• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

*UNMARKED SPOILERS ALL BOOKS* Game of Thrones |OT| - Season 7 - Sundays on HBO

Huh. I had no idea. Does that mean Rhaegar's first two kids were de-legitimized? Or would they have been still considered true born?
I really don't get why, if the dragon has three heads, Rhaegar would want the annulment. That's cutting off two heads of the dragon! If he has the high septon in his pocket, just seems more likely he'd get him to grant a polygamous marriage like the old Targaryens had.
 

Neece

Member
I really don't get why, if the dragon has three heads, Rhaegar would want the annulment. That's cutting off two heads of the dragon! If he has the high septon in his pocket, just seems more likely he'd get him to grant a polygamous marriage like the old Targaryens had.

Or he can annul the marriage, and as king, legitimize his other children so they remain Targaryens.

It probably would inevitably lead to a civil war down the line though, a pro Jon as heir faction, and a pro Aegon faction led by Dorne.
 

dabig2

Member
I really don't get why, if the dragon has three heads, Rhaegar would want the annulment. That's cutting off two heads of the dragon! If he has the high septon in his pocket, just seems more likely he'd get him to grant a polygamous marriage like the old Targaryens had.

Is it ever hinted as to why he himself couldn't be one of the heads? Or his younger brother? What's in these prophecies that specifies it has to be 3 of his own kids?
 

Phased

Member
Huh. I had no idea. Does that mean Rhaegar's first two kids were de-legitimized? Or would they have been still considered true born?

They're still legit kids (or would have been) even if he took a new wife. Jon would have no claim to the throne assuming they weren't killed by The Mountain.
 
Instead of sending the Kingodanorf and the A-Team north of the wall on some incredibly risky expedition, couldn't they just take a condemned prisoner north of the wall, kill him, then drag the body back when it reanimates? Seems like it'd be a lot quicker and easier.
 
Instead of sending the Kingodanorf and the A-Team north of the wall on some incredibly risky expedition, couldn't they just take a condemned prisoner north of the wall, kill him, then drag the body back when it reanimates? Seems like it'd be a lot quicker and easier.

The WW have to willfully reanimate him, no?
 

DrForester

Kills Photobucket
I really don't get why, if the dragon has three heads, Rhaegar would want the annulment. That's cutting off two heads of the dragon! If he has the high septon in his pocket, just seems more likely he'd get him to grant a polygamous marriage like the old Targaryens had.

Do we know that an annulment would delegitimize the other kids via Westeros rules, or is that an assumption?
 
The WW have to willfully reanimate him, no?

I don't think so, aren't you supposed to burn any corpses north of the wall just because they'll come back from the dead at any moment? I'm not 100% on all the rules there, but that seems to be their thinking. It's not like they can't afford to wait, there's an armistice in effect.
 
I think Jon will be very conflicted about being a Targaryen. He always wanted to be a Stark, and he never will be.
I feel like, there's going to be so much for Jon to take in when he finds out who he really is. Everybody is like "what's gonna happen when Dany is pregnant with Jon's child and he finds out he just got his own aunt pregnant" - but there's way more for him to digest then just that.

All his life he's thought Ned Stark is his father when that's his uncle. When he learns his whole life was a lie, I think it is going to fuck him up for a while.
He's half Stark. He's always been half Stark. That's not much of a conflict.

that's like saying, Robb, Sansa, Arya, Bran & Rickon are half Tully. Which is true, but no one ever refers to them as fish, or half fish. They are wolves. Your father's fame is usually what represents your "name".

Like what Ned said to Jon before farewell "...you are a Stark. You might not have my name, but you have my blood.

And that's what he meant - Jon is a Stark by blood but not by name.

also, if you just mean how he'll be viewed; whether other people think of him as a Stark or not then maybe I'm misinterpreting what you say.
 
Going to be mighty hard to make Rhaegar look like anything but a monster. And Lyanna is just a moron that got her family killed and started a war.



Great reason to start a war!

Technically her older brother started the war by riding to King's Landing and demanding the Mad King give up his son and heir so he could kill him.

I reiterate: This dumbass went up to a man who already had a reputation as a lunatic at this point and demanded that he give him his eldest son.

Let's face it, the Starks are not that bright...
 

jfkgoblue

Member
I feel like, there's going to be so much for Jon to take in when he finds out who he really is. Everybody is like "what's gonna happen when Dany is pregnant with Jon's child and he finds out he just got his own aunt pregnant" - but there's way more for him to digest then just that.

All his life he's thought Ned Stark is his father when that's his uncle. When he learns his whole life was a lie, I think it is going to fuck him up for a while.


that's like saying, Robb, Sansa, Arya, Bran & Rickon are half Tully. Which is true, but no one ever refers to them as fish, or half fish. They are wolves. Your father's fame is usually what represents your "name".

Like what Ned said to Jon before farewell "...you are a Stark. You might not have my name, but you have my blood.

And that's what he meant - Jon is a Stark by blood but not by name.

also, if you just mean how he'll be viewed; whether other people think of him as a Stark or not then maybe I'm misinterpreting what you say.

They absolutely are, especially Robb and Sansa, GRRM goes to great lengths to describe how they were more Tully than Stark.

There is also the fact that in the books, Robb isn't only crowned the King in the North. The Northern Lords called him the King in the North, but the River Lords called him the King of the Trident..
 

Havok1313

Member
In medieval times, divorce and annulment were considered the same thing. They didn't have divorces like we have today, both words were used interchangeably to mean anullment.

---
What most likely happened with Rhaeghar and Lyanna is that knocked her up accidently, and kidnapped her to hide the pregnancy. While in hiding they decided to get married to legitimize their child.

He was obsessed with the prophecy and knew he needed a 3rd child. Was definitely no accident. If they hadn't been secretive about it, a bunch of lords wouldn't have rebelled and started a war over it.

Is it ever hinted as to why he himself couldn't be one of the heads? Or his younger brother? What's in these prophecies that specifies it has to be 3 of his own kids?

I forget where/who, but someone mentioned that when Rhaegar was a child he thought the prince that was promised prophecy referred to himself, and that's why he started training with weapons all of a sudden. Somewhere he decided it would actually be one of his children instead.

Do we know that an annulment would delegitimize the other kids via Westeros rules, or is that an assumption?

I'm pretty sure people are just assuming this for some reason. Even if it did, as king, Rhaegar could just legitimize them anyway.
 
I think we need to remember that the characters in the books are much younger than they are in the show, Lyanna was like 15. Rhaegar's prophecy obsessed ass should've known better.
 
I feel like, there's going to be so much for Jon to take in when he finds out who he really is. Everybody is like "what's gonna happen when Dany is pregnant with Jon's child and he finds out he just got his own aunt pregnant" - but there's way more for him to digest then just that.

All his life he's thought Ned Stark is his father when that's his uncle. When he learns his whole life was a lie, I think it is going to fuck him up for a while.


that's like saying, Robb, Sansa, Arya, Bran & Rickon are half Tully. Which is true, but no one ever refers to them as fish, or half fish. They are wolves. Your father's fame is usually what represents your "name".

Like what Ned said to Jon before farewell "...you are a Stark. You might not have my name, but you have my blood.

And that's what he meant - Jon is a Stark by blood but not by name.

also, if you just mean how he'll be viewed; whether other people think of him as a Stark or not then maybe I'm misinterpreting what you say.
Robb legitimized Jon (even though barely anyone knows).
 
I think we need to remember that the characters in the books are much younger than they are in the show, Lyanna was like 15. Rhaegar's prophecy obsessed ass should've known better.

GRRM said he made the characters way too young. The show does a much better job.

Sana and Littlefinger is still creepy though.
 

Fuzzy

I would bang a hot farmer!
I don't think so, aren't you supposed to burn any corpses north of the wall just because they'll come back from the dead at any moment? I'm not 100% on all the rules there, but that seems to be their thinking. It's not like they can't afford to wait, there's an armistice in effect.
The episode Hardhome showed the dead not rising as wights until the NK raised his arm commanding them to. The reason you burn your dead north of the wall is so a WW won't happen upon the body and raise it.

Did this happen in the show?

And who is still alive who knows this?
No.

Wasn't Robb's letter on its way to Howland Reed? I can't remember.
 

Kelpie

Member
I just saw that the graphic novel adaptation of The Mystery Knight just came out. Anyone read it yet? I absolutely love the Hedge Knight and Sworn Sword gn's and this is made by the same team. I just think Mystery Knight, from what I remember, is the weakest of the three Dunk & Egg tales. But it's been a while since I read it.

I picked it up and would say overall it's a pretty good adaptation. Though I'm a little annoyed that the dust jacket spine and cover doesn't match the first two since it was published by Bantam and not Marvel. Also there are no full page covers since it didn't have a serialized release.
 
The episode Hardhome showed the dead not rising as wights until the NK raised his arm commanding them to. The reason you burn your dead north of the wall is so a WW won't happen upon the body and raise it.

Fair enough, I guess I was confused by the wights that reanimated in Castle Black.
 

Angry Grimace

Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
So if Sam does take over from his father how much of a fortune is he looking at here?

The castle when we saw it looked pretty fancy.

It's a second tier house. Not quite a great house but still rich as fuck.
 

Fuzzy

I would bang a hot farmer!
Oh man I forgot about that legitimization letter in the books. What a pointless dead end.
Not pointless. If the show had it then people wouldn't be complaining that northerners don't know Jon died releasing him from his vows before they named him KitN.


Fair enough, I guess I was confused by the wights that reanimated in Castle Black.
Maybe it was already turned and just playing dead. :p
 

duckroll

Member
Fair enough, I guess I was confused by the wights that reanimated in Castle Black.

They were already wights when the bodies were found. It was specifically mentioned that the bodies didn't rot after all this time and it was odd.

The show is inconsistent about things like this. Especially from stuff very early on.

Nothing inconsistent. Wights can pass the wall, White Walkers can't.
 
Oh man I forgot about that legitimization letter in the books. What a pointless dead end.

Only pointless in the show. In the books the letter will likely be delivered by Lady Mormont when they crown Jon King in the North. In the show they just accept him, but in the books I bet that there is a debate, and she delivers the proof that Robb made him a Stark. He will be Jon Stark, King in the North.
 
They absolutely are, especially Robb and Sansa, GRRM goes to great lengths to describe how they were more Tully than Stark.

There is also the fact that in the books, Robb isn't only crowned the King in the North. The Northern Lords called him the King in the North, but the River Lords called him the King of the Trident..

Interesting. I did know that all of the Stark kids except Jon and Arya actually took after their dad and the rest looked more like her. That's another reason why she resented Jon because he looked a tad more like Ned than not only Robb but all her children and Arya apparently looks like Lyanna.

and that King of the Trident shit, it's a shame they don't mention that on the show.
 

Azzanadra

Member
They absolutely are, especially Robb and Sansa, GRRM goes to great lengths to describe how they were more Tully than Stark.

There is also the fact that in the books, Robb isn't only crowned the King in the North. The Northern Lords called him the King in the North, but the River Lords called him the King of the Trident..

You know that reminds me, is show Robb supposed to take after Catelyn? I can never tell with the lighting of his scenes because the actor has reddish/auburn hair (which can be seen sometimes) and blue eyes, but it often seems like he has brown hair ans I can't otherwise make out the eye color.
 

Brakke

Banned
Only pointless in the show. In the books the letter will likely be delivered by Lady Mormont when they crown Jon King in the North. In the show they just accept him, but in the books I bet that there is a debate, and she delivers the proof that Robb made him a Stark. He will be Jon Stark, King in the North.

Yeah but instead of having that talk they could just not.

Also it's going to be real dumb for Jon to have to change his name twice. You know what a pain that is? Gotta spend some time at the courthouse and call the bank and your utilities company and update your will and fuck around with the DMV.
 

Kain

Member
So after watching the ep... the writing sucks. HARD.

All the teleporting, the stupid plot points (going to capture a zombie to show Cersei? fucking seriously?????), characters in dead ends (LF, Jorah, Sam... most of them except Dany and Jon honestly). It's bad. Very bad,.
 

mantidor

Member
So after watching the ep... the writing sucks. HARD.

All the teleporting, the stupid plot points (going to capture a zombie to show Cersei? fucking seriously?????), characters in dead ends (LF, Jorah, Sam... most of them except Dany and Jon honestly). It's bad. Very bad,.

It's abysmal, the dragons are beautiful though :p

It's the closest we will get to a closure in our lifetimes, which is disheartening, but 'est la vie.
 

TrutaS

Member
I'm finding the show a lot of fun and interesting, but not the elevated piece of work that the books are. There's just the extra cliche, the extra lack of thought and detail, the extra pandering to make it feel hollywoodesque. But it's a bit of closure, which unfortunately George Martin decided is not his priority in life - fair enough.
 

KahooTs

Member
Aemon knows the prophecies Mel talks about. He's read them and so too we have to assume Rhaegar has. Mel says two kings to wake the dragon, father first then child so both die kings, and Aemon's reply isn't even to deny it, just to tell Jon there is power in king's blood and better men than Stannis have done worse things.

If Rhaegar is latched onto that same prophecy, (remember what he believes is fluid, he changes his mind at least twice we know of) king first then child, then perhaps the annulment is for the purpose of making Jon his legal heir.
 
So after watching the ep... the writing sucks. HARD.

All the teleporting, the stupid plot points (going to capture a zombie to show Cersei? fucking seriously?????), characters in dead ends (LF, Jorah, Sam... most of them except Dany and Jon honestly). It's bad. Very bad,.

Based off rumours I've heard, it's about to get worse. It seems like the writers have been left with a bunch of characters they have no idea what to do with so they're either going to fade out or be killed off after being kept around for 7 seasons.

The fact that everyone seems to have gained the ability of instant transmission between seasons 6 and 7 is hilarious to me, though.
 

gun_haver

Member
I'm finding the show a lot of fun and interesting, but not the elevated piece of work that the books are. There's just the extra cliche, the extra lack of thought and detail, the extra pandering to make it feel hollywoodesque. But it's a bit of closure, which unfortunately George Martin decided is not his priority in life - fair enough.

GRRM ain't that good a writer, man. 'Elevated'. Yeah the books have more detail but it really is all just tits and dragons in the end, don't get too worked pal.
 
You probably shouldn't talk about "rumors" given that the season outline has leaked.

GRRM ain't that good a writer, man. 'Elevated'. Yeah the books have more detail but it really is all just tits and dragons in the end, don't get too worked pal.

It's not though. I don't really care for fantasy, but what got me into this series is the character drama, political intrigue, and schemes more than anything. That's what's been disappointing about the past few seasons, the logic has been braindead compared to the stuff that hews more closely to the books.
 
So if Sam does take over from his father how much of a fortune is he looking at here?

The castle when we saw it looked pretty fancy.

Sam is still in the night's watch and forfeited his inheritance. He's not undead so he doesn't get a loophole like Jon.

He also has a sister, so she will inherit. She's about to marry some Fossoway guy, so I guess the houses will merge under the Fossoway name.
 

NekoFever

Member
Do we know that an annulment would delegitimize the other kids via Westeros rules, or is that an assumption?

I'm pretty sure there's been no discussion of it in either book or show. So basically it'll do whatever is convenient for the plot. And it's kind of moot either way because the king could just legitimise them if necessary.

Today children of an annulled marriage are still legitimate but I don't know if that was the case in the distant past.
 
Top Bottom