Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

dogma wrote:

Experiment 626 wrote:

Spoiler:

The thing I can't get around though is that Ned loved his sister & was devoted to her and absolutely hated what Rhaegar did to her, as his actions directly lead to her death. I don't think Ned's honour & sense of justice would have let him really tollerate Jon if he was the product of a vicious rape. By all acounts, he had a pretty close bond to Jon Snow despite his wife's feelings.

That's the thing...

Spoiler:

...I don't think she was raped. I think she went with Rhaegar willingly, or at least came to appreciate him after having been kidnapped. I also don't think Ned hated Rhaegar, at least not to the degree that Robert and Brandon did, and may well have been aware that she hadn't been kidnapped (this may also be the secret he was keeping). Moreover, even if Jon was the product of rape, I don't think it would jeopardize his relationship with Ned, especially if his dying sister asked him to care for the boy. I mean, this a man that was repulsed by the idea of killing Dany who was much older, a much greater political threat, and a significant personal risk given that refusing to have her assassinated meant going against his friend and king.

Hazardous Harry wrote:

dogma wrote:

Experiment 626 wrote:

Spoiler:

The thing I can't get around though is that Ned loved his sister & was devoted to her and absolutely hated what Rhaegar did to her, as his actions directly lead to her death. I don't think Ned's honour & sense of justice would have let him really tollerate Jon if he was the product of a vicious rape. By all acounts, he had a pretty close bond to Jon Snow despite his wife's feelings.

That's the thing...

Spoiler:

...I don't think she was raped. I think she went with Rhaegar willingly, or at least came to appreciate him after having been kidnapped. I also don't think Ned hated Rhaegar, at least not to the degree that Robert and Brandon did, and may well have been aware that she hadn't been kidnapped (this may also be the secret he was keeping). Moreover, even if Jon was the product of rape, I don't think it would jeopardize his relationship with Ned, especially if his dying sister asked him to care for the boy. I mean, this a man that was repulsed by the idea of killing Dany who was much older, a much greater political threat, and a significant personal risk given that refusing to have her assassinated meant going against his friend and king.

Spoiler:

Given that by claiming Jon Snow as his son, even when he's not, Ned would have been putting his wife through public humiliation and fostering her hatred against him, I don't think Ned Stark would have taken that course of action. Jon has to be Ned's son, Ned had no other reason to claim him otherwise (he certainly didn't have aspirations to use him as a claim to the throne). Furthermore, why would he encourage Jon to join the ignomonious Watch if he was a Targaryen?

sirlynchmob wrote:

Spoiler:

because if he is a targaryen, he is in line to become the king. so ned pushed jon towards the watch and once he joined he would give up his claim and not cause issues with his friend the king.

Hazardous Harry wrote:

Spoiler:

Given that by claiming Jon Snow as his son, even when he's not, Ned would have been putting his wife through public humiliation and fostering her hatred against him, I don't think Ned Stark would have taken that course of action. Jon has to be Ned's son, Ned had no other reason to claim him otherwise (he certainly didn't have aspirations to use him as a claim to the throne). Furthermore, why would he encourage Jon to join the ignomonious Watch if he was a Targaryen?

Hazardous Harry wrote:

Spoiler:

Sounds a whole lot riskier to do so, essentially endangering his entire family and all of his vassals, rather than the expedient method of sending him off to join the Targaryen's already in exile.

dogma wrote:

Spoiler:

The choice is between fulfilling the dying wish of his sister, and humiliating his wife. A difficult choice, but clearly one he was fine with making in either case as he didn't have to acknowledge Jon even if the boy happened to be his bastard.

As for why he encouraged Jon to join the Watch, it quite simple. Ned knew (or feared sufficently) that Robert would have had him killed if it was discovered Jon was actually a Targaryen, much as Robert wanted to have Dany killed. A powerful name isn't much good if its effectively a death sentence.

Spoiler:

At what point did Ned Stark ever make sound political decisions?

What's he supposed to do? Acknowledge him as Rhaegar's son and have Robert promptly attempt to dash his brains out?

Hazardous Harry wrote:

dogma wrote:

Spoiler:

The choice is between fulfilling the dying wish of his sister, and humiliating his wife. A difficult choice, but clearly one he was fine with making in either case as he didn't have to acknowledge Jon even if the boy happened to be his bastard.

As for why he encouraged Jon to join the Watch, it quite simple. Ned knew (or feared sufficently) that Robert would have had him killed if it was discovered Jon was actually a Targaryen, much as Robert wanted to have Dany killed. A powerful name isn't much good if its effectively a death sentence.

Spoiler:

He acknowledged his illegitimate son because it was 'the right thing to do'. Would lying to everyone, even his wife, be considered by Stark as the 'right thing to do'. We are talking about the morally uncomprising Ned Stark here.

Just finished the third book and I think I've changed my mind about Stannis. He might be using evil sorcery but he seems an okay King for all his faults; a bit like his brothers Renly and Robert.

Compared to some of the others...



Also, do you think it would be ironic if things are so bad in Westeros, with most of the Noble houses in chaos and robber barons scouring the land that the smallfolk actually do start praying for the Targarians return n sowing dragon banners? I mean they seem to have been repeatedly n insistingly saying thats not going to happen, but that sort of hints to me that its more likely to happen; especially once it becomes common knowledge that she has three dragons and a fair chunk of the East behind her. If you know somebody, whose basically Aegon the Conqueror reborn, can instantly end the war at a stroke thats going to be quite a hard thing not to see in a positive light. That or fear I suppose, another claiment wouldn't be good since it means more war and so far the other books have made clear that they have suffered more than anyone in this conflict.

I actually don't know how the other houses would react. GRR Martin doesn't put anywhere near as much awe (think the Emperor n Primarchs) as there is in 40k at the magical or the Divine and I suppose with history repeating itself they might think they can beat Daenyrs in battle. If her dragons are small enough they could even be justified in that. Some like Tywin Lannister have to fight because of his role in Roberts rebellion. Has GRR Martin said that the 6th book is going to have Danny reach Westeros? Because if its not the next and he only plans seven then that leads me to assume that Danny over-runs Westeros quite quickly if there is to be this battle against the Others.

Totalwar1402 wrote:Just finished the third book and I think I've changed my mind about Stannis. He might be using evil sorcery but he seems an okay King for all his faults; a bit like his brothers Renly and Robert.

Compared to some of the others...

Spoiler:

I really shouldn't have done it, but I was on the wiki on a character bio for Theon Greyjoy and it mentioned something called the Red Wedding. Curious I clicked the link. Now I knew the Frey were going to turn, but I thought they would just close the gates as he passed through to fight the Greyjoys. Not massacre Robb, Catalyn and all 3500 of his loyal bannerman.

Then you have the Boltons who have been set up in the last two books I've read to be the biggest jerks in Westeros, who are the very definition of robber barons and have turned looting/ransoming into an industry. They also betrayed the Starks at Winterfell whilst they were trying to get Theon. Actually, they're more like something out of the Thrity Years War than anything the medieval era produced.

Since I'am assuming the Freys will try to make themselves King of the Riverlands and the Boltons Kings of the North I really do hope Daenyrs gives them their justice at the series end. I mean I don't think she would want people like that helping her who have murdered children and isn't predisposed to like traitors.

Also, do you think it would be ironic if things are so bad in Westeros, with most of the Noble houses in chaos and robber barons scouring the land that the smallfolk actually do start praying for the Targarians return n sowing dragon banners? I mean they seem to have been repeatedly n insistingly saying thats not going to happen, but that sort of hints to me that its more likely to happen; especially once it becomes common knowledge that she has three dragons and a fair chunk of the East behind her. If you know somebody, whose basically Aegon the Conqueror reborn, can instantly end the war at a stroke thats going to be quite a hard thing not to see in a positive light. That or fear I suppose, another claiment wouldn't be good since it means more war and so far the other books have made clear that they have suffered more than anyone in this conflict.

I actually don't know how the other houses would react. GRR Martin doesn't put anywhere near as much awe (think the Emperor n Primarchs) as there is in 40k at the magical or the Divine and I suppose with history repeating itself they might think they can beat Daenyrs in battle. If her dragons are small enough they could even be justified in that. Some like Tywin Lannister have to fight because of his role in Roberts rebellion. Has GRR Martin said that the 6th book is going to have Danny reach Westeros? Because if its not the next and he only plans seven then that leads me to assume that Danny over-runs Westeros quite quickly if there is to be this battle against the Others.

Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote:

Hazardous Harry wrote:

dogma wrote:

Spoiler:

The choice is between fulfilling the dying wish of his sister, and humiliating his wife. A difficult choice, but clearly one he was fine with making in either case as he didn't have to acknowledge Jon even if the boy happened to be his bastard.

As for why he encouraged Jon to join the Watch, it quite simple. Ned knew (or feared sufficently) that Robert would have had him killed if it was discovered Jon was actually a Targaryen, much as Robert wanted to have Dany killed. A powerful name isn't much good if its effectively a death sentence.

Spoiler:

He acknowledged his illegitimate son because it was 'the right thing to do'. Would lying to everyone, even his wife, be considered by Stark as the 'right thing to do'. We are talking about the morally uncomprising Ned Stark here.

Spoiler:

The morally uncompromisng Ned Stark probably wouldn't father a bastard either, so it's all up in the air

Experiment 626 wrote:

Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote:

Hazardous Harry wrote:

dogma wrote:

Spoiler:

The choice is between fulfilling the dying wish of his sister, and humiliating his wife. A difficult choice, but clearly one he was fine with making in either case as he didn't have to acknowledge Jon even if the boy happened to be his bastard.

As for why he encouraged Jon to join the Watch, it quite simple. Ned knew (or feared sufficently) that Robert would have had him killed if it was discovered Jon was actually a Targaryen, much as Robert wanted to have Dany killed. A powerful name isn't much good if its effectively a death sentence.

Spoiler:

He acknowledged his illegitimate son because it was 'the right thing to do'. Would lying to everyone, even his wife, be considered by Stark as the 'right thing to do'. We are talking about the morally uncomprising Ned Stark here.

Spoiler:

The morally uncompromisng Ned Stark probably wouldn't father a bastard either, so it's all up in the air

Spoiler:

To be fair, Ned was just married and then rode off to war. I can see how he might have had a small lapse and slept with another woman, especially considering how it was likely he could very well die at any moment during the fighting. Boys will be boys!
Besides, in book 1 you get the impression that Robert knew the girl Ned slept with, he simply couldn't remember her name and Ned refused to really speak about it.

The other thing that doesn't really fit, Rhaegar was 'the last true dragon', implying he had dragon's blood. We know Jon didn't inherit that aspect *if* he's Rhaegar/Lyana's son and instead he's a pretty good warg.

Hazardous Harry wrote:

Spoiler:

He acknowledged his illegitimate son because it was 'the right thing to do'. Would lying to everyone, even his wife, be considered by Stark as the 'right thing to do'. We are talking about the morally uncomprising Ned Stark here.

Hazardous Harry wrote:

Spoiler:

He refrained from making sound political decisions when they would compromise his strong sense of morality. I don't see how smuggling the child out of the country (and away from his biggest threats) would be considered immoral.

This is all hypothetical right? I've finished the latest book and there wasn't anything to suggest this sort of theory...I think.

Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote:

Experiment 626 wrote:

Spoiler:

To be fair, Ned was just married and then rode off to war. I can see how he might have had a small lapse and slept with another woman, especially considering how it was likely he could very well die at any moment during the fighting. Boys will be boys!
Besides, in book 1 you get the impression that Robert knew the girl Ned slept with, he simply couldn't remember her name and Ned refused to really speak about it.

The other thing that doesn't really fit, Rhaegar was 'the last true dragon', implying he had dragon's blood. We know Jon didn't inherit that aspect *if* he's Rhaegar/Lyana's son and instead he's a pretty good warg.

Spoiler:

Well Jon hasn't been shoved in a fire yet so we can't test that part yet, but it will be interesting to see him interact with the dragons when they come to Westeros.

And Ned had too much honour to father a bastard. If he was willing to confront Cersei he wouldn't instantly renege on his very recent marriage.

Experiment 626 wrote:

Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote:

Experiment 626 wrote:

Spoiler:

To be fair, Ned was just married and then rode off to war. I can see how he might have had a small lapse and slept with another woman, especially considering how it was likely he could very well die at any moment during the fighting. Boys will be boys!
Besides, in book 1 you get the impression that Robert knew the girl Ned slept with, he simply couldn't remember her name and Ned refused to really speak about it.

The other thing that doesn't really fit, Rhaegar was 'the last true dragon', implying he had dragon's blood. We know Jon didn't inherit that aspect *if* he's Rhaegar/Lyana's son and instead he's a pretty good warg.

Spoiler:

Well Jon hasn't been shoved in a fire yet so we can't test that part yet, but it will be interesting to see him interact with the dragons when they come to Westeros.

And Ned had too much honour to father a bastard. If he was willing to confront Cersei he wouldn't instantly renege on his very recent marriage.

Spoiler:

Jon burned his hand in the first book when he threw the lamp at the wight that was trying to kill the Old Bear - proving he's no true dragon!
With everything going on and Westeros going strait to hell, you get the impression that only a trueborn dragon is ment to retake the throne and restore peace to the Seven Kingdoms.


Ned could have fathered a bastard, especially as he was never ment to wed Cat who had been promised originally to his older brother Brandan. Ned got Cat & Winterfell by virtue of his father & older brother being murdered. He grew real feelings for Cat after the war was done and he'd come back to Winterfell.
Keep in mind too, his sense of honour would also have led him to basically own upto & admit any transgression he'd made, basically taking responsibility for his actions and trying to seek forgiveness.

He confronts Cersi because her children aren't just bastards, they're a product of incest which is pretty much the #1 crime in Westeros. (at least since the fall of the Targaryen dynasty, and its also said to be an affront/insault to the Gods!)

I forgot about the hand burning thing. perhaps targaryen blood manifests itslef in different ways then (Immunity to fire, Animal control)

dogma wrote:

Spoiler:

If its his, then he fathered a bastard child at the expense of his wife's honor, which is certainly not righteous. At the very least, if it isn't his, he was making a concession to his sister in an effort to spare the boy's life. Moreover, by evading questions regarding not only the parentage of his bastard, but the circumstances of Lyana's death, he is implicitly concealing the truth in the face of what was almost certainly direct questioning.

No matter how you consider it, Stark is bending his morality regarding Jon, and his sister.

I dont agree with this.

Experiment 626 wrote:

Spoiler:

Jon burned his hand in the first book when he threw the lamp at the wight that was trying to kill the Old Bear - proving he's no true dragon!

dogma wrote:

Spoiler:

I get the impression that immunity to fire has more to do with Dany, specifically, than the Targaryens in general; but I may be forgetting something.

And?

Its further evidence that the Targaryens aren't, as a family, immune to fire which would render it a unique characteristic of Dany's; either by birth, blessing, or something else.

Yes, though it does seem that immunity to fire is something that her ancestors shared with her. What has changed that lead to further generations being deemed unworthy until Daenyrs is anyone's guess, though the death of dragons might have something to do with it.

I'm not entirely certain R'hollor is the good guy here (if there's anything demonstrated in GoT it's that there probably isn't a 'good' side in any case).

To answer the original question, I think once people come to believe something is there's by right of birth, they'll do what it takes to claim or hold it, regardless of whether there's really any point. Think of the virgin Queen Elizabeth, who survived multiple plots against her, and throughout held a tight grip on her throne - despite having no heirs so really she wasn't doing it for anyone.

I mean, she executed Mary Queen of Scots for trying to usurp her throne, only to eventually die and have Mary's son James claim the English throne.

'Common sense' would argue that she should have figured 'screw this, I'm doing awful things and risking my life and don't even have kids to to leave the throne to, so I'm going to abdicate and leave go live in a castle by the sea'. But people don't work that way. The idea that your birthright says something ought to be yours will drive people to fight for it, even if they have no kids to leave it to.

Hazardous Harry wrote:
I'm not entirely certain R'hollor is the good guy here (if there's anything demonstrated in GoT it's that there probably isn't a 'good' side in any case).

Spoiler:

Another priest of R'hollor appears in the latest book, and it seems they certainly want Daenyrs to succeed. But few people tend to help her for any reason other than their own self-interest, so I wonder their ulterior motive is. Why promote both Stannis and Daenyrs as the rightful heirs?

The Priests likely aren't any more united than any other group, and probably know less about what's going on than most think.

sebster wrote:To answer the original question, I think once people come to believe something is there's by right of birth, they'll do what it takes to claim or hold it, regardless of whether there's really any point. Think of the virgin Queen Elizabeth, who survived multiple plots against her, and throughout held a tight grip on her throne - despite having no heirs so really she wasn't doing it for anyone.

I mean, she executed Mary Queen of Scots for trying to usurp her throne, only to eventually die and have Mary's son James claim the English throne.

That is sort of simplifying it, Queen Elizabeth was adamant about ensuring England would remain a Protestant nation. That might have been her lasting legacy, certainly it's outlasted the dynasty of James.

EDIT: Of course Daenerys has not shown any strong religious opinion in any case, so it probably doesn't apply here.

dogma wrote:

Hazardous Harry wrote:
I'm not entirely certain R'hollor is the good guy here (if there's anything demonstrated in GoT it's that there probably isn't a 'good' side in any case).

Spoiler:

Another priest of R'hollor appears in the latest book, and it seems they certainly want Daenyrs to succeed. But few people tend to help her for any reason other than their own self-interest, so I wonder their ulterior motive is. Why promote both Stannis and Daenyrs as the rightful heirs?

The Priests likely aren't any more united than any other group, and probably know less about what's going on than most think.

I'd disagree, given that R'hollor is one of the few dieties that actually seems to communicate with his followers. Perhaps the two are simply misinterpreting the same vision?

Hazardous Harry wrote:Yes, though it does seem that immunity to fire is something that her ancestors shared with her. What has changed that lead to further generations being deemed unworthy until Daenyrs is anyone's guess, though the death of dragons might have something to do with it.

I'm not entirely certain R'hollor is the good guy here (if there's anything demonstrated in GoT it's that there probably isn't a 'good' side in any case).

Spoiler:

Another priest of R'hollor appears in the latest book, and it seems they certainly want Daenyrs to succeed. But few people tend to help her for any reason other than their own self-interest, so I wonder their ulterior motive is. Why promote both Stannis and Daenyrs as the rightful heirs?

Melisandre just really misinterpreted the signs and took it to meaning Stannis was Azor Azhai (s?) reborn

So many spoiler tags!



I'm only about half-way through the last book though, so I'm not sure if this is a hint towards anything...

Tibbsy wrote:So many spoiler tags!

Spoiler:

One thing I found in Melisandre's POV is that at one point, she was praying for a glimpse of Azor Ahai (Who she believes is Stannis) and kept seeing Jon Snow in the flames...

I'm only about half-way through the last book though, so I'm not sure if this is a hint towards anything...

And I liked her POV in Book5 because without it she seems pretty callous and cruel in her actions

Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote:

Spoiler:

The end of the book confirms that

And I liked her POV in Book5 because without it she seems pretty callous and cruel in her actions

Well she still comes across as not very pleasant at all.

In terms of Danny and the fire.

In 2000 GRRM wrote in an online Q&A (emphasis is his, not mine):

Granny: Do Targaryens become immune to fire once they "bond" to their dragons?
George_RR_Martin: Granny, thanks for asking that. It gives me a chance to clear up a common misconception. TARGARYENS ARE NOT IMMUNE TO FIRE! The birth of Dany's dragons was unique, magical, wonderous, a miracle. She is called The Unburnt because she walked into the flames and lived. But her brother sure as hell wasn't immune to that molten gold.
Revanshe: So she won't be able to do it again?
George_RR_Martin: Probably not.

And, in 1998 he wrote:
"Lastly, some fans are reading too much into the scene in GAME OF THRONES where the dragons are born -- which is to say, it was never the case that all Targaryens are immune to all fire at all times."


So, it's pretty clear that they aren't immune to fire. The TV show is just over-focusing on things.