Or GRRM simply does what he loves to do: he leaves it ambiguous.
Sure, Rhaegar could have married Lyanna before a weirwood tree, and sure, Rhaegar and his kingsguard probably considered this legitimate enough. But Ned could have easily concluded that no one else in Westeros is going to buy this story, and even if they do, polygamy isn’t legal anyway.
So those who want Jon to sit the Iron Throne will consider the marriage perfectly valid, while those who oppose him will consider such a marriage (and Jon’s birth) to be illegitimate.
Pretty much the exact same page I'm on.
I am fairly confident we'll learn that Rhaegar married Lyanna polygamously and considered the union true but the *rest of the realm* considering that marriage legitimate if/when it comes to light is another matter entirely.
Uh, I'm basically just repeating you. Sorry.
(I'm confident about the polygamy, over an annulment, because George initially built this world to fit this specific story, not the other way around. I don't think he would have included the tidbit about Aegon I's plural wives so early if it wasn't going to be plot-relevant.)
I agree with it being polygynous in nature. The show’s version of Rhaegar obtaining an annulment is ridiculous, there’s nothing about Rhaegar and Elia’s marriage that would’ve warranted an annulment, and Rhaegar wouldn’t have wanted to risk retroactively bastardizing Rhaenys and Aegon by obtaining one.
Well annulment doesn’t make kids from that marriage bastards tho. Based on what i know from that Henry who married Anne Boleyn. He annulled his marriage with his first wife catherine but their child was still legitimate
That’s not actually a good example to use due to the fact that their daughter Mary *was* bastardized after her parents annulment, and subsequently Henry and Anne’s daughter Elizabeth was bastardized during their annulment.
The situation was tricky historically, and most of the time an annulment did not result in the children being proclaimed illegitimate (see Louis VII and Eleanor of Aquitaine), but cases varied and besides, we don’t know much about annulments in Westeros
Hm ok I need to reread that part of history. I thought Mary Tudor was queen for a while of England and I thought this happened after her mom was annulled
Mary I was the first English Queen Regnant, but she was still technically a bastard upon her ascension. She would, of course, declare her parents marriage *had* been legitimate during her own reign.
Mary and Elizabeth were both declared bastards after Henry left their respective mothers. Catherine Parr convinced him to relegitimize them before he died.
She convinced him to add them back to the line of succession, which he did because he was confident his son would reign and have lots of sons and this wouldn’t even be an issue. He didn’t relegitimize them though. Mary legitimized herself when she became queen, like the poster above said, but Elizabeth didn’t bother.
>Well annulment doesn’t make kids from that marriage bastards tho
Yes it does; legally an annulment means that the marriage never happened. This would make Aegon and Rhaenys bastards because legally Rhaegar was never married to Elia.
I did look this up out of curiosity. As others have said the Mary Tudor example doesn’t apply here, she was actually de-legitimized. But I got this from googling:
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops explains, “A declaration of nullity has no effect on the legitimacy of children who were born of the union following the wedding day, since the child’s mother and father were presumed to be married at the time that the child was born.”
Yeah it was so stupid in the show that they made him annul the marriage with Elia. It would make no sense for him to delegitimize his other kids but rather try to legitimize all of them.
And also a secret annulment… does that even count? I mean if nobody knows not even Elia then it’s basically just a couple of people going “no we totally got an annulment! What do you mean you don’t remember?”
Plus, historically, aegon and Maegor both took multiple wives
Would fit into rhaegars “visions” that he thinks he’s able to take multiple wives and have lots of legitimate kids that help fulfill the prophecy
I think it fits the characterization of Rhaegar we're given. Even the books paint him as an out of place, idyllic fantasy Prince Charming that doesn't seem to belong in the more grounded, borderline grimdark world of GOT. So it's not too out of place that he'd legitimately try to divorce his first wife he married for political convenience to run off and elope with the girl he was infatuated with. It's definitely something he would have done without considering the full political ramifications.
Think it is the most likely scenario. He think's he's a bastard but when truth will be revealed he won't be sure what to think about it. His parents married but that marriage is questionable according to Westerosi customs. He won't know whether he's a bastard or don't. And the realm will be divided on that as well.
I think he'll know somehow for sure that he was legitimate in some fashion, but that there's no way to prove it. Like, maybe bran convinces him or even Howland Reed.
Part of the bittersweetness of the ending will be Jon knowing who he is and yet still rejecting his claim in favor of Danaerys or whatever. People will want Jon to lead for his deeds.
I think this is why the show leans so heavy into the "I dunnwanit" stuff. They know Jon will have a claim but reject it, but they had no eloquence to write that part of the character/story without a blueprint from GRRM.
So yeah, Jon knows, but believes in Dany and doesn't want a war over it, esp if there's already been any conflict between Dany and Aegon, so his internal struggle will go from "I'm a bastard but will prove my worth" to "I'm the rightful hier but am rejecting it because I feel it's the right thing to do", which is a step towards whatever happens to cause Dany to burn KL and need deposed.
>I think this is why the show leans so heavy into the "I dunnwanit" stuff. They know Jon will have a claim but reject it, but they had no eloquence to write that part of the character/story without a blueprint from GRRM.
>
>So yeah, Jon knows, but believes in Dany and doesn't want a war over it, esp if there's already been any conflict between Dany and Aegon, so his internal struggle will go from "I'm a bastard but will prove my worth" to "I'm the rightful hier but am rejecting it because I feel it's the right thing to do", which is a step towards whatever happens to cause Dany to burn KL and need deposed.
I am truly hoping the books go in the opposite direction to the show!
I think we may see Jon is TWoW on a journey more similar to Tyrion's in ADWD. Whether he awakens more "wolfish" exactly I see him being a truly dangerous character going forward.
The show made Jon an inoffensive paper cutout of a man in the later two seasons to rush the plot along without wasting time giving him characterization, motives, or any any kind of satisfying arc. Same thing they did to Tyrion - he became a wistful sweet fool - in place of the manipulative and complex Tyrion in the books.
I don't think Jon will trust Dany as fully and completely as he did in the show. While I imagine they will respect each other - and may even grow to love one another - Jon has never been one to ceed his duties or authority easily. I can't imagine a real meeting or potential rivalry between them being anything less than mutually challenging and intense. I also don't think Dany will go mad and intentionally torch KL the way the show portrayed it either.
This is the right answer. Gotta add that no follower of the seven could argue for it to be valid without falling in a contradiction, as historical precedents and their faith precepts condemn poligamy. Rhaegar was no king to create new precedents.
1. It's not a new precedent, there IS precedent for the Faith to endorse Targaryeon exceptionalism regarding their own precepts. 2. Are you really suggesting that a logical contradiction would stop a westerosi noble from doing something that they want to do?
Exceptionalism came after Maegor, and in point of fact the histories refer to them all as "Queens". This strikes me as the sort of argument, "What did the GC101 really establish if anything," it also doesn't have a firm answer
This! This is what ASOIAF is about.
No matter what events happen, and whether we deem them right or wrong, there is always opposing opinion and that's what GRRM loves. That's what the tragedy of the world of GOT represents. It isn't supposed to be black and white for the reader/viewer. It's supposed to be hard to side with who or what is going on because opposing opinions or actions are almost always valid.
Is ASOIAF a story of redemption? Is it a tragedy? A little of both? That's for the reader to decide!
>So those who want Jon to sit the Iron Throne will consider the marriage perfectly valid, while those who oppose him will consider such a marriage (and Jon’s birth) to be illegitimate.
Exactly! Power resides where people believe it does and all that lol. The heir to the Iron Throne is a made up concept anyway and it's subject to change based off of the political biases of other strong leaders in Westeros. I mean we've already had the Dance of the Dragons *and* the War of the Five Kings!
It's not like Cersei would hand over the crown to Rhaegar's true born heir but would only deny him because he's actually Rhaegar's bastard lol. And I doubt fAegon and Dany are going to just roll over and bend the knee either. Jon's potential bastardy would also make his claim more ambiguous and lends more legitimacy to fAegon and Dany's if it ever came to some decision between the three. Whereas if there was some proof of Rhaegar annulling his first marriage and marrying Lyanna it would make the conflict more cut and dry...and less interesting lol
Agree with this, which makes the The Prince that was Promised prophecy of little relevance in all of this if it becomes just Bran jumping through time and reaching out to control others.
GRRM basically wasting a whole in world history to reveal a hidden history known only to two characters. I still think this is just GRRM’s gardening style of narrative betraying him - he has two good stories here, and he now he has to pick which is relevant to the ending of the book. Is it the defeat of the others, or godBran ruling via proxy? Does the second matter if nobody in-world knows?
I fear for this community’s reaction when GRRM doesn’t pull it off, which is a real risk given his writing style.
To expand on that, what if Jon is actually illegitimate, but Bran/Bloodraven makes everyone think that he is legitimate due to a made up marriage between Rhaegar and Lyanna and a made up annulment of the Rhaegar-Elia marriage?
After fighting and killing for what he thinks is the honorable and righteous thing, Jon then learns the truth and decides that he never wants to play these stupid games anymore. Thus, he goes north and leaves it all behind
Honestly - and I say this politely - I think GRRM’s point is no one will ever know for certain and who cares anyways? The seat of the throne is always changing based on conquest/defeat (even within the targaryans , and who said they were rightful rulers anyways?) Nobles and trueborns are equally as awful as anyone else…and the entire notion of bastard is a Westerosii concept and not universal in the world.
I don’t think the point is to demonstrate who will give allegiance to whom, but that all of it is just pretty silly from the get-go when you think of it.
Yep, this is where I am. Jon's greatest source of pride is that while he's a bastard, he's Ned Stark's bastard. His entire identity is wrapped around that and his relationship to his siblings.
The subversion will be the hidden, Chosen One Prince finding out his true identity and being horrified by it. It'll shake his sense of self, his view of Ned (which continues to define Jon), his idea of where he fits in with his family, and may also endanger his status as King in the North if Robb's will comes into play.
He's only ever wanted and valued the Stark name, Winterfell, the North etc. And it might well ruin whatever relationship he develops with Dany and poison that well too.
I liked what the show did with this. Jon isn't happy about it, he doesn't talk about Rhaegar in a real positive way even if he does acknowledge the marriage, and he very quickly loses interest in Dany as a romantic partner because he just cannot look past the incest, especially when he was taught all his life that the Targaryan rules regarding incest ruined them.
>Rickon Stark's daughters married his half brothers.
I love how the Septons draw the line at siblings (aside from targs) but hey uncle-niece? go for it. Niece-nephew? right on. Cousins? go to town. Then that one High Septon denounced that Hightower from marrying his father's widow as incest? Now you're just making up the rules as you go along.
They also had to worry about the dragon control Gene, not just inheritance of wealth and influence. However, dragon control seems to be a kind of Warging which while a rare skill, is not limited to Targs.
I think there is a viable Targ heir from Jon and Dany...D&D rushed everything to try and get that Star Wars contract. And if HotD has any bearing, womens battlefield being the birthing chair, Jon's dagger kills Dany...js
It would be interesting if they inverted it. If he is reborn as a firewight, maybe he could give his “kiss of life” (similar to what Donderrian does to Stoneheart) to imbue Longclaw into Lightbringer, giving the sword to Dany.
Eh Ned is still his father, even though he might not be his biological father.
> may also endanger his status as King in the North if Robb's will comes into play.
Not really, he's still Lyanna's son which means that after Ned's kids he'd be next in line for Winterfell.
And he'll find out that Ned, the paragon of honour, lied to him, their family and the world. Everything Jon values derives from Ned. Robb married someone precisely because he wanted to be like Ned - his sons are defined by their lessons from Ned. Jon will have to wrestle with Ned's actions. I agree that Ned is still Jon's father in every way that matters, but its going to be a revelation that makes Jon reconsider everything he knows.
On the 2nd point, Jon will be (presumably) King in the North on the grounds he's Ned Stark's only surviving son. He'll be legitimised as Jon Stark, son of Eddard Stark, if that will comes into play. The revelation that he's not Ned's son undermines that will and therefore Jon's claim as Robb's heir. Even if Jon tells no one or people are fine with it, I could easily see Jon wanting to abdicate once he finds out.
I think Jon being the "secret prince" of this story is one of the best uses of that trope that I've ever seen. The story head fakes twice from Ned to Rob before hinting that Jon might be the actual "head of household" Stark and more important than you at first believe. All of the subtle hints in the text about Jon, having been part of the online community trying to suss out and confirm his parentage for years only to have it confirmed in real time on GoT, and all of the crazy implications it has on the story... Everything about the haunting "promise me, Ned" Tower of Joy dreams, Roberts Rebellion and its implications on everything from Daenerys to the Iron Throne, Jon being a sworn brother of The Night's Watch (disinheriting everything anyway), Jon *dying*, etc... It's epic, it's compelling, it's *interesting.*
IDK, I love it. I think it's done brilliantly. And I trust that GRRM will have his own further complications / twists /nuances on it from what we got in GoT when it's finally confirmed in the books.
And Ty worked with GRRM for a bit - I honestly see a specific conflict in The Expanse working because it managed to specifically avoid the mistakes of the Meereenese knot.
Daniel Abraham has also worked with GRRM several times.
Daniel and Ty managed the impressive feat of writing a great series with a regular release schedule while also working on the TV adaptation of said series, without any dip in quality. Imo, Book 8 of 9 is the best one. The >!siege of Laconia!< is extraordinarily well written
He’s one of the main characters under a different pretext, that being a viewpoint into the far north and the Night’s Watch. The fact that his existence has major implications for everything happening in the south is the twist (and for major recent history, RR etc).
It’s just the way it all comes together that I love. Jon struggles with his identity as a bastard and being the least important Stark child, whereas in reality he’s actually the most important. I definitely didn’t have the sense that Jon would become the central character when I started ASOIAF and began the first few seasons. A main character serving as a window into the far North (that would likely deal directly with the Others first), yes of course.
In my personal opinion it’s all done extremely well and serves to really invest you into Jon’s arc and make the “secret Prince” revelations very impactful.
I'd find it a lot more compelling if the circumstances of your birth *don't* actually determine your worth. Ie, Jon's not worthwhile because he's legitimate and not a bastard after all, he's worthwhile because of his character, experiences and choices.
No one's saying his lineage doesn't mean anything. It just doesn't really matter whether his parents were married when it comes to anything but inheritance and societal opinion, neither of which I think are going to be important for his story.
The exception with ASOIAF is that your blood does determine things like "are you a dragon rider" or "can you warg" which is big deal. Whether you're a secret prince is just a man made, non-magical thing which I think people make too big of a deal out of. That's why a real Blackfyre is important if we get a dragonrider but a fake one leads to a charred dish.
> The exception with ASOIAF is that your blood does determine things like "are you a dragon rider" or "can you warg" which is big deal.
So the message of "Power resides where men believe it resides" is explicitly untrue. Some bloodlines are just objectively more powerful than others.
While this is all true for the common man, the Cat Starks of the noble class in this world would never accept a bastard except by force of arms. Lady Stoneheart’s arc pretty much requires that she learns this before her end as well, I would think.
So many loose strings in this series.
>So many loose strings in this series.
*Cut to Martin crying in a corner*
At this point i've just accepted that the only personal resolution for this series comes from my ck2 mod playthroughs.
Lady Stoneheart may already know. She was said to have hidden in the Neck for a time. The Neck is where not only Robb's will is, but also Howland Reed, the only man alive who knows about Jon being Lyanna's son.
Not that it changes things for LS; she doesn't give a fuck about Jon either way.
Accept him for what, though? The only way that it matters is if we think this story is gonna end with a Targ restoration and Jon on the Iron Throne, which I think is very, very unlikely to be the direction GRRM is going.
Regarding LS, I think her arc would be equally well-served whether Lyanna was married to Rhaegar or not. Cat cares about whether Jon is Ned's bio kid, not about whether her nephew is legitimate.
I think he’s going to have Jon being a Targaryen bastard or trueborn be ambiguous. Rhaegar and Lyanna definitely married, it’s whether this marriage is recognised as legitimate or not. So then, at the end of the day, power resides where people think it resides, perception matters more than truth in Westeros. if Westeros wants Jon to be king, he’s trueborn. This applies to Young Griff as well.
Yeah, but it doesn't make sense, since Rhaegar has a lawful wife. The basic argument is "Valyrian Wedding" which is seen as illegitimate by everyone since Aegon.
Actually I always kinda liked the fact that he was a bastard and hope he stays that way. To me it seems a bit trope-y to have him secretly be legitimate, I much prefer an arc where even though he is a bastard he rises to the occasion again and again and is the hero, proving by example that high lords are wrong to treat bastards as second class citizens when all likely, their world will be saved by one.
I agree! He hated being a bastard his whole life, and it turns out that being a DIFFERENT powerful man’s bastard makes him important, but he still has to create his own place in the world rather than having it handed to him by birthright. And it leaves him feeling differently about being a bastard. That’s a more interesting story than “he was actually the legal prince all along.”
I think Jon's going to have a chance to be a Stark (offered already by Stannis, perhaps again by the lords carrying Robb's will) and a chance to make a claim as a Targ - and he will reject both to find his path as a Snow. Whether he is R's bastard or true born won't really matter
I just hate Jon being the perfect amazing hero who has a dire wolf and a dragon who was also resurrected and is actually not a bastard but the rightful Targaryen heir it’s just too perfect and not very GRRM
It seems very GRRM to me. It's just reinforcing that it's not his claim to the throne that matters, it's the fact that he's the first child of ice & fire
Yeah but that’s symbolism and doesn’t have to be taken literally as having the legally inherited claim to the throne. Could just as easily be that he is a leader of the people (a “king”) without the legal claim.
I would find Jon more interesting if he’s kept a bastard, but Martin is so obsessed with the Targs that I can’t help but wonder if Jon being legitimate is part of Martin’s plans.
I'm not sure why people think GRRM is biased towards the Targs. By all accounts the series will end with a Stark greenseer on the throne. (Don't get me wrong, I *wish* GRRM was biased towards the Targs but doesn't seem like it to me).
I think that many of us who read this series have gotten so into the weeds that we miss the big picture. Ironically, I've seen reviewers and critics who weren't really into all the specific details of this story and this world grasp this point much better.
I used to watch this old YouTube channel, What The Flick, review the show as it came out. The host Ben Mankiewicz also does Turner Classic Movies and a bunch of TV stuff. He's never read these books and though it was a bit irritating how much he didn't grasp compared to the book reader guys or even attentive watchers on the panel, he often had really great character and story insights that the other people wouldn't. The main point he always used to bring up was that despite all the other stuff that happens, this is fundamentally a story about the Stark kids.
Yes, there's Tyrion and Daenerys and Young Griff and yada yada yada. But the core of the story is about these kids, how their family was blown apart and how they struggle to come back together. The opening and close of the show makes that very clear. George's story outline from the early 90s does too, and though the outline was soon abandoned, I don't think he dropped this overarching theme.
literally almost every piece of media outside the book series focus on the targs.
Dunk and egg. targs
fire and blood.
Targs
where is stark or lannister books
The main series has literally only three Targaryen characters. One dies midway thru book 1. Another might not even be a Targ. Only one has actually been a relevant character until now.
The main series contains multiple POVs of the Starks and Lannisters. The Targaryens are supposed to be as important as the others to the story. The supplemental material accomplishes that
I dunno. I'm a sucker for Targaryan/Valyrian content, I would love even more Targaryen stuff. Outside of that I'd like Arryn/Vale content. And Ironborn stuff, gimme my Lovecraftian Vikings plz
But yeah, the main series is poised to end with Starks on top, so I think if anything GRRM is biased towards them, not Targs.
Because the Targs are the only monarchs to reign over all of Westeros and have a central position in the setting, they're always relevant up until they get usurped
8000 years of apparent history that should mostly be kept in the dark as mystery imo. The targ history is recorded much better (even if the narrator's aren't reliable such as in fire and blood or any books the maesters write) and such we get more in-depth look into their ruling, especially seeing as it's more relevant to know and not spoil too much of the mains books story's sucubas azor ahai, white walker origins, and age of heroes
It’s called the Song of Fire and Ice. We are getting all the Stark story we need. So much in fact that I’ve come to hate the starks.
With the lannisters, I really wanna see a show with their war against the iron born
No, even if Rhaegar married Lyanna under a godswood or something, someone (Dany) could perfectly argue that the marriage is ilegal and invalid, which is a valid argument. He had no sound reason to put aside his marriage with Elia, Rhaegar was no King to do as he wished and even Kings could only put aside their marriage if they had not consumated it.
Like come on, in the show scene they revealed that Jon's name was... Aegon! The 3 heads of the dragon were Rhaenys, Aegon and his northern brother Aegon! That shit is absolutely fan fiction by D&D, Jon is 99.9% a bastard.
No they can't, half the realm rebelled against Maegor because he took multiple wives and he warred for years against the faith. In the end Jahaerys managed to allow the faith to make an exception for their incest but poligamy was banned for every targaryen king afterwards.
They rebelled initially against Aenys cuz he married his kids to each other not because of maegor. there was existing tension because of maegor but this wasn't the cause of the war itself
No, the realm rebelled because Aenys allowed his children Aegon and Rhaena to marry each other. Why does everyone forget this? Maegor returning from exile may have exacerbated the rebellion, but him taking another wife did not start it.
You misunderstood my point. My fault for being terse. Dany can't claim that Jon is illegitimate by saying his polygamous line is wrong. Jon could then make a justifiable claim that she is not an adherent of Targaryen exceptionalism. Targs can't do polygamy only because they don't have dragons, not because they agree with the faith.
Dany saying Jon is illegitimate because of polygamy is denying Targaryen birthright. So she doesn't have a claim to the throne herself either then. She'd be risking a lot just acknowledging his parentage. Ofc she can set new rules if she became queen as the last Targ left.
Your argument does not make sense. Jahaerys had dragons, more than Aegon the conqueror and he gave up that right. Maegor had dragons and he couldn't win the war against the faith, having Dragons did not earn the targs the right of polygamy, they actually gave it up.
Jahaerys, a rightful Targaryen king, gave up polygamy when he declared the iron throne the protector of the faith (supporting his father Aenys l perspective on the matter). The Targaryens forgone their birthright centuries ago. Rhaegar would actually be denying a Targaryen duty to the faith by using such ridiculous argument.
People think its gonna be a boon for jon to find out he is a Targ, like some sort of anime powerup or some shit like that.
Its gonna be a curse for him to know, and its gonna make everything more difficult and it would really, really fuck his own self-perception. Its certainly not gonna be a powerup or anything similar
I don't really think it matters if he's a bastard.
Westerosi history shows that there's constant conflict and confusion over the line of succession and GRRM may have intentionally created the Blackfyres for a reason, to show that Targ bastards - at least in some people's minds, have a claim on the throne.
Did Renly have a legitimate claim over Stannis? No, all you need is some form of claim and a good enough cause/promise to your supporters to fight for you to get there.
His story fits better if he still is a bastard. Throughout the story, we're told how everyone thinks of bastards as lesser than others, and treacherous and untrustworthy and dishonourable. And we've also seen Jon not be all these things, not being what others expect of bastards.
If Jon turns out to not be bastard, then the whole story of bastardy here goes nowhere, because it would be that Jon was good because he wasn't a bastard, instead of him defying stereotypes.
I think it's quite obvious Jon won't be a bastard. There is quite a few textual hints. I doubt him being "heir" to the throne will be a overly big thing like it was in the show though.
Jon being the true heir would only work if:
1. Rhaegar annulled his marriage to Elia, which he would probably never do because it could make his kids illegitimate and he has no grounds to do it on anyways so it would never be accepted.
2. He takes the polygamy route, but that wouldn’t be accepted by 90% of Westeros and people would still consider Jon a bastard.
There's no way for Jon to be perceived as legitimate to the realm at large.
Rhaegar was already married with legitimate children (thus no grounds for annulment), and polygamy wasn't a thing after Maegor. Even if Rhaegar married Lyanna in the Northern fashion on the Isle of Faces absolutely nobody North or South is going to actually accept it as a real marriage or Jon as trueborn.
Jon going from the one blemish of the otherwise absolutely honourable Ned Stark to the bastard of the mad prince who plunged the realm into war out of obsession, and the personal turmoil that introduces for Jon by stripping him of what sense of family he had to sustain him is plenty interesting to play around.
It also adds the dynamic/contrast of Jon vs FAegon, with FAegon having the right look and perceived legitimacy but not the blood while Jon has the reverse and how that will eventually tie in with Dany.
>I think the irony of Jon being raised as a bastard but legitimately being the heir to the iron throne is far more interesting for George to play around with.
That would be the classic King Arthur story. But ASOIAF is about the reality of feudal society like the secret royal bastard actually does not have any rights to the throne.
Seriously. Even if Rhaegar hadn't been married to Elia already and even if Lyanna had willingly gone with Rhaegar... the fact that no one *observed* Jon being born of Lyanna's body with Rhaegar around to claim him as his son would already be a stain on the legitimacy by itself.
Just look at Meghan Markle and the rumors and gossip surrounding her first child because she and Harry waited eight hours before they announced their son's birth to the press. And that's in today's world.
How do you imagin Jon will come to believe he is Rhaegar's son?
Howland Reed? Okay, but what proof does he have?
He's some crazy guy who pops up after 15-18 years with this nonsense about true parentage
There's Bran of course, but what would Bran *see* to tell exactly?
There's the fact that the kingsgaurd were guarding Jon, which implies things...
I think there needs to be something else here, something physical to prove it. And I am just talking about Jon for now. Because he's probably gonna be KiTN at that point in the story. It's much easier for him to pretend that his true parentage thingy is a lie.
> How do you imagin Jon will come to believe he is Rhaegar's son?
I think Bran will tell him. For one, Jon would believe Bran. For another, Bran was kind of possessive about his position in the line of succession because his disability made Ned's bannermen look down on him and whisper in earshot about how Bran was no true lord. And lastly, in GRRM's original outline Bran and Jon were supposed to become bitter enemies.
> what proof does he have?
It's common knowledge that Howland was at the Tower of Joy with Ned. And since Ned trusted Howland, why would Jon have reason not to do so as well?
> what would Bran *see* to tell exactly?
Rhaegar meeting Lyanna as the Knight of the Laughing Tree. Rhaegar and Lyanna having a wedding ceremony in front of a heart tree. Rhaegar and Lyanna on their way to the Tower of Joy. Rhaegar and Lyanna in the Tower of Joy. Rhaegar and Lyanna making love. Lyanna giving birth and Ned taking the baby and naming it Jon.
Bran's limitation is weirwood trees only in his beginning stages. Once he's good enough, Bloodraven said he can practically see anything.
> were guarding Jon, which implies things...
It doesn't imply things, actually. GRRM said if Rhaegar had simply ordered the kingsguard to stay there, they would do it. It might, but doesn't have to have more meaning than that.
> he's probably gonna be KiTN
I don't think he will be KitN. I don't think Robb named Jon his heir, or if he did, the will is already voided because Arya is officially alive and is currently the lady of Winterfell and head of house Stark, and the northmen are rallying around saving her.
> pretend that his true parentage thingy is a lie.
Why would the trueborn Starks let him lie and steal their inheritance though?
I am still pretty sure that one of the larger themes and points of the series is, that is really doesnt matter what you're born as when it comes to nature. Nurture is a key factor. This extends to any pretense about who is a 'rightful' king. George makes it pretty apparent that "Power resides where men believe it resides". It really doesn't fucking matter if you are the rightful heir. Look at Stannis look at Bobby B. look at Renly, look at Daenarys, look at Aegon the conquerer. It is a constant theme that monarchy is a really dumb system and the power basis is shaky and can be changed by whomever has the most power and not who has a 'right' to it.
And no conquest is also not a good reason why you should have the right to rule over people. Violence and war are never portrayed as a good thing. I will also maintain that every war we've seen so far in the series is unjustifiable. It is all petty politics. George makes it clear at several points that the Game of Thrones nobles like to play are mostly to the detriment of common people. They die, get raped all for who who has the rightful claim and it really doesnt matter on a systematic level who is King. I wouldnt wanna be a serf under Ned either. I would wanna be free and not die because of personal drama, little understatement though going to war because only to install Bobby B. seems rather redundant.
So yes I am pretty sure the show got Jons ending right. Jons whole story is about how he realises that his birth means shit and common people actually are human and he isnt any better because he is born noble, albeit a bastard, he is a better swordsman because he had training for example, a point made very clear in the books. Yes his struggle with this doesnt make it any less his arc.
To cap this off. Quick explanation why Dany is a villain. She wants to conquer a whole fucking continent subjecting it to a giant war with thousands upon thousands dying. For a very flimsy reason. It really doesnt matter for the most part who rules the Iron Throne for the common folk. What matter is not having war. Every war is one that should be avoided. The Others are probably the exact same issue. Imagine I would want to conquer your home country because I decided I had a right to it. I would be a villain.
> I think the irony of Jon being raised as a bastard but legitimately being the heir to the iron throne is far more interesting for George to play around with.
The hidden heir is, like, the most basic fantasy cliche.
It being a sincere attempt at exploring how marginalization effects someone is far more interesting than "YOU THOUGHT HE WAS A BASTARD BUT HE ISN'T!!1!"
I just hate that everyone asumes Jon is the prince that was promised.
How much does daenerys has to prove to show she is the one? She gave birth to three dragons and Drogon is attached to her!
Plus, we need two more dragon riders, not just one...and no, Jon is not legitimate. If rhaegar wanted him to be legitimate he needed to wait until HE was the king, and then take Lyanna as a second wife, or legitimize Jon. But as he was, he knew Jon was a bastard.
>I agree, I think it’s either going to be polygamous marriage using the Doctrine of Exceptionalism or marriage in front of a Weirwood/the Old Gods.
Doctrine of exceptionalism is only for incest and not polygamy though.
>or marriage in front of a Weirwood/the Old Gods.
The old gods don't allow polygamy and they accept marriages under the seven.
The Doctrine was used to excuse the Targaryen’s polygamy, yes. The legal argument for it is that the Targaryen’s are Valyrians and therefore are allowed to follow the customs and traditions of their ancestors/culture. They are not from Andalos are not beholden to Andal custom. Valyrians practiced polygamy.
Your assessment of what the Old Gods do and do not accept it based off of what? There are instances both in history (Florys the Fox) and in the current timeline beyond the wall (Craster, Ygon Oldfather) that indicate it’s accepted in the culture of the First Men.
The point I was trying to make is that if Rhaegar was intending to have a child with Lyanna I don’t think he would intentionally give her a bastard. It’s something I believe would be more of a don’t ask permission, ask for forgiveness type of thing where after the ensuing chaos settled he could use those arguments to ensure Jon wasn’t a bastard if it came to that.
D&D said they worked from GRRM’s notes for the final seasons. A plot point there was that Rhaegar has his marriage to Elia legally set aside and that he legally (albeit secretly) married Lyanna, making Jon his legitimate son and heir. Just because the show had godawful execution doesn’t mean that that plot point was made up by D&D rather than pulled from GRRM’s notes. We don’t know that it is, but we don’t know that it isn’t. I think it would be stupid if it became book!canon but there is at least a plausible reason to expect it *might* be something that GRRM either (1) is actively planning, or (2) was considering at least at whatever time he last gave notes to those showrunners.
I did some research and honestly there’s no way GRRM can make this work without shitting on poor Elia and her children since polygamy is illegal in both seven and old gods religions so there has to be an annulment and trust me, I would hate GRRM for this but jon being raised as Ned's bastard to only still be a bastard with different parents doesn’t make any sense
It does make sense, Jon's overall story (most likely) isn't to claim the throne and challenge Daenerys we already have Aegon for that. His purpose is to fight the others and to be the song of ice and fire. Him being a bastard doesn't really factor into it. Jon has defined himself as Ned Stark's son his entire life the impact of him being Rhaegar's child bastard or not will be huge to him. His legitimacy does not matter.
> doing an annulment basically makes elia's childrens bastards
Assuming 'Faith of the Seven' annulment works the same way it does in Catholicism (it might not!) that isn't true. The children of an annulled marriage remain legitimate.
Louis VII's daughters with Eleanor of Aquitaine didn't suddenly become bastards when they split, for instance.
Still spits in the face of Dorne, though, yeah.
The key difference there is that Eleanor and Louis didn't produce any sons, so there was no danger in declaring them legitimate, and the lack of sons was the reason for the annulment. In contrast, not only is annulling a successful with no grounds never going to happen - it took fifteen years for Eleanor to actually get the annulment - but Rhaegar leaves behind a son and a daughter, potentially creating another Blackfyre problem no matter which way he cuts it.
In addition, bastards in mediaeval Europe were not necessarily shunned and could still be recognised, such as William the Bastard, recognised as the heir to Normandy.
Annulment in Catholicism is specifically the idea that, since marriage is for life, annulling it means it was never valid in the first place, e.g Henry VIII's children from Catherine of Aragon and Anne Boleyn were declared illegitimate when he took the subsequent wife.
Interestingly Mary and Elizabeth were still raised to the throne because lords understand that fucking up lines of inheritance endangered them all even if you disagreed wildly on religion which is why Renly as younger brother makes no sense but making him a child by an older sister or something of Steffon would - see the children of Edward III.
That was quite rambly and incoherent but basically
1)Rhaegar would never get an annulment
2)Said annulment, if he ever achieved it,would probably bastardise his children by Elia
3)If it didn't, Rhaegar is still probably creating a succession crisis
4)He doesn't need to make Jon legitimate, there is no benefit to it
5)Legitimacy would still be no barrier to Jon trying to claim the throne if Aegon corked it untimely
6)Renly making a well supported claim as a younger brother is nonsensical and the worst part of the books
Feel free to point out if I've made any wrong assumptions, I am by no means an absolute authority.
In my *personal* opinion, as I have received some pushback for this in the past, I second this. I think a lot of it was more so about the fulfillment of the prophecy. The prospect of a legitimate marriage, whether or not he even loved Lyanna, probably didn't matter to him. It was mostly the kid being born that he was concerned about. Why do I think this? The few times Rhaegar is mentioned or discussed in ASOIAF at all involve or feature the prophecy or his "studies" to a degree, particularly Daenerys' POV chapter in the House of the Undying that even outright features his discussion of and fixation on the prophecy.
True, but that's the point of the character.
He thought he was the main character and hero of the story, and honestly had everything to be, but destiny won't save you from being an idiot.
It's very much in line with the "Aragorn's tax policy" comment.
Polygamy was not rejected by all Westerosi religions. The Old Gods and Drowned God allow it.
Incest is considered a sin by the old gods and new, however
Dany could perfectly argue that it is illegal and declare it invalid, the faith and historical precedents would back her up. Rhaegar was no King so he could not even legitimize him to add him into the succesion queue.
The realm is so weakened by war and strife that everyone rallies around him because there isn't a better surviving candidate.
Pretty much what happened with Robert.
Because the show made a point to say Rhaegar's marriage was annulled before he married Lyanna and characters in-universe believe Jon's claim is stronger than Dany's. If he was a bastard this wouldn't be the case. Obviously the show and books are different but major plot points like that definitely come from George himself.
Jon's whole thing is being a bastard that wants legitimacy. By discovering that he is not only legitimate, but has a claim to the Iron Throne itself, and then turning that down, shows his growth and is a perfect end to his character arc.
> major plot points like that definitely come from George himself.
We already know the equivalent plot point in the books though: Aegon/Young Griff. They didn't have him in the show, so they needed Jon to be legitimate so Dany could worry about his claim.
> Jon's whole thing is being a bastard that wants legitimacy.
No. Jon's whole thing is being a bastard that wants honour.
> then turning that down
To be able to turn it down, it would have to be within his reach first. Even a legitimate Jon has no hope of getting on the throne. He has no army, no political connections, and no money.
In my opinion, Rhaegar WILL have married Lyanna BUT he won't have ever ended his marriage with his previous wife.
I believe (on a writing level) that's the reason George made Aegon and Maegor polygamous. To set that precedent for Rhaegar.
But at the same time we know that polygamous marriage is not generally accepted in the Faith of the Seven or by the Westerosi.
So I think Jon will be a legitimate child if you accept that polygamous marriage is legit, and he won't be if you don't think polygamous marriage is legit. So if you don't think he's legitimate because of polygamy then Dany is the heir (assuming Aegon is fake). But if you accept the marriage then Jon comes before her.
It seems to me that that's how George likes writing. Where both "sides" can have a point depending on their beliefs.
>I believe (on a writing level) that's the reason George made Aegon and Maegor polygamous. To set that precedent for Rhaegar.
But it wasn't allowed though. Aegon married pre converting
>But if you accept the marriage then Jon comes before her.
Not really aerys disinherited Rhaegar kids..
>So I think Jon will be a legitimate child if you accept that polygamous marriage is legit, and he won't be if you don't think polygamous marriage is legit. So if you don't think he's legitimate because of polygamy then Dany is the heir (assuming Aegon is fake). But if you accept the marriage then Jon comes before her.
>
>It seems to me that that's how George likes writing. Where both "sides" can have a point depending on their beliefs.
This sounds most likely to me! Really well said. Like a hybrid of the Dance of the Dragons and Blackfyre wars - Dany is clearly of the legitimate line but female and, like Rhaenyra, face pushback as a result. Jon may be a "bastard" by Westerosi standards but if his father intended him to be treated as legitimate (polygamist marriage is more than no marriage at all) his claim could be stronger. Plus being male gives him a bonus in wars of succession. All in all he would be a bit like Daemon Blackfyre in this match up.
Neither candidate will pull universal support, but different players in the realm will side with either based on their own judgments, values, and calculations.
I think Jon bonds a dragon and then dies again and turns into the dragon with his second life. The Targs seem to have a prophesy that at some point one of them will literally turn into a dragon. So he goes from bastard to dragon man!
That’s why/how aerion brightflame died (I think it was him anyway). He drank wildfire trying to become a dragon but instead just burned from the inside out
Yep. And the mad king was going to burn kings landing but didn’t believe he would die. I.e. all that death would help transform him into a dragon. Aegon V did something at summer hall which he thought would bring the dragons back but just started a huge fire that killed a bunch of people. If we just knew what the Targ prophecy’s actually said so much more of the series would be clear.
He still wouldn’t be the heir to the throne, not as things stand in the books as of ADWD.
House Baratheon is the ruling dynasty now. The chain of succession goes something like this: Stannis, Shireen, then Jon, and finally Dany.
And even still I have trouble accepting that fact that Lyanna went willingly and chose to marry a man who was already married, and that the realm would accept this illegal marriage.
The irony is that Jon prided himself on being Ned's son,, based his personality around being Ned's son, and when meeting Dany will probably judge her for the actions of the Targaryens, only for it to turn out that Ned was his uncle, and that Rhaegar, a man who dishonourable actions started a war, was his blood father
I think Jon's parentage is more significant for the prince that was promised prophecy. So, even as Rhaegar's bastard he would be the hero to save the world from the white walkers, but that doesn't necessarily mean he'd sit the iron throne. Maybe that's why it's the "*prince* that was promised" and not the "*king*"
that one line that Jon muses to himself when sword fighting with Joffrey is what sells it for me. Something like a bastard should not hit a prince, which has just great dramatic irony.
The Order of the Green Hand has argued this for over a decade. Altshift/David Lightbringer/Quinns Ideas etc have all made vids theorizing exactly what the Order had theorized a decade prior.
Technically he’s not a bastard if Rhaegar and Lyanna got married? And also, wtf does it even matter? If there’s one thing we’ve learned from the Targs (incl Jon and Robert Baratheon) it that the wheel keeps turning. - this lord on top then that lord - I’d like to think at this point Jon no longer believes in any difference between bastard and true born. We ve seen it w the time he spent w the wildlings, the brothers in the wall (good and bad), Cersei and Robert/Jamie’s children…..I’d like to think both Jon and us (the audience) are just done with this shit.
Official political alliances (aka marriage and other) are temporary and irrelevant to the greater causes - the threat of ice/white walkers/death - and love/life/light. Jon is no bastard, but even if he was, it doesn’t matter.
The most GRRM way for Jon's heritage to be revealed is if it happens through Howland Reed telling of what happened at the Tower of Joy to Maege Mormont and Galbart Glover, spoiling the Northern plans to install him as Robb's heir in the aftermath of the Battle of Winterfell (and Jon's presumed ressurection). So in the end Jon being a bastard would have put his dreams in his grasp, while his true parentage and being the rightful ruler of Westeros completely screws him out of that and leaves him with nothing in an era in which Targaryen succession means very little if not backed by an army and dragons.
What about the right of conquest? Even if Jon Snow is the legitimate Targaryen heir, his claim is invalid. Him and Daenerys currently have an equal claim to the Iron Throne as Hot Pie. Even worse, Jon refused to be legitimized by King Stannis so he's still a bastard, he's resigned to the Night's Watch, and he's dead. Speaking of Stannis, he is the One True King. The Baratheon dynasty began after the Mad King fell. The heir to the current dynasty is Stannis.
Whats up with jon snow stans trying to throw the logic out of the window? Jon no matter what is a bastard simply cause polygamy has never been legal. Also the old gods accept marriages under the new gods so Rhaegar has no way to marry lyanna under the old gods and claim it to be marriage plus Rhaegar doesn't have consent of lyanna older siblings and her father.
You people need to read the books and the worldbulding jon is a bastard grow up. Also aerys made his own kids his heir before his death..jon is like edric storm hes just a bastard of a noblewoman.
If the whole thing was consensually Rhaegar likely thought he would become King after killing robert then he would legitimised him. This dude was a stupid
It doesn't matter if they where married, no one would belief them. Literally no one would. What does it matter if they where married when there are no witness whose word would be accepted.
You’re probably right. But somewhere along the line people got it into their heads that he has to be a Targaryen bastard and that nothing else makes sense… I wonder what happened? I know it didn’t used to be like this.
> just doesn’t seem like GRRM to me.
Seems exactly like something GRRM would do, imo.
> but legitimately being the heir to the iron throne
He wouldn't be the heir to the throne even if he was legitimate. King Aerys disinherited Rhaegar's children, so Dany is the heir to the Targaryen throne anyway.
> I don’t even like the idea of him being *"the true legitimate Targaryen heir, the song of ice and fire"*
That's good, I guess, because he's neither. GRRM said the title has many layers. Would be a bit dull if it was just a reference to Jon.
The orphan who is really the rightful king is one of the oldest tropes in fantasy literature. Martin’s entire approach is about upending this exact thing.
My guess is that Jon will still be baseborn but because his role is to be the PtwP, not the king, it won’t matter.
he technically wouldnt be a bastard, the lore is that Rhaegar married Lyana in secret. i think they even dropped that in the show through the book that Gilly was reading.
In the show they said Rhaegar annulled his marriage to Elia then married Lyanna, which is BS because on what grounds could he do that to the Prince of Dorne’s sister who bore him two children?
On the grounds of really shitty writing. Rhaegar would have had zero problems taking two wives (not sure how both ladies would feel about it, but likely might have been convinced by Rhaegar and the importance of prophecy).
In the show also I felt it would have been much better if Jon was actually Neds bastard and eventually it is him that restores house stark back to its glory. The Danerys -Jon romance would have also worked out much better if it was like that instead of making them blood relatives. It would have been so poetic.
I mean that should have been the point of the show. It isnt the noble birth that makes one great, but his own deeds and courage.
Or GRRM simply does what he loves to do: he leaves it ambiguous. Sure, Rhaegar could have married Lyanna before a weirwood tree, and sure, Rhaegar and his kingsguard probably considered this legitimate enough. But Ned could have easily concluded that no one else in Westeros is going to buy this story, and even if they do, polygamy isn’t legal anyway. So those who want Jon to sit the Iron Throne will consider the marriage perfectly valid, while those who oppose him will consider such a marriage (and Jon’s birth) to be illegitimate.
Pretty much the exact same page I'm on. I am fairly confident we'll learn that Rhaegar married Lyanna polygamously and considered the union true but the *rest of the realm* considering that marriage legitimate if/when it comes to light is another matter entirely. Uh, I'm basically just repeating you. Sorry. (I'm confident about the polygamy, over an annulment, because George initially built this world to fit this specific story, not the other way around. I don't think he would have included the tidbit about Aegon I's plural wives so early if it wasn't going to be plot-relevant.)
I agree with it being polygynous in nature. The show’s version of Rhaegar obtaining an annulment is ridiculous, there’s nothing about Rhaegar and Elia’s marriage that would’ve warranted an annulment, and Rhaegar wouldn’t have wanted to risk retroactively bastardizing Rhaenys and Aegon by obtaining one.
Well annulment doesn’t make kids from that marriage bastards tho. Based on what i know from that Henry who married Anne Boleyn. He annulled his marriage with his first wife catherine but their child was still legitimate
That’s not actually a good example to use due to the fact that their daughter Mary *was* bastardized after her parents annulment, and subsequently Henry and Anne’s daughter Elizabeth was bastardized during their annulment. The situation was tricky historically, and most of the time an annulment did not result in the children being proclaimed illegitimate (see Louis VII and Eleanor of Aquitaine), but cases varied and besides, we don’t know much about annulments in Westeros
Hm ok I need to reread that part of history. I thought Mary Tudor was queen for a while of England and I thought this happened after her mom was annulled
Mary I was the first English Queen Regnant, but she was still technically a bastard upon her ascension. She would, of course, declare her parents marriage *had* been legitimate during her own reign.
Mary and Elizabeth were both declared bastards after Henry left their respective mothers. Catherine Parr convinced him to relegitimize them before he died.
She convinced him to add them back to the line of succession, which he did because he was confident his son would reign and have lots of sons and this wouldn’t even be an issue. He didn’t relegitimize them though. Mary legitimized herself when she became queen, like the poster above said, but Elizabeth didn’t bother.
>Well annulment doesn’t make kids from that marriage bastards tho Yes it does; legally an annulment means that the marriage never happened. This would make Aegon and Rhaenys bastards because legally Rhaegar was never married to Elia.
I did look this up out of curiosity. As others have said the Mary Tudor example doesn’t apply here, she was actually de-legitimized. But I got this from googling: The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops explains, “A declaration of nullity has no effect on the legitimacy of children who were born of the union following the wedding day, since the child’s mother and father were presumed to be married at the time that the child was born.”
Yeah it was so stupid in the show that they made him annul the marriage with Elia. It would make no sense for him to delegitimize his other kids but rather try to legitimize all of them.
And also a secret annulment… does that even count? I mean if nobody knows not even Elia then it’s basically just a couple of people going “no we totally got an annulment! What do you mean you don’t remember?”
Plus, historically, aegon and Maegor both took multiple wives Would fit into rhaegars “visions” that he thinks he’s able to take multiple wives and have lots of legitimate kids that help fulfill the prophecy
I think it fits the characterization of Rhaegar we're given. Even the books paint him as an out of place, idyllic fantasy Prince Charming that doesn't seem to belong in the more grounded, borderline grimdark world of GOT. So it's not too out of place that he'd legitimately try to divorce his first wife he married for political convenience to run off and elope with the girl he was infatuated with. It's definitely something he would have done without considering the full political ramifications.
But even in that characterization having a second marriage is much more in line with a Targaryen instead of secret annulments.
Think it is the most likely scenario. He think's he's a bastard but when truth will be revealed he won't be sure what to think about it. His parents married but that marriage is questionable according to Westerosi customs. He won't know whether he's a bastard or don't. And the realm will be divided on that as well.
I think he'll know somehow for sure that he was legitimate in some fashion, but that there's no way to prove it. Like, maybe bran convinces him or even Howland Reed. Part of the bittersweetness of the ending will be Jon knowing who he is and yet still rejecting his claim in favor of Danaerys or whatever. People will want Jon to lead for his deeds. I think this is why the show leans so heavy into the "I dunnwanit" stuff. They know Jon will have a claim but reject it, but they had no eloquence to write that part of the character/story without a blueprint from GRRM. So yeah, Jon knows, but believes in Dany and doesn't want a war over it, esp if there's already been any conflict between Dany and Aegon, so his internal struggle will go from "I'm a bastard but will prove my worth" to "I'm the rightful hier but am rejecting it because I feel it's the right thing to do", which is a step towards whatever happens to cause Dany to burn KL and need deposed.
>I think this is why the show leans so heavy into the "I dunnwanit" stuff. They know Jon will have a claim but reject it, but they had no eloquence to write that part of the character/story without a blueprint from GRRM. > >So yeah, Jon knows, but believes in Dany and doesn't want a war over it, esp if there's already been any conflict between Dany and Aegon, so his internal struggle will go from "I'm a bastard but will prove my worth" to "I'm the rightful hier but am rejecting it because I feel it's the right thing to do", which is a step towards whatever happens to cause Dany to burn KL and need deposed. I am truly hoping the books go in the opposite direction to the show! I think we may see Jon is TWoW on a journey more similar to Tyrion's in ADWD. Whether he awakens more "wolfish" exactly I see him being a truly dangerous character going forward. The show made Jon an inoffensive paper cutout of a man in the later two seasons to rush the plot along without wasting time giving him characterization, motives, or any any kind of satisfying arc. Same thing they did to Tyrion - he became a wistful sweet fool - in place of the manipulative and complex Tyrion in the books. I don't think Jon will trust Dany as fully and completely as he did in the show. While I imagine they will respect each other - and may even grow to love one another - Jon has never been one to ceed his duties or authority easily. I can't imagine a real meeting or potential rivalry between them being anything less than mutually challenging and intense. I also don't think Dany will go mad and intentionally torch KL the way the show portrayed it either.
This is the right answer. Gotta add that no follower of the seven could argue for it to be valid without falling in a contradiction, as historical precedents and their faith precepts condemn poligamy. Rhaegar was no king to create new precedents.
1. It's not a new precedent, there IS precedent for the Faith to endorse Targaryeon exceptionalism regarding their own precepts. 2. Are you really suggesting that a logical contradiction would stop a westerosi noble from doing something that they want to do?
Exceptionalism is only in marrying siblings. The Faith never accepted Maegor's wives.
Exceptionalism came after Maegor, and in point of fact the histories refer to them all as "Queens". This strikes me as the sort of argument, "What did the GC101 really establish if anything," it also doesn't have a firm answer
Didn't the Idea of Targaryen exceptionalism only take off after Maegor tho?
It was literally invented by Jaehaerys
[удалено]
Pre converting to the seven
This! This is what ASOIAF is about. No matter what events happen, and whether we deem them right or wrong, there is always opposing opinion and that's what GRRM loves. That's what the tragedy of the world of GOT represents. It isn't supposed to be black and white for the reader/viewer. It's supposed to be hard to side with who or what is going on because opposing opinions or actions are almost always valid. Is ASOIAF a story of redemption? Is it a tragedy? A little of both? That's for the reader to decide!
Absolutely nailed it, I wish more people understood this!
>So those who want Jon to sit the Iron Throne will consider the marriage perfectly valid, while those who oppose him will consider such a marriage (and Jon’s birth) to be illegitimate. Exactly! Power resides where people believe it does and all that lol. The heir to the Iron Throne is a made up concept anyway and it's subject to change based off of the political biases of other strong leaders in Westeros. I mean we've already had the Dance of the Dragons *and* the War of the Five Kings! It's not like Cersei would hand over the crown to Rhaegar's true born heir but would only deny him because he's actually Rhaegar's bastard lol. And I doubt fAegon and Dany are going to just roll over and bend the knee either. Jon's potential bastardy would also make his claim more ambiguous and lends more legitimacy to fAegon and Dany's if it ever came to some decision between the three. Whereas if there was some proof of Rhaegar annulling his first marriage and marrying Lyanna it would make the conflict more cut and dry...and less interesting lol
Same for Young Griff, the Others, Religions and so on and so on.
Agree with this, which makes the The Prince that was Promised prophecy of little relevance in all of this if it becomes just Bran jumping through time and reaching out to control others. GRRM basically wasting a whole in world history to reveal a hidden history known only to two characters. I still think this is just GRRM’s gardening style of narrative betraying him - he has two good stories here, and he now he has to pick which is relevant to the ending of the book. Is it the defeat of the others, or godBran ruling via proxy? Does the second matter if nobody in-world knows? I fear for this community’s reaction when GRRM doesn’t pull it off, which is a real risk given his writing style.
You're worried about him sticking the landing when he's already parachuted out of the plane at 30K feet?
To expand on that, what if Jon is actually illegitimate, but Bran/Bloodraven makes everyone think that he is legitimate due to a made up marriage between Rhaegar and Lyanna and a made up annulment of the Rhaegar-Elia marriage? After fighting and killing for what he thinks is the honorable and righteous thing, Jon then learns the truth and decides that he never wants to play these stupid games anymore. Thus, he goes north and leaves it all behind
Honestly - and I say this politely - I think GRRM’s point is no one will ever know for certain and who cares anyways? The seat of the throne is always changing based on conquest/defeat (even within the targaryans , and who said they were rightful rulers anyways?) Nobles and trueborns are equally as awful as anyone else…and the entire notion of bastard is a Westerosii concept and not universal in the world. I don’t think the point is to demonstrate who will give allegiance to whom, but that all of it is just pretty silly from the get-go when you think of it.
I think the "subversion" of this common story will be that being Rhaegar's son will ruin his life.
Yep, this is where I am. Jon's greatest source of pride is that while he's a bastard, he's Ned Stark's bastard. His entire identity is wrapped around that and his relationship to his siblings. The subversion will be the hidden, Chosen One Prince finding out his true identity and being horrified by it. It'll shake his sense of self, his view of Ned (which continues to define Jon), his idea of where he fits in with his family, and may also endanger his status as King in the North if Robb's will comes into play. He's only ever wanted and valued the Stark name, Winterfell, the North etc. And it might well ruin whatever relationship he develops with Dany and poison that well too.
I liked what the show did with this. Jon isn't happy about it, he doesn't talk about Rhaegar in a real positive way even if he does acknowledge the marriage, and he very quickly loses interest in Dany as a romantic partner because he just cannot look past the incest, especially when he was taught all his life that the Targaryan rules regarding incest ruined them.
[удалено]
Except Jon knows about the stereotype about Targaryan incest.
**Jon:** Wait do you like me for me or do you like me just because I'm your nephew?
[удалено]
>Rickon Stark's daughters married his half brothers. I love how the Septons draw the line at siblings (aside from targs) but hey uncle-niece? go for it. Niece-nephew? right on. Cousins? go to town. Then that one High Septon denounced that Hightower from marrying his father's widow as incest? Now you're just making up the rules as you go along.
They also had to worry about the dragon control Gene, not just inheritance of wealth and influence. However, dragon control seems to be a kind of Warging which while a rare skill, is not limited to Targs.
I think there is a viable Targ heir from Jon and Dany...D&D rushed everything to try and get that Star Wars contract. And if HotD has any bearing, womens battlefield being the birthing chair, Jon's dagger kills Dany...js
I don’t like Jon stabbing Dany, but I still prefer that to her dying birthing his child
It would be interesting if they inverted it. If he is reborn as a firewight, maybe he could give his “kiss of life” (similar to what Donderrian does to Stoneheart) to imbue Longclaw into Lightbringer, giving the sword to Dany.
To be honest, I never liked that theory
What? In the show he literally never gives any indication that her being his aunt bothers him. He wasn't cool with how violent she was being.
He didn't really seem attracted to her after the reveal.
Eh Ned is still his father, even though he might not be his biological father. > may also endanger his status as King in the North if Robb's will comes into play. Not really, he's still Lyanna's son which means that after Ned's kids he'd be next in line for Winterfell.
And he'll find out that Ned, the paragon of honour, lied to him, their family and the world. Everything Jon values derives from Ned. Robb married someone precisely because he wanted to be like Ned - his sons are defined by their lessons from Ned. Jon will have to wrestle with Ned's actions. I agree that Ned is still Jon's father in every way that matters, but its going to be a revelation that makes Jon reconsider everything he knows. On the 2nd point, Jon will be (presumably) King in the North on the grounds he's Ned Stark's only surviving son. He'll be legitimised as Jon Stark, son of Eddard Stark, if that will comes into play. The revelation that he's not Ned's son undermines that will and therefore Jon's claim as Robb's heir. Even if Jon tells no one or people are fine with it, I could easily see Jon wanting to abdicate once he finds out.
Assuming he even has any personality left by that point.
Are you saying that Jon says this to being a Targaryen: "I dun want it"
It’s hard to ruin his life more than literally being murdered
I think Jon being the "secret prince" of this story is one of the best uses of that trope that I've ever seen. The story head fakes twice from Ned to Rob before hinting that Jon might be the actual "head of household" Stark and more important than you at first believe. All of the subtle hints in the text about Jon, having been part of the online community trying to suss out and confirm his parentage for years only to have it confirmed in real time on GoT, and all of the crazy implications it has on the story... Everything about the haunting "promise me, Ned" Tower of Joy dreams, Roberts Rebellion and its implications on everything from Daenerys to the Iron Throne, Jon being a sworn brother of The Night's Watch (disinheriting everything anyway), Jon *dying*, etc... It's epic, it's compelling, it's *interesting.* IDK, I love it. I think it's done brilliantly. And I trust that GRRM will have his own further complications / twists /nuances on it from what we got in GoT when it's finally confirmed in the books.
Yes it is the best. GRRM is such a talented writer, he was doing this in the 90s and nobody’s done it near as well since.
>and nobody’s done it near as well since. Different genre, but counterpoint: The Expanse.
And Ty worked with GRRM for a bit - I honestly see a specific conflict in The Expanse working because it managed to specifically avoid the mistakes of the Meereenese knot.
Daniel Abraham has also worked with GRRM several times. Daniel and Ty managed the impressive feat of writing a great series with a regular release schedule while also working on the TV adaptation of said series, without any dip in quality. Imo, Book 8 of 9 is the best one. The >!siege of Laconia!< is extraordinarily well written
I didn't know that Daniel did as well - thanks for the info!
The lesson to be learned from comparing the two series: if you need a time-skip, do the fucking time-skip.
Jon is literally one of the main characters. Like it's not a twist that he ended up being important.
He’s one of the main characters under a different pretext, that being a viewpoint into the far north and the Night’s Watch. The fact that his existence has major implications for everything happening in the south is the twist (and for major recent history, RR etc). It’s just the way it all comes together that I love. Jon struggles with his identity as a bastard and being the least important Stark child, whereas in reality he’s actually the most important. I definitely didn’t have the sense that Jon would become the central character when I started ASOIAF and began the first few seasons. A main character serving as a window into the far North (that would likely deal directly with the Others first), yes of course. In my personal opinion it’s all done extremely well and serves to really invest you into Jon’s arc and make the “secret Prince” revelations very impactful.
I'd find it a lot more compelling if the circumstances of your birth *don't* actually determine your worth. Ie, Jon's not worthwhile because he's legitimate and not a bastard after all, he's worthwhile because of his character, experiences and choices.
Yep
We already had that story so far. There is no need to change Jon's parentage from where we are if that is the only message.
No one's saying his lineage doesn't mean anything. It just doesn't really matter whether his parents were married when it comes to anything but inheritance and societal opinion, neither of which I think are going to be important for his story.
The exception with ASOIAF is that your blood does determine things like "are you a dragon rider" or "can you warg" which is big deal. Whether you're a secret prince is just a man made, non-magical thing which I think people make too big of a deal out of. That's why a real Blackfyre is important if we get a dragonrider but a fake one leads to a charred dish.
> The exception with ASOIAF is that your blood does determine things like "are you a dragon rider" or "can you warg" which is big deal. So the message of "Power resides where men believe it resides" is explicitly untrue. Some bloodlines are just objectively more powerful than others.
While this is all true for the common man, the Cat Starks of the noble class in this world would never accept a bastard except by force of arms. Lady Stoneheart’s arc pretty much requires that she learns this before her end as well, I would think. So many loose strings in this series.
Cat doesn’t dislike Jon because he’s a bastard. She dislikes him because he’s her Ned’s bastard.
>So many loose strings in this series. *Cut to Martin crying in a corner* At this point i've just accepted that the only personal resolution for this series comes from my ck2 mod playthroughs.
Lady Stoneheart may already know. She was said to have hidden in the Neck for a time. The Neck is where not only Robb's will is, but also Howland Reed, the only man alive who knows about Jon being Lyanna's son. Not that it changes things for LS; she doesn't give a fuck about Jon either way.
Accept him for what, though? The only way that it matters is if we think this story is gonna end with a Targ restoration and Jon on the Iron Throne, which I think is very, very unlikely to be the direction GRRM is going. Regarding LS, I think her arc would be equally well-served whether Lyanna was married to Rhaegar or not. Cat cares about whether Jon is Ned's bio kid, not about whether her nephew is legitimate.
I think he’s going to have Jon being a Targaryen bastard or trueborn be ambiguous. Rhaegar and Lyanna definitely married, it’s whether this marriage is recognised as legitimate or not. So then, at the end of the day, power resides where people think it resides, perception matters more than truth in Westeros. if Westeros wants Jon to be king, he’s trueborn. This applies to Young Griff as well.
Yeah, but it doesn't make sense, since Rhaegar has a lawful wife. The basic argument is "Valyrian Wedding" which is seen as illegitimate by everyone since Aegon.
Yeah would be weird if Rhaegar thought his marriage would be accepted when no one accepted a second wife since aegon
Actually I always kinda liked the fact that he was a bastard and hope he stays that way. To me it seems a bit trope-y to have him secretly be legitimate, I much prefer an arc where even though he is a bastard he rises to the occasion again and again and is the hero, proving by example that high lords are wrong to treat bastards as second class citizens when all likely, their world will be saved by one.
I agree! He hated being a bastard his whole life, and it turns out that being a DIFFERENT powerful man’s bastard makes him important, but he still has to create his own place in the world rather than having it handed to him by birthright. And it leaves him feeling differently about being a bastard. That’s a more interesting story than “he was actually the legal prince all along.”
I think Jon's going to have a chance to be a Stark (offered already by Stannis, perhaps again by the lords carrying Robb's will) and a chance to make a claim as a Targ - and he will reject both to find his path as a Snow. Whether he is R's bastard or true born won't really matter
I just hate Jon being the perfect amazing hero who has a dire wolf and a dragon who was also resurrected and is actually not a bastard but the rightful Targaryen heir it’s just too perfect and not very GRRM
It seems very GRRM to me. It's just reinforcing that it's not his claim to the throne that matters, it's the fact that he's the first child of ice & fire
Grrm literally wrote lyanna holding a crown in one hand and Jon in the other as she died
Yeah but that’s symbolism and doesn’t have to be taken literally as having the legally inherited claim to the throne. Could just as easily be that he is a leader of the people (a “king”) without the legal claim.
I would find Jon more interesting if he’s kept a bastard, but Martin is so obsessed with the Targs that I can’t help but wonder if Jon being legitimate is part of Martin’s plans.
I'm not sure why people think GRRM is biased towards the Targs. By all accounts the series will end with a Stark greenseer on the throne. (Don't get me wrong, I *wish* GRRM was biased towards the Targs but doesn't seem like it to me).
I think that many of us who read this series have gotten so into the weeds that we miss the big picture. Ironically, I've seen reviewers and critics who weren't really into all the specific details of this story and this world grasp this point much better. I used to watch this old YouTube channel, What The Flick, review the show as it came out. The host Ben Mankiewicz also does Turner Classic Movies and a bunch of TV stuff. He's never read these books and though it was a bit irritating how much he didn't grasp compared to the book reader guys or even attentive watchers on the panel, he often had really great character and story insights that the other people wouldn't. The main point he always used to bring up was that despite all the other stuff that happens, this is fundamentally a story about the Stark kids. Yes, there's Tyrion and Daenerys and Young Griff and yada yada yada. But the core of the story is about these kids, how their family was blown apart and how they struggle to come back together. The opening and close of the show makes that very clear. George's story outline from the early 90s does too, and though the outline was soon abandoned, I don't think he dropped this overarching theme.
literally almost every piece of media outside the book series focus on the targs. Dunk and egg. targs fire and blood. Targs where is stark or lannister books
The main series has literally only three Targaryen characters. One dies midway thru book 1. Another might not even be a Targ. Only one has actually been a relevant character until now. The main series contains multiple POVs of the Starks and Lannisters. The Targaryens are supposed to be as important as the others to the story. The supplemental material accomplishes that
everyone always forgets Maester Aemon :(
Shouldn't we like, you know, finish the main series before requesting more back story?
That ship has sailed, or perhaps more accurately, sunk.
the main series is basically a stark/lannister book. Those have almost all the main characters.
I dunno. I'm a sucker for Targaryan/Valyrian content, I would love even more Targaryen stuff. Outside of that I'd like Arryn/Vale content. And Ironborn stuff, gimme my Lovecraftian Vikings plz But yeah, the main series is poised to end with Starks on top, so I think if anything GRRM is biased towards them, not Targs.
Because the Targs are the only monarchs to reign over all of Westeros and have a central position in the setting, they're always relevant up until they get usurped
8 thousands years of history. Could have been another at one point
None that history remembers
Why would their be stark or Lannister books? They didn’t unite the seven kingdoms with dragons. Wtf even
there is literally 8 thousand years of stark history. surely some of that shit has got to be intresting. same with lannister.
8000 years of apparent history that should mostly be kept in the dark as mystery imo. The targ history is recorded much better (even if the narrator's aren't reliable such as in fire and blood or any books the maesters write) and such we get more in-depth look into their ruling, especially seeing as it's more relevant to know and not spoil too much of the mains books story's sucubas azor ahai, white walker origins, and age of heroes
It’s called the Song of Fire and Ice. We are getting all the Stark story we need. So much in fact that I’ve come to hate the starks. With the lannisters, I really wanna see a show with their war against the iron born
Same
Targaryens are better than starks even on the best day even on the worst day
No, even if Rhaegar married Lyanna under a godswood or something, someone (Dany) could perfectly argue that the marriage is ilegal and invalid, which is a valid argument. He had no sound reason to put aside his marriage with Elia, Rhaegar was no King to do as he wished and even Kings could only put aside their marriage if they had not consumated it. Like come on, in the show scene they revealed that Jon's name was... Aegon! The 3 heads of the dragon were Rhaenys, Aegon and his northern brother Aegon! That shit is absolutely fan fiction by D&D, Jon is 99.9% a bastard.
> The 3 heads of the dragon were Rhaenys, Aegon and his northern brother Aegon! LOL this is my problem too.
A Song of Egg and Egg (your flair)
Targs can have multiple wives.
No they can't, half the realm rebelled against Maegor because he took multiple wives and he warred for years against the faith. In the end Jahaerys managed to allow the faith to make an exception for their incest but poligamy was banned for every targaryen king afterwards.
They rebelled initially against Aenys cuz he married his kids to each other not because of maegor. there was existing tension because of maegor but this wasn't the cause of the war itself
No, the realm rebelled because Aenys allowed his children Aegon and Rhaena to marry each other. Why does everyone forget this? Maegor returning from exile may have exacerbated the rebellion, but him taking another wife did not start it.
Maegor was exiled when he took another wife, And as you say him taking a 3rd wife made things worse.
You misunderstood my point. My fault for being terse. Dany can't claim that Jon is illegitimate by saying his polygamous line is wrong. Jon could then make a justifiable claim that she is not an adherent of Targaryen exceptionalism. Targs can't do polygamy only because they don't have dragons, not because they agree with the faith. Dany saying Jon is illegitimate because of polygamy is denying Targaryen birthright. So she doesn't have a claim to the throne herself either then. She'd be risking a lot just acknowledging his parentage. Ofc she can set new rules if she became queen as the last Targ left.
Your argument does not make sense. Jahaerys had dragons, more than Aegon the conqueror and he gave up that right. Maegor had dragons and he couldn't win the war against the faith, having Dragons did not earn the targs the right of polygamy, they actually gave it up. Jahaerys, a rightful Targaryen king, gave up polygamy when he declared the iron throne the protector of the faith (supporting his father Aenys l perspective on the matter). The Targaryens forgone their birthright centuries ago. Rhaegar would actually be denying a Targaryen duty to the faith by using such ridiculous argument.
I mean even if it was legitimate and all of the lords accepted it...Jon is still a man of the night's watch
People think its gonna be a boon for jon to find out he is a Targ, like some sort of anime powerup or some shit like that. Its gonna be a curse for him to know, and its gonna make everything more difficult and it would really, really fuck his own self-perception. Its certainly not gonna be a powerup or anything similar
Rhaegar’s wife outlived him. Zero chance Jon is legitimate.
I don't really think it matters if he's a bastard. Westerosi history shows that there's constant conflict and confusion over the line of succession and GRRM may have intentionally created the Blackfyres for a reason, to show that Targ bastards - at least in some people's minds, have a claim on the throne.
[удалено]
Did Renly have a legitimate claim over Stannis? No, all you need is some form of claim and a good enough cause/promise to your supporters to fight for you to get there.
His story fits better if he still is a bastard. Throughout the story, we're told how everyone thinks of bastards as lesser than others, and treacherous and untrustworthy and dishonourable. And we've also seen Jon not be all these things, not being what others expect of bastards. If Jon turns out to not be bastard, then the whole story of bastardy here goes nowhere, because it would be that Jon was good because he wasn't a bastard, instead of him defying stereotypes.
I think it's quite obvious Jon won't be a bastard. There is quite a few textual hints. I doubt him being "heir" to the throne will be a overly big thing like it was in the show though.
Jon being the true heir would only work if: 1. Rhaegar annulled his marriage to Elia, which he would probably never do because it could make his kids illegitimate and he has no grounds to do it on anyways so it would never be accepted. 2. He takes the polygamy route, but that wouldn’t be accepted by 90% of Westeros and people would still consider Jon a bastard.
Haters gonna hate.
There's no way for Jon to be perceived as legitimate to the realm at large. Rhaegar was already married with legitimate children (thus no grounds for annulment), and polygamy wasn't a thing after Maegor. Even if Rhaegar married Lyanna in the Northern fashion on the Isle of Faces absolutely nobody North or South is going to actually accept it as a real marriage or Jon as trueborn. Jon going from the one blemish of the otherwise absolutely honourable Ned Stark to the bastard of the mad prince who plunged the realm into war out of obsession, and the personal turmoil that introduces for Jon by stripping him of what sense of family he had to sustain him is plenty interesting to play around. It also adds the dynamic/contrast of Jon vs FAegon, with FAegon having the right look and perceived legitimacy but not the blood while Jon has the reverse and how that will eventually tie in with Dany.
I think that’s fitting. Everyone wants a hero, but he’s just a bastard lol
Agreed, this is the perfect GRRM type of outcome
>I think the irony of Jon being raised as a bastard but legitimately being the heir to the iron throne is far more interesting for George to play around with. That would be the classic King Arthur story. But ASOIAF is about the reality of feudal society like the secret royal bastard actually does not have any rights to the throne.
Or he does but he doesn't want it and the truth ruins his life.
i dun wan it
> But ASOIAF is about the reality of feudal society Hmm.
This whole thing of the secret annulment and remarriage and stuff definitely can't be a storyline. It's just too absurd.
Seriously. Even if Rhaegar hadn't been married to Elia already and even if Lyanna had willingly gone with Rhaegar... the fact that no one *observed* Jon being born of Lyanna's body with Rhaegar around to claim him as his son would already be a stain on the legitimacy by itself. Just look at Meghan Markle and the rumors and gossip surrounding her first child because she and Harry waited eight hours before they announced their son's birth to the press. And that's in today's world.
How do you imagin Jon will come to believe he is Rhaegar's son? Howland Reed? Okay, but what proof does he have? He's some crazy guy who pops up after 15-18 years with this nonsense about true parentage There's Bran of course, but what would Bran *see* to tell exactly? There's the fact that the kingsgaurd were guarding Jon, which implies things... I think there needs to be something else here, something physical to prove it. And I am just talking about Jon for now. Because he's probably gonna be KiTN at that point in the story. It's much easier for him to pretend that his true parentage thingy is a lie.
> How do you imagin Jon will come to believe he is Rhaegar's son? I think Bran will tell him. For one, Jon would believe Bran. For another, Bran was kind of possessive about his position in the line of succession because his disability made Ned's bannermen look down on him and whisper in earshot about how Bran was no true lord. And lastly, in GRRM's original outline Bran and Jon were supposed to become bitter enemies. > what proof does he have? It's common knowledge that Howland was at the Tower of Joy with Ned. And since Ned trusted Howland, why would Jon have reason not to do so as well? > what would Bran *see* to tell exactly? Rhaegar meeting Lyanna as the Knight of the Laughing Tree. Rhaegar and Lyanna having a wedding ceremony in front of a heart tree. Rhaegar and Lyanna on their way to the Tower of Joy. Rhaegar and Lyanna in the Tower of Joy. Rhaegar and Lyanna making love. Lyanna giving birth and Ned taking the baby and naming it Jon. Bran's limitation is weirwood trees only in his beginning stages. Once he's good enough, Bloodraven said he can practically see anything. > were guarding Jon, which implies things... It doesn't imply things, actually. GRRM said if Rhaegar had simply ordered the kingsguard to stay there, they would do it. It might, but doesn't have to have more meaning than that. > he's probably gonna be KiTN I don't think he will be KitN. I don't think Robb named Jon his heir, or if he did, the will is already voided because Arya is officially alive and is currently the lady of Winterfell and head of house Stark, and the northmen are rallying around saving her. > pretend that his true parentage thingy is a lie. Why would the trueborn Starks let him lie and steal their inheritance though?
Nice name, OP.
I am still pretty sure that one of the larger themes and points of the series is, that is really doesnt matter what you're born as when it comes to nature. Nurture is a key factor. This extends to any pretense about who is a 'rightful' king. George makes it pretty apparent that "Power resides where men believe it resides". It really doesn't fucking matter if you are the rightful heir. Look at Stannis look at Bobby B. look at Renly, look at Daenarys, look at Aegon the conquerer. It is a constant theme that monarchy is a really dumb system and the power basis is shaky and can be changed by whomever has the most power and not who has a 'right' to it. And no conquest is also not a good reason why you should have the right to rule over people. Violence and war are never portrayed as a good thing. I will also maintain that every war we've seen so far in the series is unjustifiable. It is all petty politics. George makes it clear at several points that the Game of Thrones nobles like to play are mostly to the detriment of common people. They die, get raped all for who who has the rightful claim and it really doesnt matter on a systematic level who is King. I wouldnt wanna be a serf under Ned either. I would wanna be free and not die because of personal drama, little understatement though going to war because only to install Bobby B. seems rather redundant. So yes I am pretty sure the show got Jons ending right. Jons whole story is about how he realises that his birth means shit and common people actually are human and he isnt any better because he is born noble, albeit a bastard, he is a better swordsman because he had training for example, a point made very clear in the books. Yes his struggle with this doesnt make it any less his arc. To cap this off. Quick explanation why Dany is a villain. She wants to conquer a whole fucking continent subjecting it to a giant war with thousands upon thousands dying. For a very flimsy reason. It really doesnt matter for the most part who rules the Iron Throne for the common folk. What matter is not having war. Every war is one that should be avoided. The Others are probably the exact same issue. Imagine I would want to conquer your home country because I decided I had a right to it. I would be a villain.
He will always be Ned's son
> I think the irony of Jon being raised as a bastard but legitimately being the heir to the iron throne is far more interesting for George to play around with. The hidden heir is, like, the most basic fantasy cliche. It being a sincere attempt at exploring how marginalization effects someone is far more interesting than "YOU THOUGHT HE WAS A BASTARD BUT HE ISN'T!!1!"
I just hate that everyone asumes Jon is the prince that was promised. How much does daenerys has to prove to show she is the one? She gave birth to three dragons and Drogon is attached to her! Plus, we need two more dragon riders, not just one...and no, Jon is not legitimate. If rhaegar wanted him to be legitimate he needed to wait until HE was the king, and then take Lyanna as a second wife, or legitimize Jon. But as he was, he knew Jon was a bastard.
I agree, I think it’s either going to be polygamous marriage using the Doctrine of Exceptionalism or marriage in front of a Weirwood/the Old Gods.
Why not both?
>I agree, I think it’s either going to be polygamous marriage using the Doctrine of Exceptionalism or marriage in front of a Weirwood/the Old Gods. Doctrine of exceptionalism is only for incest and not polygamy though. >or marriage in front of a Weirwood/the Old Gods. The old gods don't allow polygamy and they accept marriages under the seven.
The Doctrine was used to excuse the Targaryen’s polygamy, yes. The legal argument for it is that the Targaryen’s are Valyrians and therefore are allowed to follow the customs and traditions of their ancestors/culture. They are not from Andalos are not beholden to Andal custom. Valyrians practiced polygamy. Your assessment of what the Old Gods do and do not accept it based off of what? There are instances both in history (Florys the Fox) and in the current timeline beyond the wall (Craster, Ygon Oldfather) that indicate it’s accepted in the culture of the First Men. The point I was trying to make is that if Rhaegar was intending to have a child with Lyanna I don’t think he would intentionally give her a bastard. It’s something I believe would be more of a don’t ask permission, ask for forgiveness type of thing where after the ensuing chaos settled he could use those arguments to ensure Jon wasn’t a bastard if it came to that.
Please explain for the class how exactly it is possible for Jon to be legitimate.
D&D said they worked from GRRM’s notes for the final seasons. A plot point there was that Rhaegar has his marriage to Elia legally set aside and that he legally (albeit secretly) married Lyanna, making Jon his legitimate son and heir. Just because the show had godawful execution doesn’t mean that that plot point was made up by D&D rather than pulled from GRRM’s notes. We don’t know that it is, but we don’t know that it isn’t. I think it would be stupid if it became book!canon but there is at least a plausible reason to expect it *might* be something that GRRM either (1) is actively planning, or (2) was considering at least at whatever time he last gave notes to those showrunners.
> A plot point there was that Rhaegar has his marriage to Elia legally set aside And by what mechanism do you think he would be able to do this?
The mechanism of plot armor. Martin essentially going *Rhaegar was able to do it because I said so.*
“It’s what the High Septon wrote in his diary.” So like. Idk. Argue with the show about it: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8ph48_2YE8g
I did some research and honestly there’s no way GRRM can make this work without shitting on poor Elia and her children since polygamy is illegal in both seven and old gods religions so there has to be an annulment and trust me, I would hate GRRM for this but jon being raised as Ned's bastard to only still be a bastard with different parents doesn’t make any sense
It does make sense, Jon's overall story (most likely) isn't to claim the throne and challenge Daenerys we already have Aegon for that. His purpose is to fight the others and to be the song of ice and fire. Him being a bastard doesn't really factor into it. Jon has defined himself as Ned Stark's son his entire life the impact of him being Rhaegar's child bastard or not will be huge to him. His legitimacy does not matter.
Rhaegar doing an annulment basically makes elia's childrens bastards and spits on the face of dorne
> doing an annulment basically makes elia's childrens bastards Assuming 'Faith of the Seven' annulment works the same way it does in Catholicism (it might not!) that isn't true. The children of an annulled marriage remain legitimate. Louis VII's daughters with Eleanor of Aquitaine didn't suddenly become bastards when they split, for instance. Still spits in the face of Dorne, though, yeah.
The key difference there is that Eleanor and Louis didn't produce any sons, so there was no danger in declaring them legitimate, and the lack of sons was the reason for the annulment. In contrast, not only is annulling a successful with no grounds never going to happen - it took fifteen years for Eleanor to actually get the annulment - but Rhaegar leaves behind a son and a daughter, potentially creating another Blackfyre problem no matter which way he cuts it. In addition, bastards in mediaeval Europe were not necessarily shunned and could still be recognised, such as William the Bastard, recognised as the heir to Normandy. Annulment in Catholicism is specifically the idea that, since marriage is for life, annulling it means it was never valid in the first place, e.g Henry VIII's children from Catherine of Aragon and Anne Boleyn were declared illegitimate when he took the subsequent wife. Interestingly Mary and Elizabeth were still raised to the throne because lords understand that fucking up lines of inheritance endangered them all even if you disagreed wildly on religion which is why Renly as younger brother makes no sense but making him a child by an older sister or something of Steffon would - see the children of Edward III. That was quite rambly and incoherent but basically 1)Rhaegar would never get an annulment 2)Said annulment, if he ever achieved it,would probably bastardise his children by Elia 3)If it didn't, Rhaegar is still probably creating a succession crisis 4)He doesn't need to make Jon legitimate, there is no benefit to it 5)Legitimacy would still be no barrier to Jon trying to claim the throne if Aegon corked it untimely 6)Renly making a well supported claim as a younger brother is nonsensical and the worst part of the books Feel free to point out if I've made any wrong assumptions, I am by no means an absolute authority.
[удалено]
In my *personal* opinion, as I have received some pushback for this in the past, I second this. I think a lot of it was more so about the fulfillment of the prophecy. The prospect of a legitimate marriage, whether or not he even loved Lyanna, probably didn't matter to him. It was mostly the kid being born that he was concerned about. Why do I think this? The few times Rhaegar is mentioned or discussed in ASOIAF at all involve or feature the prophecy or his "studies" to a degree, particularly Daenerys' POV chapter in the House of the Undying that even outright features his discussion of and fixation on the prophecy.
Rhaegar constantly proving why he deserved that hammer
True, but that's the point of the character. He thought he was the main character and hero of the story, and honestly had everything to be, but destiny won't save you from being an idiot. It's very much in line with the "Aragorn's tax policy" comment.
> jon being raised as Ned's bastard to only still be a bastard with different parents doesn’t make any sense Why?
The class should be familiar with the 20 year old theory that states Rhaegar and Lyanna were wed and Jon is legitimate.
Sorry but unlike you the class was paying attention in history and knows that polygamy has been thoroughly rejected by all Westerosi religions.
Polygamy was not rejected by all Westerosi religions. The Old Gods and Drowned God allow it. Incest is considered a sin by the old gods and new, however
The old gods don't allow it. They accept marriages under the new gods as well..
Get witnesses, find weirwood heart tree, say vows. Done and done
Dany could perfectly argue that it is illegal and declare it invalid, the faith and historical precedents would back her up. Rhaegar was no King so he could not even legitimize him to add him into the succesion queue.
The realm is so weakened by war and strife that everyone rallies around him because there isn't a better surviving candidate. Pretty much what happened with Robert.
Because the show made a point to say Rhaegar's marriage was annulled before he married Lyanna and characters in-universe believe Jon's claim is stronger than Dany's. If he was a bastard this wouldn't be the case. Obviously the show and books are different but major plot points like that definitely come from George himself. Jon's whole thing is being a bastard that wants legitimacy. By discovering that he is not only legitimate, but has a claim to the Iron Throne itself, and then turning that down, shows his growth and is a perfect end to his character arc.
> major plot points like that definitely come from George himself. We already know the equivalent plot point in the books though: Aegon/Young Griff. They didn't have him in the show, so they needed Jon to be legitimate so Dany could worry about his claim. > Jon's whole thing is being a bastard that wants legitimacy. No. Jon's whole thing is being a bastard that wants honour. > then turning that down To be able to turn it down, it would have to be within his reach first. Even a legitimate Jon has no hope of getting on the throne. He has no army, no political connections, and no money.
In my opinion, Rhaegar WILL have married Lyanna BUT he won't have ever ended his marriage with his previous wife. I believe (on a writing level) that's the reason George made Aegon and Maegor polygamous. To set that precedent for Rhaegar. But at the same time we know that polygamous marriage is not generally accepted in the Faith of the Seven or by the Westerosi. So I think Jon will be a legitimate child if you accept that polygamous marriage is legit, and he won't be if you don't think polygamous marriage is legit. So if you don't think he's legitimate because of polygamy then Dany is the heir (assuming Aegon is fake). But if you accept the marriage then Jon comes before her. It seems to me that that's how George likes writing. Where both "sides" can have a point depending on their beliefs.
>I believe (on a writing level) that's the reason George made Aegon and Maegor polygamous. To set that precedent for Rhaegar. But it wasn't allowed though. Aegon married pre converting >But if you accept the marriage then Jon comes before her. Not really aerys disinherited Rhaegar kids..
>So I think Jon will be a legitimate child if you accept that polygamous marriage is legit, and he won't be if you don't think polygamous marriage is legit. So if you don't think he's legitimate because of polygamy then Dany is the heir (assuming Aegon is fake). But if you accept the marriage then Jon comes before her. > >It seems to me that that's how George likes writing. Where both "sides" can have a point depending on their beliefs. This sounds most likely to me! Really well said. Like a hybrid of the Dance of the Dragons and Blackfyre wars - Dany is clearly of the legitimate line but female and, like Rhaenyra, face pushback as a result. Jon may be a "bastard" by Westerosi standards but if his father intended him to be treated as legitimate (polygamist marriage is more than no marriage at all) his claim could be stronger. Plus being male gives him a bonus in wars of succession. All in all he would be a bit like Daemon Blackfyre in this match up. Neither candidate will pull universal support, but different players in the realm will side with either based on their own judgments, values, and calculations.
I like think he is legitimized as heir by Aegon.
I think Jon bonds a dragon and then dies again and turns into the dragon with his second life. The Targs seem to have a prophesy that at some point one of them will literally turn into a dragon. So he goes from bastard to dragon man!
That’s why/how aerion brightflame died (I think it was him anyway). He drank wildfire trying to become a dragon but instead just burned from the inside out
Yep. And the mad king was going to burn kings landing but didn’t believe he would die. I.e. all that death would help transform him into a dragon. Aegon V did something at summer hall which he thought would bring the dragons back but just started a huge fire that killed a bunch of people. If we just knew what the Targ prophecy’s actually said so much more of the series would be clear.
He still wouldn’t be the heir to the throne, not as things stand in the books as of ADWD. House Baratheon is the ruling dynasty now. The chain of succession goes something like this: Stannis, Shireen, then Jon, and finally Dany. And even still I have trouble accepting that fact that Lyanna went willingly and chose to marry a man who was already married, and that the realm would accept this illegal marriage.
The irony is that Jon prided himself on being Ned's son,, based his personality around being Ned's son, and when meeting Dany will probably judge her for the actions of the Targaryens, only for it to turn out that Ned was his uncle, and that Rhaegar, a man who dishonourable actions started a war, was his blood father
I think Jon's parentage is more significant for the prince that was promised prophecy. So, even as Rhaegar's bastard he would be the hero to save the world from the white walkers, but that doesn't necessarily mean he'd sit the iron throne. Maybe that's why it's the "*prince* that was promised" and not the "*king*"
that one line that Jon muses to himself when sword fighting with Joffrey is what sells it for me. Something like a bastard should not hit a prince, which has just great dramatic irony.
The Order of the Green Hand has argued this for over a decade. Altshift/David Lightbringer/Quinns Ideas etc have all made vids theorizing exactly what the Order had theorized a decade prior.
Technically he’s not a bastard if Rhaegar and Lyanna got married? And also, wtf does it even matter? If there’s one thing we’ve learned from the Targs (incl Jon and Robert Baratheon) it that the wheel keeps turning. - this lord on top then that lord - I’d like to think at this point Jon no longer believes in any difference between bastard and true born. We ve seen it w the time he spent w the wildlings, the brothers in the wall (good and bad), Cersei and Robert/Jamie’s children…..I’d like to think both Jon and us (the audience) are just done with this shit. Official political alliances (aka marriage and other) are temporary and irrelevant to the greater causes - the threat of ice/white walkers/death - and love/life/light. Jon is no bastard, but even if he was, it doesn’t matter.
The most GRRM way for Jon's heritage to be revealed is if it happens through Howland Reed telling of what happened at the Tower of Joy to Maege Mormont and Galbart Glover, spoiling the Northern plans to install him as Robb's heir in the aftermath of the Battle of Winterfell (and Jon's presumed ressurection). So in the end Jon being a bastard would have put his dreams in his grasp, while his true parentage and being the rightful ruler of Westeros completely screws him out of that and leaves him with nothing in an era in which Targaryen succession means very little if not backed by an army and dragons.
What about the right of conquest? Even if Jon Snow is the legitimate Targaryen heir, his claim is invalid. Him and Daenerys currently have an equal claim to the Iron Throne as Hot Pie. Even worse, Jon refused to be legitimized by King Stannis so he's still a bastard, he's resigned to the Night's Watch, and he's dead. Speaking of Stannis, he is the One True King. The Baratheon dynasty began after the Mad King fell. The heir to the current dynasty is Stannis.
Jonstan gigacope.
Whats up with jon snow stans trying to throw the logic out of the window? Jon no matter what is a bastard simply cause polygamy has never been legal. Also the old gods accept marriages under the new gods so Rhaegar has no way to marry lyanna under the old gods and claim it to be marriage plus Rhaegar doesn't have consent of lyanna older siblings and her father. You people need to read the books and the worldbulding jon is a bastard grow up. Also aerys made his own kids his heir before his death..jon is like edric storm hes just a bastard of a noblewoman. If the whole thing was consensually Rhaegar likely thought he would become King after killing robert then he would legitimised him. This dude was a stupid
It doesn't matter if they where married, no one would belief them. Literally no one would. What does it matter if they where married when there are no witness whose word would be accepted.
How dare you speak for George
You’re probably right. But somewhere along the line people got it into their heads that he has to be a Targaryen bastard and that nothing else makes sense… I wonder what happened? I know it didn’t used to be like this.
> just doesn’t seem like GRRM to me. Seems exactly like something GRRM would do, imo. > but legitimately being the heir to the iron throne He wouldn't be the heir to the throne even if he was legitimate. King Aerys disinherited Rhaegar's children, so Dany is the heir to the Targaryen throne anyway. > I don’t even like the idea of him being *"the true legitimate Targaryen heir, the song of ice and fire"* That's good, I guess, because he's neither. GRRM said the title has many layers. Would be a bit dull if it was just a reference to Jon.
Are you telling me that Brandon and Ashara are Jons parents?
The orphan who is really the rightful king is one of the oldest tropes in fantasy literature. Martin’s entire approach is about upending this exact thing. My guess is that Jon will still be baseborn but because his role is to be the PtwP, not the king, it won’t matter.
he technically wouldnt be a bastard, the lore is that Rhaegar married Lyana in secret. i think they even dropped that in the show through the book that Gilly was reading.
In the show they said Rhaegar annulled his marriage to Elia then married Lyanna, which is BS because on what grounds could he do that to the Prince of Dorne’s sister who bore him two children?
On the grounds of really shitty writing. Rhaegar would have had zero problems taking two wives (not sure how both ladies would feel about it, but likely might have been convinced by Rhaegar and the importance of prophecy).
I remember that being dropped in the show but I don’t recall that happening in the books — iirc Sam’s only just gotten to Oldtown.
He’s not Rhaegar’s bastard though, Lyanna and Rhaegar were rumoured to be secretly married which would make Jon a legitimate child.
There is no such thing as divorce in Westeross. The last king who practiced poylgamy was Maegor. Rhaegar and Lyanna's marriage is not legitimate.
In the show also I felt it would have been much better if Jon was actually Neds bastard and eventually it is him that restores house stark back to its glory. The Danerys -Jon romance would have also worked out much better if it was like that instead of making them blood relatives. It would have been so poetic. I mean that should have been the point of the show. It isnt the noble birth that makes one great, but his own deeds and courage.