Jump to content

R+L=J v 65


Stubby

Recommended Posts

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.

Also, remember that Robert himself sat on the Iron Throne partially because he could claim some Targ blood, and also that's why he was so determined to kill Dany and Viserys. The Baratheons want to claim the throne (again partially) as a sort of quasi continuation of the Targ dynasty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.)

First of all, let me say that I agree with this 100%.

Perhaps I did not bring my forth clearly and if I did not, I apologize. That being said, legitimacy is only as valid as your ability to enforce it when it is challlenged, otherwise, you get Viscerys aka the beggar king, furthermore, Jaeherys I would have never been able to do what he did had Aegon not roasted the armies of the Garden King and the KIng of the Rock and everyone in the Seven Kingdoms knew that to question the Targaryen legacy meant ot face the wrath of Dragons.

Case in point, after the death of the last dragon, the Targaryens were militarily challenged three times in the Blackfyre rebellion, the war of the Ninepenny Knigs and finally, Robert's rebellion which led to their demise. Put simply, with the dragons gone, the legitimacy of House Targaryen became harder to harder to enforce.

Now coming back to Jon Snow, granted if the factors mentioned in your quote above are true he is the legitimate heir, however, I think the most important question is not whether he is legitimate, it how he will enforce his legitimacy in a continent that still has three different kings (Stannis, Tommen and Euron) and (f)Aegon.

I hope that clarified my statement, apologies again for the confusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No need to apologize ;)



Of course, legitimacy is self-perpetuating in some sense. But that is precisely why I find a dynasty not legitimate immediately, but growing in legitimacy over time; and the Targaryens became fuzlly legitimate only under Jaehaerys, imo. On the other hand, once the Targaryens were removed from power, their legitimacy started dwindling and the Baratheon legitimacy started accumulating - but considering that the smallfolk still seem to consider the Targs the rightful kings, I'd argue that the Targaryen legitimacy for the throne still surpasses the Baratheon claim. Again, this might change under the hand of a skillful Baratheon ruler - but we still have to see one such on the Iron Throne. And while Stannis is struggling to establish his credentials, several Targaryen claimants (fAegon, Dany, possibly Jon) start staking out their own claims...


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I would argue that the strenght of the Targaryen dynasty started to erode when the last of the dragons died . . . But I suppose thats a different discussion for a different thread.



Back to Jon however, as you mentioned, several Targaryen claimants have come forth and therefore it will take more than "I am the son of Rhaegar" for Jon to become king. Loyalties are hard to acquire even more to keep, look at Stannis and the Stormlords. Merely being the "rightful" heir to the throne is no longer enough to win it. Furthermore, as you surely know, history is written by the winners, therefore after one sits the throne, it becomes a lot easier to create and justify legitimacy (if Aegon wins and he declares himself a Targaryen, who will argue?)



Just a thought . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

That being said, legitimacy is only as valid as your ability to enforce it when it is challlenged.

I think these are all incredibly important points and are at the very heart of ASOIAF's examination of the nature of power. But as Varys so aptly pointed out, notions of what constitutes power and its legitimacy are never static. They evolve and adapt according to the ebbs and flows of human events and history. Nothing creates greater shifts in these sensibilities than the forces of war and natural disaster (or in the case of of Planetos, Supernatural disasters :) ) Thanks to the internecine warfare between the great houses and the threat from the Others, Westeros and possibly all of Planetos is entering an era of cataclysmic upheaval. In the forthcoming books, I wouldn't be surprised if we see huge changes in their political, socieo-economic and even religious power structures. Their world is probably going to look very different by the end of the series than it did at the beginning. What may have been an unthinkable possibility in the past, such as having a ruler who is base born or a woman may become a reality, particularly if they have the skills needed to stabilize a more chaotic future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think these are all incredibly important points and are at the very heart of ASOIAF's examination of the nature of power. But as Varys so aptly pointed out, notions of what constitutes power and its legitimacy are never static. They evolve and adapt according to the ebbs and flows of human events and history. Nothing creates greater shifts in these sensibilities than the forces of war and natural disaster (or in the case of of Planetos, Supernatural disasters :) ) Thanks to the internecine warfare between the great houses and the threat from the Others, Westeros and possibly all of Planetos is entering an era of cataclysmic upheaval. In the forthcoming books, I wouldn't be surprised if we see huge changes in their political, socieo-economic and even religious power structures. Their world is probably going to look very different by the end of the series than it did at the beginning. What may have been an unthinkable possibility in the past, such as having a ruler who is base born or a woman may become a reality, particularly if they have the skills needed to stabilize a more chaotic future.

True, and though it was only in the TV version, to Varys point, Jorah tells Dany that Aegon the Conqueror did what he did not because he had the "right," but because he could.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[...] But that is precisely why I find a dynasty not legitimate immediately, but growing in legitimacy over time[...] I'd argue that the Targaryen legitimacy for the throne still surpasses the Baratheon claim.

I think so too. One reason why Baratheon rule is so tenuous at the end of GoT is that they've only been in power for 15 years (?) That's a pittance in dynastic terms. The 300 years of Targaryen kings isn't that extensive either but they have tradition and precedent on their side, and much of this (the KG, Small Council for example) was appropriated by the conquering dynasty anyway.

Merely being the "rightful" heir to the throne is no longer enough to win it. Furthermore, as you surely know, history is written by the winners, therefore after one sits the throne, it becomes a lot easier to create and justify legitimacy (if Aegon wins and he declares himself a Targaryen, who will argue?)

That's a major critique in the book imo, and perhaps it's Jon who, despite having the "proper" lineage to those that care about Targ succession, earns the right to rule through what you said up thread irt moxy, bravery, charisma, and luck. Further and along the lines of the social upheaval that lareine mentions, I'd love to see the problematic idea of the right of conquest be seriously challenged. Right of conquest presupposes a kind of a might makes right philosophy that doesn't give the victor an inalienable right to rule. Instead power is established and sustained through violent force or threat thereof; and what makes this problematic in aSoIaF is that since the Wot5K, no ruling figure has a monopoly on violence to maintain the status quo. So it is chaos.

In terms of the significance of R+L=J for Jon, I think it will be much more personal (perhaps mystical) as opposed to political for him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking of the contrarianism....



" there is A LOT of stuff people take to be concrete real evidence just because a group of vets to the forum believe it to be this way"



Wow, I am feeling so honoured. Le sigh. So that's what we are, a group of dinosaurs standing in the way of Truth?


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking of the contrarianism....

" there is A LOT of stuff people take to be concrete real evidence just because a group of vets to the forum believe it to be this way"

Wow, I am feeling so honoured. Le sigh. So that's what we are, a group of dinosaurs standing in the way of Truth?

I don't believe so generally, but there are some veterans who regularly abuse anything that doesn't fit their ideas, whether founded in text or not. Their way or the highway.

Arbor Gold theory is an example (not all, or necessarily even many, of the proponents I hastily add). There are major statistical flaws in that theory that were never addressed, but any opposition was abused and bullied, even when just asking questions. Now it is cited as fact regularly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't believe so generally, but there are some veterans who regularly abuse anything that doesn't fit their ideas, whether founded in text or not. Their way or the highway.

Arbor Gold theory is an example (not all, or necessarily even many, of the proponents I hastily add). There are major statistical flaws in that theory that were never addressed, but any opposition was abused and bullied, even when just asking questions. Now it is cited as fact regularly.

I'm going to argue that there is a bit of an agenda going on with Sansa on this board. Its like the situation where Sansa goes to tell Cersei about Ned's plans....

People will argue Ned was going to die anyways so it didn't matter. But I've argued Ned's arrest wasn't the turning point where he was doomed(since neither Cersei or Varys wanted him dead, but I've seen others say this is the moment where he "died"), and I've seen the same people argue that Sansa's actions did nothing.

I'm not 100 percent certain about this but Sansa could have escaped right? If so, she clearly did influence his death. I remember in the end of one of Sansa's chapters in AGOT, Joffrey claimed he wanted a confession from Ned and he would give him "mercy" if he did. Also, Cersei seemed to complain about the execution done in public.

You seem fairly unbiased and well spoken <_<

Do I have a point or did Sansa's actions do nothing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a question about Jon Snow;

So I know that Targaryens often have dragon dreams; but if Jon is truly Rhaegar Targaryen and Lyanna Stark's son, then he can possibly have both dragon dreams and greenseer powers. But Bloodraven knew that Jon, if he ever discovered his origins through these powers would be in great danger from the enemies that wanted to kill him(for example, Robert Baratheon and the Lannister) so I think it was certainly possible that Bloodraven sealed his powers until Jon was old enough to understand his gifts. And that means he sealed away the dragon dreams, too.

Would that be in the realm of possiblity, especially if Bloodraven wants Jon to be king, and he knew the intrigues to the south would prove a danger, would seal the dragon dreams to protect Jon?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a question about Jon Snow;

So I know that Targaryens often have dragon dreams; but if Jon is truly Rhaegar Targaryen and Lyanna Stark's son, then he can possibly have both dragon dreams and greenseer powers. But Bloodraven knew that Jon, if he ever discovered his origins through these powers would be in great danger from the enemies that wanted to kill him(for example, Robert Baratheon and the Lannister) so I think it was certainly possible that Bloodraven sealed his powers until Jon was old enough to understand his gifts. And that means he sealed away the dragon dreams, too.

Would that be in the realm of possiblity, especially if Bloodraven wants Jon to be king, and he knew the intrigues to the south would prove a danger, would seal the dragon dreams to protect Jon?

Jon seems to have a recurring dream that is equivalent to a dragon dream, that of entering the crypts and denying that he is a Stark. He also has had a dream of fighting at the Wall against an undead army.

It does stand to reason that Bloodraven could know of Jon's legitimacy. He may even have said so, via Mormont's raven. I think that Bloodraven has a higher priority on bringing Bran into successorship than blocking Jon. Just my two pence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jon seems to have a recurring dream that is equivalent to a dragon dream, that of entering the crypts and denying that he is a Stark. He also has had a dream of fighting at the Wall against an undead army.

It does stand to reason that Bloodraven could know of Jon's legitimacy. He may even have said so, via Mormont's raven. I think that Bloodraven has a higher priority on bringing Bran into successorship than blocking Jon. Just my two pence.

The last part, however, does depend on the interpretation of Jojen's greendream. Sure, Bran looks important to Bloodraven's plans, but is he the center piece, or is it Jon?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The last part, however, does depend on the interpretation of Jojen's greendream. Sure, Bran looks important to Bloodraven's plans, but is he the center piece, or is it Jon?

We really don't have much in the way of clues either way. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking of the contrarianism....

" there is A LOT of stuff people take to be concrete real evidence just because a group of vets to the forum believe it to be this way"

Wow, I am feeling so honoured. Le sigh. So that's what we are, a group of dinosaurs standing in the way of Truth?

I agree with what OberynBlackfyre said in the "scraping the barrel" thread, but I'm wondering why you quoted that without attribution.

I don't take anything as canon until it's actually canon and I read it as a fact in the novels. There is definitely a propensity for accepting "theories" as canon here. Do you not agree with that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We really don't have much in the way of clues either way. ;)

True enough. All I'm arguing is that assuming Bloodraven doesn't care about Jon much because he's focusing on Bran might well be in for a nasty surprise.

I agree with what OberynBlackfyre said in the "scraping the barrel" thread, but I'm wondering why you quoted that without attribution.

I don't take anything as canon until it's actually canon and I read it as a fact in the novels. There is definitely a propensity for accepting "theories" as canon here. Do you not agree with that?

That depends on the "theory" in question. There's a small set of "theories" that have buttloads of evidence while the countertheories failed to convince. Those few are taken as fact, yes. There's also lots of hypothesizing that doesn't lead anywhere, or leads to interesting conclusions that nevertheless might well be false. R+L=J definitely belongs to the former category: It is well-founded textually, thematically, and circumstantially (regarding what we know about GRRM and the show runners for example, or the depiction of Jon and Rhaegar in the graphic novels, or...). All counter-theories so far failed to be consistent. They often disregard the timeline or fail to explain lots of symbols, ironies and scenes - from the blue rose growing in a wall of ice and Promise me, Ned over the KG at the ToJ to lots and lots of throwaway lines about kings in Jon's chapters that become intentionally ironic the second R+L=J is accepted. Another hypothesis that wants to become a theory (i.e., taken as almost canon) would need to explain all of this at the very least while also complying with the timeline. I have yet to see one attempt that worked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with what OberynBlackfyre said in the "scraping the barrel" thread, but I'm wondering why you quoted that without attribution.

I don't take anything as canon until it's actually canon and I read it as a fact in the novels. There is definitely a propensity for accepting "theories" as canon here. Do you not agree with that?

I agree with this as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True enough. All I'm arguing is that assuming Bloodraven doesn't care about Jon much because he's focusing on Bran might well be in for a nasty surprise.

That depends on the "theory" in question. There's a small set of "theories" that have buttloads of evidence while the countertheories failed to convince. Those few are taken as fact, yes. There's also lots of hypothesizing that doesn't lead anywhere, or leads to interesting conclusions that nevertheless might well be false. R+L=J definitely belongs to the former category: It is well-founded textually, thematically, and circumstantially (regarding what we know about GRRM and the show runners for example, or the depiction of Jon and Rhaegar in the graphic novels, or...). All counter-theories so far failed to be consistent. They often disregard the timeline or fail to explain lots of symbols, ironies and scenes - from the blue rose growing in a wall of ice and Promise me, Ned over the KG at the ToJ to lots and lots of throwaway lines about kings in Jon's chapters that become intentionally ironic the second R+L=J is accepted. Another hypothesis that wants to become a theory (i.e., taken as almost canon) would need to explain all of this at the very least while also complying with the timeline. I have yet to see one attempt that worked.

Almost canon is not canon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Almost canon is not canon.

But for the purpose of discussion, especially when a lot of what these theories cover is pretty expansive, it's generally more expedient to make the overarching assumption that a theory is true than to constantly stipulate it. Like if our goal is to discuss the future of Jon's character arc, then obviously that is tied directly in to his parentage and for the purpose of that discussion, most people assume that R+L=J is true, even if we don't know that it is. The theory gives us something to work with and go off of. I think most people are aware that theories are still theories until they're written down in an explicitly canon way, but if you preclude theories from discussion of future books, then anything that's not explicitly stated should also go out the window. For instance, everyone knows that Manderly baked the Freys into a pie, but Martin didn't ever actually say that. He left the clues and expected us to extrapolate it from those which is why doing the same for other elements of the story, particularly ones that are mysteries, are usually fruitful and effective. Theories which have a solid grounding in what Martin has written, but haven't been outright confirmed, make for good points of discussion beyond the actual theory itself because most of these theories have far reaching effects.

That said, I suppose you can limit discussion to what is known to be canon and make some headway, but trying to go beyond that and reach a deeper understanding of the world, even if that understanding is flawed because we still don't have all the facts, is something that I think yields more results. Is every theory going to be true? No. Are most of them going to be true? Probably not. I'd be willing to bet that any theory out there isn't 100 percent correct, because Martin is purposefully obscuring the facts and limiting our knowledge, but he's said before that he's written the books in such a way that they're rewarding for people who read them carefully.

To wrap this up, almost canon is certainly not canon yet, but discussions generally benefit from assuming that elements that are almost canon are, in fact, canon for the purpose of discussion rather than excluding them entirely and discussing only what is explicitly told to us.

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...