either).

If for any reason at all Arya is the last female Stark, then it would make absolute political sense that they would marry and reunite the two kingdoms the way the Targaryens did with Dorne.

(Sansa given the chance to have her marriage put aside from Tyrion, may actually decide to stay with him. If Cersei and Jaime die, then conversely, the Starks have a claim to Casterly Rock with any children from that union).

In the hypothetical theory that Rhaegar and Lyanna lived, Jon may very well have been fostered with one of his three uncles in the North anyway, setting up a similar, familial bond with any of his female cousins. It often happened in Medieval times that a foster brother might marry the daughter of the Lord of the House he was fostered in.

We find that even Theon entertained the small hope that Ned might have considered him for Sansa.

As I said, I'm not fond of the book ending with such scenarios, but those are personal, and have nothing to do with the reality of the politics and life of Westeros, and the direction Martin follows based upon these factors

[Foothill]

He's not infallible. And actually we do know more than Aemon: We know about the real parentage of Jon and the existence of possibly Aegon, meaning that we're aware of candidates that he isn't. He has no problem settling on Dany because he thinks she's the only one left; we know that's not true.

To add to that: Are we even sure Aemon's belief that "prince" could mean boy or girl is even correct?

I know dragons dont have sexes, but I was never sure, in terms of the prophecy, the "prince" didnt mean boy.

Aemon may have just merged the two because he thought Dany was the only one left.

[Consigliere]

If I were you, I wouldn't pretend to know more than Master Aemon. He has no problem with Daenerys being the Prince that Never Comes to Fulfill the Promise. :P

Maester Aemon has been wrong before. He initially believed Rhaegar to be TPtwP.

[Jory Cassel]

as "the Prince that was promised" is discussed right now; am I the only one who finds it odd that it's "the Prince that (...)" instead of 'the Prince who'?

Is this indeed a grammatical error, or is there an explanation for it?

[Alia of the knife]

as "the Prince that was promised" is discussed right now; am I the only one who finds it odd that it's "the Prince that (...)" instead of 'the Prince who'?

Is this indeed a grammatical error, or is there an explanation for it?

I've always thought it was the explanation as Jons life was saved upon a promise.

[Dragonfish]

as "the Prince that was promised" is discussed right now; am I the only one who finds it odd that it's "the Prince that (...)" instead of 'the Prince who'?

Is this indeed a grammatical error, or is there an explanation for it?

It does sound off to me, but it's also true that many English speakers will use "that" instead of "who" in these situations, and George may simply be one of them. I don't think there's any more to it than that.

[Jory Cassel]

I've always thought it was the explanation as Jons life was saved upon a promise.

Yes, but wouldn't 'who' instead of 'that' achieve the same?

It does sound off to me, but it's also true that many English speakers will use "that" instead of "who" in these situations, and George may simply be one of them. I don't think there's any more to it than that.

ah, thanks for clearing that up. For a non-native speaker who is used to slavishly making the distinction, this apparent "mistake" does seem strange if one is not accustomed to everyday language use.

[vegedge]

something that i was thinking... jon is still a bastard regardless of him being neds or lyanna's. so why do people think he is the rightful king?

[Foothill]

something that i was thinking... jon is still a bastard regardless of him being neds or lyanna's. so why do people think he is the rightful king?

Under the premise Rhaegar and Lyanna were married.

[Ygrain]

something that i was thinking... jon is still a bastard regardless of him being neds or lyanna's. so why do people think he is the rightful king?

If he is the son of Lyanna and Rhaegar, it is possible that Rhaegar used the family precedens for polygamy and thus Jon is trueborn and the first in the Targaryen succession line.

[vegedge]

If he is the son of Lyanna and Rhaegar, it is possible that Rhaegar used the family precedens for polygamy and thus Jon is trueborn and the first in the Targaryen succession line.

but he is not born from a marriage. making him unable to be a legitimate king.

[Foothill]

but he is not born from a marriage. making him unable to be a legitimate king.

Some Targs have practiced polygamy which set a precedent for Rhaegar to marry Lyanna.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

but he is not born from a marriage. making him unable to be a legitimate king.

Again, polygamy. Rhaegar and Lyanna married polygamously.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

as "the Prince that was promised" is discussed right now; am I the only one who finds it odd that it's "the Prince that (...)" instead of 'the Prince who'?

Is this indeed a grammatical error, or is there an explanation for it?

You correct that the way it's worded is not, strictly speaking, grammatically correct.

Two explanations:

1. GRRM just did not much care for grammatical concerns.

2. The "that" has some other function. If you read it as Ned's promise to Lyanna, it could be read as, "I promise that I will ...".

Vast likelihood it's #1.

[Dragonfish]

2. The "that" has some other function. If you read it as Ned's promise to Lyanna, it could be read as, "I promise that I will ...".

How is this even a possibility? Isn't it absolutely clear that the "that" in "prince that was promised" is serving as a pronoun and not as a conjunction?

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

How is this even a possibility? Isn't it absolutely clear that the "that" in "prince that was promised" is serving as a pronoun and not as a conjunction?

Which is why I said that #1 was the likelier possibility. Given that it's not grammatically accurate, you can choose to think GRRM just isn't a stickler for grammar, or look at other ways in which it might otherwise be interpreted. Chill.

[Dragonfish]

Which is why I said that #1 was the likelier possibility.

Ok, but I'm not asking which one is likelier, I'm trying to understand how the second one is even a possibility.

Given that it's not grammatically accurate, you can choose to think GRRM just isn't a stickler for grammar, or look at other ways in which it might otherwise be interpreted.

Again, it's not really a matter of choosing which way to see it, as I don't see how the second option is even an option at all. Also, I wouldn't necessarily describe it as grammatically inaccurate, as I would venture to guess that most English speakers habitually use "that" to refer to people. At the very least, it's hardly unreasonable to suppose that this sort of usage is just a part of George's idiolect.

Chill.

I'm not sure how my questions merited this sort of comment. You proposed an interpretation, I disagreed with it. Is the mere act of disagreement enough to warrant an admonition such as this?

[Alia of the knife]

Yes, but wouldn't 'who' instead of 'that' achieve the same?

ah, thanks for clearing that up. For a non-native speaker who is used to slavishly making the distinction, this apparent "mistake" does seem strange if one is not accustomed to everyday language use.

Sorry, was in the car, (NOT driving), when I read the question, and yes, it would achieve the same.

I also agree that many English words are often interchangeable and we do it, but I also think that Martin is very deliberate in how and what he writes. Just his phrasing of the text in his conversation between Varys and Kevan about the return of "Aegon" demonstrates such deliberation.