R+L=J v 65

[thewingedwolf]

Amen.

And honestly, the reasons given as to why some don't want to see this revealed is a little creepy, as if seeing something dark, ugly and cruel is somehow more desirable, because it's more "edgy," a word I'm really growing tired of.

(Glad to see you). :cheers:

I think the reason why some people here don"t want to see this revealed has less to do with the idea itself and more to do with the fact that it has become so universally accepted on the forums. I believe some posters would like to see the majority of us (including me) who believe it proven wrong or at the very least, not proven right in our claim of R+L = J.

[Alia of the knife]

I think the reason why some people here don"t want to see this revealed has less to do with the idea itself and more to do with the fact that it has become so universally accepted on the forums. I believe some posters would like to see the majority of us (including me) who believe it proven wrong or at the very least, not proven right in our claim of R+L = J.

I've seen that reasoning too, but the reason why I think most of us believe this is because of the "breadcrumbs," not just because of personal motivations. I try to be very objective, so that what I am reading is properly comprehended.

I for one don't care to be wrong, and expect it, but I think the clues are so overwhelming to those of us who decide to dig deeper into the enigma that is Jon, as well as Ned, and this is the conclusion.

I have seen some say they would be "pissed" if there was some "sappy" romance, like a "sappy" romance is a bad thing, especially when love is such a driving factor of the human experience.

Tragedy, joy, love and hate are consistent with our human behaviors.

(Hope you feel better BTW- break out that whiskey, tea and honey). :thumbsup:

[thewingedwolf]

I've seen that reasoning too, but the reason why I think most of us believe this is because of the "breadcrumbs," not just because of personal motivations. I try to be very objective, so that what I am reading is properly comprehended.

I for one don't care to be wrong, and expect it, but I think the clues are so overwhelming to those of us who decide to dig deeper into the enigma that is Jon, as well as Ned, and this is the conclusion.

I have seen some say they would be "pissed" if there was some "sappy" romance, like a "sappy" romance is a bad thing, especially when love is such a driving factor of the human experience.

Tragedy, joy, love and hate are consistent with our human behaviors.

(Hope you feel better BTW- break out that whiskey, tea and honey).

Those who believe, as I do, that there is also a religious significance to R+L = J that apparents itself to that of Jesus and Mary Magdalene and that Jon is the Holy Grail of Westeros fully understand that. I don't think the romance aspect of Rhaegar and Lyanna is "sappy" just like I don't believe the romance between Jesus and Mary Magdalene was unholy.

[Alia of the knife]

Those who believe, as I do, that there is also a religious significance to R+L = J that apparents itself to that of Jesus and Mary Magdalene and that Jon is the Holy Grail of Westeros fully understand that. I don't think the romance aspect of Rhaegar and Lyanna is "sappy" just like I don't believe the romance between Jesus and Mary Magdalene was unholy.

Good point.

[thewingedwolf]

Good point.

Keep in mind that the belief took root among people because Robert waged war based on Lyanna's "kidnapping" and when he became King, I doubt anyone would find it in their best interest to question his word on that.

Just as, at th council of Nicaea in 325 AD, the Christian Bishops determined which gospel was considered "canonical" and which was considered "apocryphal". This is where Christendom started viewing the Magdalene as a prostitute and the Church became and remained the more patriarchal institution it is today.

[Ygrain]

I think the reason why some people here don"t want to see this revealed has less to do with the idea itself and more to do with the fact that it has become so universally accepted on the forums. I believe some posters would like to see the majority of us (including me) who believe it proven wrong or at the very least, not proven right in our claim of R+L = J.

Yeah, some people seem to love being contrarian just for the sake of it.

[thewingedwolf]

Yeah, some people seem to love being contrarian just for the sake of it.

Its too bad because there are so many topics that are far more contested and interesting to debate . . .

[Ygrain]

Darn, new thread, maybe I should post the conversation again? Do we want things on digression or on point? ;)

I think you might keep the post for later, when the need arises... which might be here: http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/78690-what-did-ned-know-before-the-fight-at-the-toj/ I give it one more page before it turns into "they were following an oath to Rhaegar".

[WhiteOwl18]

I think you might keep the post for later, when the need arises... which might be here: http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/78690-what-did-ned-know-before-the-fight-at-the-toj/ I give it one more page before it turns into "they were following an oath to Rhaegar".

You're being very optimistic...

[greetings mortals]

So if r+l=j is true, then the targ dynasty and the line of kings of winter were joined in mariage (suposing R maried L rather than just doing her)

so as long as your not from the iron islands, does that mean Bowen marsh and co just killed everyone's rightful king?

[greetings mortals]

So if r+l=j is true, then the targ dynasty and the line of kings of winter were joined in mariage (suposing R maried L rather than just doing her)

so as long as your not from the iron islands, does that mean Bowen marsh and co just killed everyone's rightful king?

ok... i dont remember putting that here.

[The guy from the Vale]

Depends on your take on the legality of Robert sitting on the throne. Baratheon loyalists will say Stannis, but Targaryen supporters... would consider Jon the rightful king, yes. If they knew, anyway.

[King Cheops]

The reason I hate the Jon Snow cliche is because I hate the Jon Snow character. I don't have the same problem with Harry Potter or Paul Atreides. Hell even Rand Al'Thor, Luke Skywalker, and Kaladin are more palatable. Jon is Anakin Skywalker without the cool lightsaber.

[Addam of Hull]

The reason I hate the Jon Snow cliche is because I hate the Jon Snow character. I don't have the same problem with Harry Potter or Paul Atreides. Hell even Rand Al'Thor, Luke Skywalker, and Kaladin are more palatable. Jon is Anakin Skywalker without the cool lightsaber.

Personally, I think a valyrian steel sword and a direwolf make for a cooler package than a lightsaber, but hey, whatever floats your boat, I guess.

Also, how can you hate a character? Did he do something to you personally?

[thewingedwolf]

Depends on your take on the legality of Robert sitting on the throne. Baratheon loyalists will say Stannis, but Targaryen supporters... would consider Jon the rightful king, yes. If they knew, anyway.

Legality comes down to right of conquest if you ask me. When Aegon The Conqueror landed, he was no more legitimate than Robert was when he rebelled (even less so since Robert technically had Targaryen blood). We have seen with Stannis that legitimacy is no guarantee of support in Westeros.

In the end if Jon sits the Iron Throne, it will be a combination of lineage, Jon's own actions, charisma and abilities and also some outside factors such as Aegon being exposed as a Blackfyre, etc.

If there is one thing we have learned from ASOIAF is that "legality" of reign comes from the sword, not the family name.

[Queen Alienor]

The reason I hate the Jon Snow cliche is because I hate the Jon Snow character. I don't have the same problem with Harry Potter or Paul Atreides. Hell even Rand Al'Thor, Luke Skywalker, and Kaladin are more palatable. Jon is Anakin Skywalker without the cool lightsaber.

I actually love Jon as a character... but that's something everyone has to decide for him/herself....

[greetings mortals]

The reason I hate the Jon Snow cliche is because I hate the Jon Snow character. I don't have the same problem with Harry Potter or Paul Atreides. Hell even Rand Al'Thor, Luke Skywalker, and Kaladin are more palatable. Jon is Anakin Skywalker without the cool lightsaber.

"I killed them, i killed them all. not just the men, but the women, and the children to." -Anakin skywalker

yeah that sounds like jon to me.......

[Alia of the knife]

The reason I hate the Jon Snow cliche is because I hate the Jon Snow character. I don't have the same problem with Harry Potter or Paul Atreides. Hell even Rand Al'Thor, Luke Skywalker, and Kaladin are more palatable. Jon is Anakin Skywalker without the cool lightsaber.

Actually, the growth of Paul Atreides from a petulant young lord to a hard-core leader and later, to tyrant I think is very similar to Jon's trajectory, even down to possible tyrant.

Since I do believe that Jon is legitimate, it's ironic that his "bastardy" is the source of his angst, while Paul, who was technically a bastard given that Leto did not marry the Lady Jessica, was just a bored aristocrat.

[The guy from the Vale]

Legality comes down to right of conquest if you ask me. When Aegon The Conqueror landed, he was no more legitimate than Robert was when he rebelled (even less so since Robert technically had Targaryen blood). We have seen with Stannis that legitimacy is no guarantee of support in Westeros.

In the end if Jon sits the Iron Throne, it will be a combination of lineage, Jon's own actions, charisma and abilities and also some outside factors such as Aegon being exposed as a Blackfyre, etc.

If there is one thing we have learned from ASOIAF is that "legality" of reign comes from the sword, not the family name.

That depends on how far you value right of conquest over right of tradition. I don't think much of the right of conquest at all but rather think establishing traditions and ruling peacefully is what legitimizes a dynasty. For me, Aegon I, Aenys and Maegor had no right to rule over Westeros. At the end of Jaehaerys I's reign though, noone who was still alive had memories of the Kingdoms before the Targs. Jaehaerys also stabilized the kingdoms, which is basically why I see him (and not Aegon I) as the first legitimate Targaryen king of the Seven Kingdoms. The Baratheons, as of now, are illegitimate too. If they manage to survive a few more decades, they might become legitimate - but Robert's incompetence, Cersei's adultery and Stannis' loss at the Blackwater means that they currently look worse 15 years into their reign than the Targs looked any time during their first century in Westeros.

[UVA]

Legality comes down to right of conquest if you ask me. When Aegon The Conqueror landed, he was no more legitimate than Robert was when he rebelled (even less so since Robert technically had Targaryen blood). We have seen with Stannis that legitimacy is no guarantee of support in Westeros.

These are meta issues explored in the series: the mutability of power and what constitutes legitimate kingship and its acquisition. Yet in-universe there's no claim that's legitimate in an abstract legal sense, it becomes an matter of perception. And this is so muddled in the series that I don't think one can come down on any side. The Targaryens most certainly think that the removal of Aerys as king and the murder and exile of his descendants was not rightful. Likewise, the Baratheons believe that Aerys’ madness and the enormities he committed as king justified the nullification of his and his descendants’ right to rule; thus leaving Robert and his family legitimate kings, as they were most closely related (out of the victorious rebel houses) to the fallen dynasty.

Strictly speaking I agree with guyfromthevale, that on the basis of history and precedent Jon is the legitimate heir to the Targaryen throne (assuming R+L were married and Aegon is an imposter.)