#'bastardy is not real'> it was very much real in the sense that they did not have access to the marital estate /by law/

[ilikefelines]

And I quote:

'So what does it mean that Laenor and Corlys agree to pass Rhaenyra’s children off as trueborn? It means that their bastardy cannot be proven at the moment insofar as the legal father, Rhaenyra’s husband, is playing along and covering for Rhaenyra, and Viserys is backing them up by giving this his “legal” stamp of approval. But again, our view that it’s no one else’s business but Laenor and Rhaenyra’s and that Viserys “legalized” their status is very modern.

Jaehaeyrs and Alysanne were not considered married in the eyes of the Westerosi until they’d had a bedding ceremony, that is, the consummation of their marriage was witnessed. Royal marriages and the children that come from them are a public matter because the succession affects everyone in the realm. Laenor, Corlys, and Viserys can protect those children in the short term, but Laenor and Corlys and Viserys won’t live forever, and they could withdraw their support for those children and renounce them as bastards at any time.

Harwin could admit to fathering them, Rhaenyra and Harwin could get caught in the act, or someone else close to them might confess. Sure right now the black faction are all one big happy family, but 20 years down the line when bastard Jace takes the throne over trueborn Aegon III? There are multiple people in the family who could confess to knowledge of the bastardy, including Aegon III himself. The bastardy is too obvious and there are too many legitimate heirs of both house Targaryen and house Velaryon getting pushed aside in favor of bastard born children for it to be an issue that simply disappears because Rhaenyra and Laenor say so.

So “legal bastardy” is a pretty meaningless concept when it comes to royal succession because it’s not a matter that’s going to be settled by some neutral third party in a court of law. What matters in the long run is not whether or not Laenor claimed the kids, what matters is whether or not the situation is questionable enough that people with the power to challenge it might challenge it.'

There are a lot of Rhaenyra stans who act wilfully obtuse when it comes to this. There's no point applying our modern views to Westeros when nobody who matters in that world knows or cares.

There's this weird thing going on Reddit right now where people are claiming that legally, Rhaenyra children are not bastards. And I was wondering if you agree or disagree. I think that people are just making up their own canon lore at this point.

Hi anon,

I think what gets kind of muddled in this discussion is what "legally" means in the context. Generally speaking, children born within wedlock are considered legitimate until proven otherwise. Now in the medieval world, it's not like you were issued a birth certificate that you could whip out and say see, it says right here who the father is! There were no DNA tests, it was all a matter of word, and by and large a woman's virtue was her word, and it was what kept her and her children protected within the framework of medieval marriage. But the reason why bastardy matters in this context is also important. It's not like Rhaenyra is trying to collect child support here, nor is she a common merchant's wife whose husband has decided just to roll with it. She's the heir to the throne and the parentage of her children is a matter of inheritance and dynastic succession, so it's not a situation where a legal loophole is particularly helpful as a gotcha. There is not at this point in history a comprehensive codified law that clearly defines what these terms mean and defines the rights and obligations of parents and children legitimate and illegitimate, mostly you have combinations of precedent, tradition, oath, and a healthy dose of might makes right.

(I saw another reply to this question in which the responded basically goes, "free yourself from the shackles of this construct! Marriage isn't real it's an oppressive institution and the idea of bastardy is made up, so let it go," and while it's true that marriage, legitimacy, etc. are all social constructs and not absolute states of being, they started off as having a functional purpose within a certain social framework. And this is a basic problem a lot of people have with George's world, it's not that we have to have the views of a 12th century French peasant, or that everything has to be historically accurate, but George chose the medieval world as a setting for a reason, and it's not just an aesthetic one. Characters in even a quasi-historical setting have to act within the constraints of that setting. We have to understand that people don't know what they don't know. The medieval world doesn't have any framework for the introduction of feminist ideals. Westeros hasn't even had a Christine de Pizan yet. You couldn't walk up to a medieval peasant woman and say "marriage is a tool of patriarchal oppression and bastardy is a social construct," they'd look at you like you had two heads. And so we have to acknowledge that you can't simply start dismantling existing social structures if the framework doesn't exist to replace them with something better that offers more protections for a broader group of people, and at this point it definitely doesn't. Making an exception for one very privileged woman does not mean progress for all women, instead it often means destabilization of the flawed system that does exist, and even more violence against those less powerful in order to enforce the exceptional status).

So from a medieval point of view, marriage was pretty much a non-negotiable for a woman. And women weren't simply getting married because they were pressured into it by their families or because their fathers were opportunistic assholes, they got married because unmarried women had no legal status or standing. In most places they could not sign contracts or own land. A woman could join the church or get married (or become a prostitute, but it's not like sex workers had freedoms or protections either). Divorce wasn't a thing, and annulment was hard to get and usually available only as a tool for men to set aside their wives. So, for all intents and purposes, once you were married, that was generally it, you were stuck for life (the upside is that widows did get a lot more freedom, so marrying an older guy and waiting it out was not a bad option sometimes, all things considered). But what marriage did provide was assurance that you and your children would be protected and provided for. Marriage was a practical agreement, involving dowries, inheritances, and alliances sealed in blood. And this is one of the reasons why bastards could not inherit. Inheritance for once's children was one of the few perks of a marriage for a woman (this is, incidentally, why Alicent is so pressed about her children being effectively disinherited. There is NO reason for her, as an eligible maiden of good standing, to marry a man who will not provide for her sons, king or not). And of course, a man's bastards are obvious and are disqualified from inheriting (setting aside legitimization because it is not nearly the easy out that people think it is). You can't really pass them off as legitimate because your wife clearly knows which children she gave birth to, whereas a man might be told he is the father of a child when that child's father is in fact someone else.

In a dynastic marriage, all of this becomes even more important. Marriages were made as alliances and to strengthen the ties between kingdoms or houses. A child seals the marriage agreement by binding two bloodlines and creating kinship bonds that will last beyond the current generation. Those kinship bonds can ensure peace between kingdoms at war, trade agreements, and military aid. Passing a bastard off as trueborn breaks that agreement; it violates the very principle by which the agreement was made. And in this context, it doesn't actually matter if the father claims the children as his, because in a dynastic marriage inheritance is not just a personal matter, it's a matter of the state. The truth matters to a great many people, more than just the immediate family. A lie doesn't become the truth simply because the liar isn't caught, and there's no statute of limitations or court ruling that will ever put the matter to rest for good. Passing off a bastard as trueborn destabilizes the succession and breaks the dynastic bonds that the marriage was meant to establish. When the bastard heir in question attempts to take the throne, it won't be a smooth transition.

So what does it mean that Laenor and Corlys agree to pass Rhaenyra's children off as trueborn? It means that their bastardy cannot be proven at the moment insofar as the legal father, Rhaenyra's husband, is playing along and covering for Rhaenyra, and Viserys is backing them up by giving this his "legal" stamp of approval. But again, our view that it's no one else's business but Laenor and Rhaenyra's and that Viserys "legalized" their status is very modern. Jaehaeyrs and Alysanne were not considered married in the eyes of the Westerosi until they'd had a bedding ceremony, that is, the consummation of their marriage was witnessed. Royal marriages and the children that come from them are a public matter because the succession affects everyone in the realm. Laenor, Corlys, and Viserys can protect those children in the short term, but Laenor and Corlys and Viserys won't live forever, and they could withdraw their support for those children and renounce them as bastards at any time. Harwin could admit to fathering them, Rhaenyra and Harwin could get caught in the act, or someone else close to them might confess. Sure right now the black faction are all one big happy family, but 20 years down the line when bastard Jace takes the throne over trueborn Aegon III? There are multiple people in the family who could confess to knowledge of the bastardy, including Aegon III himself. The bastardy is too obvious and there are too many legitimate heirs of both house Targaryen and house Velaryon getting pushed aside in favor of bastard born children for it to be an issue that simply disappears because Rhaenyra and Laenor say so.

So "legal bastardy" is a pretty meaningless concept when it comes to royal succession because it's not a matter that's going to be settled by some neutral third party in a court of law. What matters in the long run is not whether or not Laenor claimed the kids, what matters is whether or not the situation is questionable enough that people with the power to challenge it might challenge it. And we see even within the actual narrative of the Dance that this is indeed the case. There is already a situation brewing with the other branches of the Velaryon family who are rightfully pretty pissed to see their ancestral seat pass to someone with no blood ties to the family (and as an aside, people will say Vaemond was self-serving, and of course he was, but that doesn't make him wrong, and maybe Baela or Rhaena should have inherited instead, but neither they nor their father were pressing their claims because they were backing up the bastard claimants, so was Vaemond supposed to do that for them?). And yes the king and Rhaenyra can cry treason and they can kill Vaemond and cut out tongues, but using force to silence people for telling the objective truth is by definition tyranny, and that's exactly the sort of situation that would get the nobility nervous. Because if Rhaenyra has to silence people already and she's not even queen yet, what will Jace have to do when he takes the throne? That's the real problem, not the "legal" status of Jace and his brothers, but the practical ramifications of hiding the truth.

[jackoshadows]

Why did Jon refuse Stannis’ offer in ADwD?

Much has been made about Jon Snow’s statement that ‘Winterfell belongs to my sister Sansa’.  When this is basically Jon using Westeros law to stop Stannis’ constant demand that he take over as Lord of WF - he probably would have stated the name of whomever is legally next in line to shut Stannis up on the topic. He was being diplomatic here by not telling Stannis the real reason. Keep in mind that this conversation between Jon and Stannis takes place in ADwD, after Jon has already made the decision in ASoS to stay at the wall as a NW brother and not take up Stannis’ offer.

For those who are interested in reading about why Jon refused Winterfell from Stannis, there is Jon’s last chapter in A Storm of Swords. It’s a great chapter and embodies GRRM’s - ‘A human heart in conflict with itself’.

Here’s Jon’s thought process from Jon XII, ASoS:

He sat on the bench and buried his head in his hands. Why am I so angry? he asked himself, but it was a stupid question. Lord of Winterfell. I could be the Lord of Winterfell. My father’s heir.

Here he remembers his loving father Ned - he could be Ned’s heir.

But someone he dislikes intensely intrudes on that happy thought!

It was not Lord Eddard’s face he saw floating before him, though; it was Lady Catelyn’s. With her deep blue eyes and hard cold mouth, she looked a bit like Stannis. Iron, he thought, but brittle. She was looking at him the way she used to look at him at Winterfell, whenever he had bested Robb at swords or sums or most anything. Who are you? that look had always seemed to say. This is not your place. Why are you here?

It’s Catelyn making him feel unwelcome and unwanted at Winterfell that makes him hesitate.

While he is soaking in a tub he once again thinks of Winterfell:

The warmth took some of the ache from his muscles and made him think of Winterfell’s muddy pools, steaming and bubbling in the godswood. Winterfell, he thought. Theon left it burned and broken, but I could restore it. Surely his father would have wanted that, and Robb as well. They would never have wanted the castle left in ruins.

Here he thinks that Ned and Robb would have wanted him to restore Winterfell. But...

You can’t be the Lord of Winterfell, you’re bastard-born, he heard Robb say again. And the stone kings were growling at him with granite tongues. You do not belong here. This is not your place. When Jon closed his eyes he saw the heart tree, with its pale limbs, red leaves, and solemn face. The weirwood was the heart of Winterfell, Lord Eddard always said . . . but to save the castle Jon would have to tear that heart up by its ancient roots, and feed it to the red woman’s hungry fire god. I have no right, he thought. Winterfell belongs to the old gods.

He is once again reminded of his bastardy. The stone kings of his dreams telling him that he does not belong. And then the Weirwoods…. and here we come to the crux of the problem.  To become Lord of Winterfell and Warden of the North under Stannis, Jon would have to tear up and burn the Godswood.

While he is thinking all this, there is an election going to happen soon and Jon hears his brothers talking. Soon it could be that Janos Slynt becomes Lord commander. And Slynt hates Jon. So would it not be better for Jon to take up Stannis’ offer?

Thorne and Marsh will sway him, Yarwyck will support Lord Janos, and Lord Janos will be chosen Lord Commander. And what does that leave me, if not Winterfell?

He entertains the possibility of him actually have a life and a family...

Ygritte wanted me to be a wildling. Stannis wants me to be the Lord of Winterfell. But what do I want? Would I sooner be hanged for a turncloak by Lord Janos, or forswear my vows, marry Val, and become the Lord of Winterfell? It seemed an easy choice when he thought of it in those terms . . . though if Ygritte had still been alive, it might have been even easier. Val was a stranger to him.

And then finally we basically see all of Jon’s wishes and ambitions and what he really wants:

I would need to steal her (Val) if I wanted her love, but she might give me children. I might someday hold a son of my own blood in my arms. A son was something Jon Snow had never dared dream of, since he decided to live his life on the Wall. I could name him Robb. Val would want to keep her sister’s son, but we could foster him at Winterfell, and Gilly’s boy as well. Sam would never need to tell his lie. We’d find a place for Gilly too, and Sam could come visit her once a year or so. Mance’s son and Craster’s would grow up brothers, as I once did with Robb.

He wanted it, Jon knew then. He wanted it as much as he had ever wanted anything. I have always wanted it, he thought, guiltily. May the gods forgive me.

Note that thus far, the current known living heir to Winterfell has not made a single appearance in Jon’s thoughts, while he is debating the pros and cons of accepting Stannis’ offer and becoming lord of Winterfell. Not one thought spared to Sansa. No - ‘ah well, Sansa is still alive and I could not possibly take her place’. Nothing. Jon does not seem to give her place in all this ANY consideration. Nada. Nil. Zero. His thoughts involve Ned, Robb, Catelyn, Janos, Old Gods, Ygritte, Val and even Sam and Gilly. But no Sansa. 

So Jon finally admits that he wants WF, that he wants to take up Stannis’ offer, and is seriously considering leaving the wall with Stannis’ pardon and become Lord of WF and start a family with Val. What stops him here?

Ghost finally turns up!

“Gods, wolf, where have you been?” Jon said when Ghost stopped worrying at his forearm. “I thought you’d died on me, like Robb and Ygritte and all the rest. I’ve had no sense of you, not since I climbed the Wall, not even in dreams.” The direwolf had no answer, but he licked Jon’s face with a tongue like a wet rasp, and his eyes caught the last light and shone like two great red suns. Red eyes, Jon realized, but not like Melisandre’s. He had a weirwood’s eyes. Red eyes, red mouth, white fur. Blood and bone, like a heart tree. He belongs to the old gods, this one. And he alone of all the direwolves was white. Six pups they’d found in the late summer snows, him and Robb; five that were grey and black and brown, for the five Starks, and one white, as white as Snow.

He had his answer then

And there we have it. Jon Snow was going to stay Jon Snow.  Jon’s love for Ghost, his uniqueness,  the weirwood eyes reminding Jon of the Godswood, the heart trees and the Old Gods - that there was no way he was going to burn them down to take up Stannis offer.

He decides to stay at the wall and goes back to the election and luckily for him (And thanks to Sam) he ends up winning the election and not losing his head to Slynt.

So no. He did not refuse Winterfell for Sansa. Sansa played no role in his decision to refuse Winterfell. That’s just legalese Jon’s throwing at Stannis to justify his decision.

But here’s the thing – Robb’s will. And Robb does not demand that Jon has to burn down the Godswood.  A most beloved brother wanting Jon to be KITN? Hell yeah! I think the more wolfish, newly resurrected Jon is going to be all about that KITN promotion – after he goes to WF with the Wildlings and kicks some Bolton ass. We know via GRRM’s season 4 GOT script notes that we are going to be seeing Direwolves (plural) Vs Ramsay’s dogs in this battle. It’s very likely we will be seeing Shaggydog/Rickon making an appearance via Manderly and Nymeria and her wolf pack are possibly making their way there and then there is Ghost. And if Jon does become KITN as the eldest living Stark, I think both Arya and Rickon will be supportive of that decision.

Whether Sansa under LF’s influence will be supportive of Jon as KITN? That remains to be seen. As per the show, it would seem not.  She was a character created for conflict among the Starks. But considering that the last 4 seasons of the show has been D&D fanfiction, I am not entirely sure how her character will react in the books.

[julianlapostat]

ASOIAF is Not Shakespearean II: Marlowe and Martin

As a follow-up to my discussion on ASOIAF not being Shakespearean and my discussion with @shakespeareofthrones over here, I want to make a follow-up entry. 

In my post, I argued that if there is a Shakespeare play that resembles ASOIAF than it’s Measure for Measure, which is an ensemble -- a play without any real main characters. And that made me think of an even more ASOIAF-esque precursor. And that would be Edward II by Christopher Marlowe, Shakespeare’s great precursor and greatest inspiration.

This is a history play ostensibly about the titular King, but anyone on reading it will be astounded by Marlowe’s skill at weaving multiple subplots and competing factions and subplots one on top of another, and more importantly layering it dynamically, in reaction to the actions of the preceding scene and act. Edward II and his male lover Gaveston foil one rebellion, but then Gaveston dies, and Edward II gets one new ally (and implied rebound) Hugh Despenser, and then Edward II is captured by his enemies and imprisoned in a truly disgusting prison and then dies with a poker in his rear-end courtesy of Lightborne, a proto-typical “cool hitman” type who comes and then disappears. The finale then concerns the king’s successor, Edward III, doing a counter-rebellion against his father’s betrayers and murderers.  This is a play that is an ensemble without any real main characters, where the cast set-up at the start and the guys you think will be at the end like Gaveston, dying suddenly, with the main central protagonist, being killed pathetically, and his assassin in turn being killed abruptly to cover the tracks. In Shakespeare, you don’t get this. The Henriad for instance is also a big ensemble play with Hotspur, Bolingbroke, Prince Hal, and Falstaff competing in Part I but it becomes clear in Part II that the real heart of the play is the friendship between Hal and Falstaff. Marlowe is much more Proto-Altmanesque, and more chaotic and disordered. The real historical Edward II hovers over ASOIAF in many significant ways. Chiefly by ways of The Accursed Kings by Maurice Druon. The third and fourth novel deal with Edward II’s reign. His wife, Queen Isabella, daughter of King Philippe le Bel, is one of the inspirations for Cersei. Marlowe’s Edward II is not quite Accursed Kings, because Marlowe makes his King sympathetic and sentimentalizes his regime, and surprisingly to many modern readers, openly portrays and sympathetically, his romance with Gaveston and devotion to him. Edward II endures as one of the few depictions of homosexuality in classical literature and Derek Jarman adapted it into a wonderful film.

Now of course there are same-sex relationships in ASOIAF but I don’t think one can properly analogize them to Edward II and Gaveston. Edward II was irresponsible about his favoritism, and hesitant about sleeping with his Queen, sparking rumors of adultery, bastardy and actual plots and rebellion...I don’t think Renly/Loras who keep their love on the down-low, or Jon Con’s unrequited ardour for Rhaegar is remotely the same. Rather I think what Martin borrowed from Edward II was the ensemble nature of the plot, the diffusement of character and sympathy, and above all for its ruthlessness and unsentimentalism. IN Marlowe, the good die pitiably, the bad die with some pathos. Mortimer, the villain of Edward II, as he ascends the gallows gets a compelling speech (which Shakespeare homaged in Hamlet):

Mortimer: Base Fortune, now I see, that in thy wheel There is a point, to which when men aspire, They tumble headlong down: that point I touch’d, And, seeing there was no place to mount up higher, Why should I grieve at my declining fall?— Farewell, fair queen; weep not for Mortimer, That scorns the world, and, as a traveller, Goes to discover countries yet unknown. ACT 5, SCENE 6

The King doesn’t get such dignity. He gets killed off screen. Edward II’s imprisonment and death is among the most awful scenes in the Elizabethan Age, and Edward II’s prison ordeal (he’s kept in a room where the castle’s privies flow into and the King is wading through in shit and sewage his cell) has shades of Aerys II and Duskendale.   And of course, unlike Shakespeare whose plays usually end with what Evil Morty calls “the speech about  politics. About order. Brotherhood. Power!” Marlowe’s plays don’t end with such speeches. They stop and leave you at horror and grief. The final lines of Edward II, has the new Prince, King Edward III call out:

KING EDWARD III:”Go fetch my father’s hearse, where it shall lie; And bring my funeral robes.   [Staring at Mortimer’s Decapitated Head on ramparts] Accursed head,         Could I have rul’d thee then, as I do now, Thou had’st not hatch’d this monstrous treachery!— Here comes the hearse; help me to mourn, my lords. Sweet father, here unto thy murdered ghost  I offer up this wicked traitor’s head; And let these tears, distilling from mine eyes, Be witness of my grief and innocency.  [Exeunt.]

ACT 5, SCENE 6, FINAL LINES 

Edward II ends with a boy crying in tears grieving over his lost innocence. This is Aegon III Dragonbane all his life, grieving over Princess Rhaenyra (whose fate is the ASOIAF version of Edward II -- weak king but killed pitiably). And of course you have a traitor’s head at the ramparts being addressed to...which is a common image in ASOIAF. People have compared King Aegon III to be a Hamlet-like figure, but the Dark Prince can be traced to Shakespeare’s inspirations in Marlowe...where a Prince contemplates his father’s ghost, and ends up supplanting and punishing his mother and her usurping lover. Much of the dynamic from Hamlet can be traced to this underrated Elizabethan masterpiece. The usual argument about Shakespeare v. Marlowe is that the former was better at writing memorable characters (with the possible exception of Mephistopheles, there aren’t any real three-dimensional characters in Marlowe’s plays), at comedy (Marlowe’s idea of humour is very much schadenfreude about powerful people making fun of people they dislike, cf Doctor Faustus which is entirely that until the final act) but Marlowe beats Shakespeare in terms of his plotting, and his dramatic sense of action. In Shakespeare, his characters usually take up a great deal of space, and the drama and action with select exceptions (Macbeth which is his shortest tragedy, Julius Caesar, his most smoothly constructed piece of drama). Marlowe is also, shall we say, less audience friendly, and less keen about assuring and satisfying concerns about order being restored and virtue rewarded/vice punished as Shakespeare’s plays usually are. And this is one of the many ways ASOIAF is not Shakespearean, and among the writers it has most in common with, is Kit Marlowe, and yes, Kit Harington was named after Christopher’s famous nickname, and oh he recently did a production of Doctor Faustus. 

[salsa-and-light]

@contemplatingoutlander

Well I don't have a red nose or jester bells yet;

It's scaremongering. Treating common problems(let alone universl truths) as evidence for some new fascist order is scaremongering.

And I've read enough op-eds about Trum being a fascist for this lifetime thank you.

I've spent enough time around academic, and I've seen how they write.

I strongly suspect that the points as presented are more or less accurate summations of the walls of text used to justify them, but if they aren't then it's even more damning that the author has failed to present his own ideas well.

Not that I care too much about the book, I was responding to the points as presented, of the roughly 8 thousand notes that this post currently has I'd be surprised if more than a couple of dozen of people have read the book.

So in a very real sense, what is being shown and spread is what actually matters to discussions that people are having about these topics.

As for the video.. I don't put much stock in anyone who starts a video off by saying that a "leader who promises national restoration" is fascism

I don't think Biden is a fascist but he did create the "Build Back Better" plan to restore America, and which also includes the phrase "But for too long, the economy has worked great for those at the top, while working families get squeezed." courtesy of whitehouse.gov

That quote alone ticks boxes 9 & 10 on this list.

Frankly out of context that quote could have easily ben said by Trump

Pillars are a good comparison, because like pillars, points have to support their own weight before they support something else.

There is no way in which uncertainty for example(4) is evidence that we are living under fascism, uncertainty has been a constant from the beginning of time and it will continue to be a factor. Sexual anxiety(8) has been a problem before and it will be again. It's been a constant since the Sexual Revolution, and the flappers before that, and anti-miscegenation laws before that and puritans before that and bastardy laws before that.

If you want to argue that fascist governments use uncertainty and sexual anxiety to establish or maintain control, of course they do lots of things do. There are some public transport systems that would not function if everyone knew the best way to uses them.

Meanwhile fascist governments are also well-known to use dogs, but I hardly think that makes raising puppies to be a fascist act.

Being used by fascism, even being necessary for fascism is not evidence of fascism.

Bundling a bunch of those ideas doesn't make any of the individual claims any stronger.

The Ten Pillars of Fascist Politics by Jason Stanley

This July 6, 2021 twitter thread by Yale philosophy professor Jason Stanley, PhD outlining the 10 pillars of fascist politics shows just how fascist most of the Republican Party has become under Trump’s leadership. The current MAGA GQP has incorporated each of the above 10 pillars into its talking points and philosophy. 

This is why the GQP has been up in arms about Biden accurately calling their Trumpist political ideology “semi-fascism.” 

Feel free to share this with your relatives and friends who want to defend the direction the GQP has been going in. [Just be prepared when they counterattack to explain why the Democratic Party is not “communist” or “socialist” but a center left political party with its most extreme members being just social democrats (even Bernie Sanders and AOC aren’t really democratic socialists).

_______________________

Note: The visual formatting of how the original tweet in the thread appears, as well as the visual formatting of pillars number 2 - 9 were modified from their source; furthermore, the translation of “ARBEIT MACH FREI” AS “WORK MAKES ONE FREE” was added to pillar #10.

[jeanne44world-blog]

Ugh. Sansa.  Who would have thought a 11-13 year old fictional character could elicit such a maelstrom of fan-anger, blame-the-victim comments and, self-righteous shadenfreude?

The Good Little Girl. Teacher's pet. Little Miss Perfect. Homecoming Queen. Miss Universe.

She sews well; she embroiders perfectly; she paints like Picasso; she plays the harp and the bells and sings like a bird; she's a graceful dancer; she writes poetry about courtly love. She eats daintily and makes sure her hands never get sticky, she nibbles rather than bites, she sips and never gulps. She blushes prettily at some topics, looks tragic when she cries. Even when she belches it's pretty. She farts on key and when she goes to the privy she leaves nothing but a pile of rose petals shaped like a heart behind her.

He daddy thinks she's just a perfect little girl, her mother praises her, she makes the Septa feel like a genius ,  all the men in the castle smile at her and give her presents and  lemon cakes.

And to make it worse she never does anything really mean to her sister, the hyperactive tomboy whose always underfoot, always screwing up, so boyish and naughty and...disharmonious. But it would be unladylike to point it out to her. IN fact she's NICE to her sister.She's got everybody else in the castle doing it for her. Sansa was chatting happily aasaa she worked. Beth Cassel...was sitting by her feet, listening to every word she said, and Jeyne Poole was leaning over to whisper something in her ear."What are you talking about?" Arya asked suddenly.Jeyne gave her a startled look, then giggled. Sansa looked abashed. Beth blushed. No one answered. "Tell me," Arya said."We were talking about the prince,"Sansa said, her voice soft as a kiss....'JOn says he looks like a girl,"Arya said. Sansa sighed as she stitched. "Poor Jon", she said. "He gets jealous because he's a bastard." "He's our brother," Arya said, much too loudly.Septa Mordane raised her eyes...."Our half brother," Sansa corrected, soft and precise. She smiled for the septa. "Arya and I were remarking on how pleased we were to have the princess with us today," she said...."Arya, why aren't you at work,' the septa asked. "Let me see your stitches. Arya wanted to scream. It was just like Sansa to go and attract the septa's attention.The septa examined the fabric. "Arya, Arya, Arya", she said. "This will not do. This will not do at all."

--A Game of Thrones

This is how we're introduced to Sansa.

She got Arya in trouble! What a....goody miss two shoes!

Except she didn't.

What she did do is include Arya in her dumb 11 year old boy-conversation and ARYA called attention to herself because Sansa said that  Poor Jon was jealous due to his bastardy.

Jon Snow! The closest thing to a hero the whole series has. Who wouldn't object? That poor guy! Can't even sit with the family when the King visits! can't even practice at swords with the Crown Prince! Treated with a cold eye by her Lady Mother.

Always left out.

But it's true.

Jon IS jealous; and in fact has a secret core of rage about his bastardy, one that causes him to go berserk in A Storm of Swords when he flashes back to his youth and Robb Stark telling him he could never be Lord of Winterfell; he gets so angry he blacks out, and when he comes back he's beaten Iron Emmett of Eastwatch black and blue.

So right off the bat we are introduced to Sansa this way. Through Arya's resentful, jealous eyes.

Does Arya have a point?  

She's right that underneath the blemish free surface there is a smugness to Sansa. The smugness of the good little girl.

And it's a sibling rivalry has been magnified by the Septa and perhaps the rest of the castle.

But, like Jon, poor Arya is mostly jealous. Sansa doesn't do anything to her. Arya hangs herself on her own rope and blames Sansa.

But for readers, introduced to the character of Sansa this way...yeah, Sansa seems like a smug little brat.

And it's easy to overlook, at this early point in the story that Arya's point of view is limited and actually unfair.

Death of a Lady But it would be unfair of us to really characterize it as all unfair. Because as Game of Thrones goes on, Sansa does reveal herself as dishonest.

A lie is a lie. We can't deny that. But what a lot of readers don't see is why she lied. Amory Lorch and the sword that killed Rhaenys Targaryen

I think readers assume that Sansa lies because of her stupid crush on Joffrey. It's true that Sansa willfully seems to block the reality of Joffrey's character out of her mind and unfairly pins the blame on Arya and Mycah.

But Sansa is an eleven year old girl betrothed to marry a prince.

A prince whose family's rather dark history has been soft-soaped for her.

She knows that Jaime is the Kingslayer.

What she doesn't know is that: Cersei has had babies murdered and their mothers sold into slavery; Joffrey has ripped open his little brother's pregant cat and pulled the kittens from her Rhaenys Targaryen was ripped from hiding under her bed and stabbed dozens of times under Lannister orders Aegon Targaryen's little head was smashed against the wall under Lannister orders the murder and rape of Elia Martell was perpetrated by a man whose gigantic hands were stained with the bloody remnants of her own infant son's head under Lannister oders; the rape of King's Landing was ordered by a vengeful, triumphant Tywin Lannister eager to please the new King her own brother has been casually hurled out a window by Jaime Lannister

She knows none of this. We know it. She's been sold a sanitized bit of history.

All eleven-year-olds are.

(rant to follow)

People criticise the Starks for not teaching Sansa (and the rest of the Stark children) the harsh realities of history. I mean, in a world as violent as the world of Westeros, the violent reality should be taught from kids from the cradle. Right?

It's dumb.

Westeros is no more violent than our world. Are you kidding me?

(graphic stuff here--please skip if squeamish)

Two world wars, the Holocaust, genocide....Look into the details of atrocities in any conflict in the last hundred years.

You'll be having nightmares.

German children with tongues nailed to tables by Russian soldiers.

Mass rapes and murder in China by the Japanese.

Japanese POW's drawn and quartered by New Zealanders.

Depleted uranium bombs...why?

Fetuses ripped out of mothers and chopped up 'like sausage'.

Piles of dead bodies shoved aside by bulldozers...

I'm 45 and I'm sick to my stomach just thinking about it.

(graphic stuff ends)

Gregor Clegane may not be the NORM, but he's far more common than most people consider.

. As JRR Tolkien said, real-life Orcs are on BOTH sides.

And who taught you all that when you were eleven?

If you're American, who taught you about the My Lai massacre or the killing squads of Viet Nam, carpet bombing of Cambodia, tacit approval of genocide in Pakistan, atrocities against Native Americans and Phillipinos, illegally overthrowing governments, soldiers firing on striking workers?

If you're English, who taught you at eleven about concentration camps in Africa, willful starvation in the colonies or Ireland, atrocities in the Wars, the slave trade?

If you're Russian, who taught you about pogroms and gulags and tens of millions sacrificed on the altar of the New Society, forced starvation and cannibalism in Ukraine?

You get the picture.

Eleven year olds never hear that stuff. Why should Sansa or Arya? Or Bran? To them they are taught the same thing as you were: whatever happened in the past, it was for a noble reason, and soldiers are there to protect you from evil.

Hating Sansa's eleven year old naivete is, frankly, just plain stupid.

(End of rant)

Now we know all these things that Sansa doesn't. We know the Lannister's and Joffrey are BAD with a capital B. We know that Robert is a neglectful corrupt man drinking himself into an early grave while his kingdom falls apart.

Sansa doesn't. She thinks they're the GOOD GUYS. Just like you probably would.

And so Sansa is caught: she doesn't want to lie; but she doesn't want to face the truth. And so she clams up. She doesn't actually lie about what happened. She claims that she doesn't remember.

And she pays for it, in one of the most hideously unfair crimes of the book...with Lady, the living representation of her unconscious instincts.

And people want to say: it's her fault! She didn't corroborate Arya's story! AS if the murder of her pet was a natural or foreseeable outcome of her silence.

Again, that's plain stupid.

Let me tell you something. CERSEI ordered that murder. Not Sansa. And it was a completely, totally, mind-boggingly unpredictable and irrational thing to do!

Sansa's silence, in the face of a very uncomfortable situation with the family she thinks she's going to be spending the rest of her life with, is RATIONAL..

An attempt at harmony. Constructive. The best thing she could do with the knowledge she had.

If she hadn't told Cersei, Ned would have escaped! None of it would have happened!

Uh. No. That makes no sense whatsoever.

NED told Cersei of his plans to tell Robert about the Baratheon children's bastardy.

Let me repeat that.

Ned told Cersei of his plans to disinherit and endanger his children.

And again: Ned told Cersei to leave the country because Robert was going to murder her and her children because of Ned's information.

Flat-out, straight-up, kid gloves off.

The only thing Sansa's informing to the queen did was prevent her and Arya from escaping. Maybe.

And, yeah, it was wrong. Tragic consequences. For sure.

It was the act of a wilful girl at the blossom of adolescent; that period of time when children begin to question their parents' infallibility. Adolescents are, frankly, stupid sometimes.

I know I was. But hey, that's how we grow in life: by making mistakes.

I blame Sansa like I blame my own bad decisions or my 16 year old stepson's

. Luckily my family wasnt and isn't in the situation hers was in.

And Sansa didn't even know she was in that situation, anyway.

You can disagree with Ned Stark for not being explicit about it. But even that is understandable. Ned Stark was working to protect his children but, let's face it: when you play the Game of Thrones you take some risks.

At the end of the day it all boils down to the fact that Eddard Stark inaccurately assessed those risks.

And man did Sansa, and Arya, pay for it.

But why doesn't she break free? If I were her, I'd get out of there!I'd Arya wouldn't let herself suffer like that. Where is Sansa's  agency?

Ugh, I've heard that so many times.

To that I say: she does break free. She does get out of there and you probably wouldn'nt. Arya sees worse atrocities for months before she breaks free, too. Sansa's agency isn't in sliced throats and badassery. But she sure as hell has agency.

You're locked in a room for days. You have a friend. Your friend tells you 'they're killing everyone.' You hear fighting, screams, pleadings for mercy, howls of anguish. Your friend is taken from you. You never see her again.

You are in shock. You stop eating. YOu lose weight. You seriously consider suicide. An old man comes and touches you all over.

You take all the lady-like training you have at your disposal; all the courtesy and charm at your command. You take the good little girl persona and turn it into a tool; you plead for your father's life, pinning your hopes on the boy you think loved you, who you spent such a beautiful night with under the stars at the Hand's Tourney. You've trained all your life for this, and you do it.

And, of course it works. How could it not?

But then it doesn't.

And your see your father knocked down and  beheaded in front of your eyes.

And the veil is lifted from  your eyes. And you understand that you are in a cage and the the boy you thought you loved is a monster. He shows you your father's head, your Septa's. And you look at it. IN an act of defiance. And you refuse to break And the courtesy is dropped when you say: Maybe my brother will have your head. Boros slammed a fist into Sansa's belly, driving the air out of her. When she doubled over, the knight grabbed her hair and drew his sword, and for one hideous instant she was certain he meant to open her throat. As he laid the flat of the blade across her thighs, she thought her legs might break from the force of the blow. Sansa screamed....It will be over soon. She soon lost count of the blows...."Boros[said the king.] make her naked."Boros shoved a meaty hand down the front of Sansa's bodice and gave a hard yank. The silk came tearing away, baring her to the waist. Sansa covered her breasts with her hands. She could hear sniggers, far off and cruel. "Beat her bloody," Joffrey said....

--A Clash of Kings

Blaming the victim. Readers do it.  As if she could escape. The whole court is snickering at her being sexually humiliated and beaten. What is she supposed to do, magic up a killing wish genie like Arya and get out?

The closest things she has to allies, Tyrion and the Hound are actually her captors, too. But she hasn't just meekly accepted her position. She is trying to escape.

IN fact this is one of the thing that really burns me up. How can you blame a child when grown men beat her? It's ridiculous.

Sansa is not a warrior. Sansa's agency, and this is unique in fantasy literature as far as I know. Her agency displays itself through empathy.

When she sees the hapless Dontos about to die a horrible death from being forced to drink wine until his belly ruptures, she intervenes. Not only does she speak against it to Joffrey, whose vicious cruelty knows no bounds and who could have her head on a whim, but she uses her lady-like training to actually manipulate the King into making Ser Dontos his fool instead of murdering him.

And it's this act that ultimately leads to her freedom. It's a long meandering course that she takes but she pursues eagerly, meeting with Dontos and plotting her escape at every opportunity. And when the opportunity to fly comes...she takes it, without hesitation.

So stop saying she does nothing. She does.

By the way, empathy is a GOOD quality, a human quality. Only a person who falls for the gloominess of the show would scorn empathy.

Sansa's initial reacton to the Hound is shallow. She looks at him with profound horror and revulsion at his ugliness. He's everything that she stands against: rude, foul-mouthed, cocky, murderous, un-courtly, without a shred of politese; harshly abrasive... He looks like he is.

But when he tells him the story behind his hideous burns in a gleeful attempt to frighten her into his vision of reality she reacts with kindess. Instinctively. Her fear disappears and she comforts him.

Think of the amount of people who comfort others emotions in A Song of Ice and Fire. Arya comforts the little ones in Clash of Kings; Jon comforts Sam; Tyrion comforts Sansa; Penny comforts Tyrion; Meera comforts Bran.

Did I miss anyone?

But Sansa does so in the face of hte overwhelming force of Sandor Clegane's damaged rage? Rather than quailing or crying, she reaches out and touches his face.

Because she sees the truth in Sandor that he himself doesn't see. She sees the boy playing with his wooden knights and dreaming.

And later, in several conversations in which Sandor tries to intimidate her into understanding harsh realities she reacts appropriately: not with fear or revulsion: with understanding. She flat-out tells him he's horrible. He's awful.

Because his philosophy is a choice. And it's an easy choice. And it's the wrong choice. In that world, just like this one.

And she, like Ned Stark realizes it.

Who else has shown him these truths? Who else has stood up against Sandor about the very nature of his reality? Only Sansa.

And in that is weird sort of strength. Because through it all, depressed though she may get, she still refuses to believe that EVERYBODY is bad. Because it's not true after all. Not in our world. And not in her world, either.

In Maegor's Holdfast, in the thick of a battle that they think she will lose, it's Sansa who stands up and soothes the frightened women, children and elderly awaiting their bloody fate, leading them in hymns, lying to them of hope and protection. Even though she knows that Ilyn Payne's been ordered to murder her if Stannis gains the city.

And when, in a Feast For Crows, it's necessary for little Robert Arryn to cross the Bridge of Stone in the midst of an epileptic fit, it is Sansa with her innate empathy that soothes his shaking enough to cross. This is another feat of agency-through-empathy that goes remarkably un-noticed by her critics.

And in all that is  weird sort of strength. It's not a Brienne-style strength, the strength of the sword. It's not the furtive strength of the assassin, or the magical strength of the Greenseer. It's a strength of the feminine power to sooth. And it is a very, very real thing.

Because through it all, depressed though she may get, she still refuses to believe that EVERYBODY is bad. Because it's not true.

She's no warrior. She's not an assassin, or a wizard or a great thinker. But there's something indomitable about her strength.

A gentle side to her that never ever breaks.

Sansa is awesome as far as I'm concerned.

my skin has turned to porcelain to ivory to steel--Sansa, A Storm of Swords

Once the veil of her adolescence is ripped from her eyes, Sansa becomes a keen observer of human nature. She does so in order to survive.

I'm looking for a maid of three and ten...

But she's still being molded. She's in control of a man who had her father murdered; whose keen-ness of mind is balanced by his psychopathic lack of true empathy. Whose poisoning his young ward towards his own political ends.

Will Sansa, trained in the ways of feudal politics by Littlefinger, become Littlefinger? Will she be complicit in the death of Sweetrobin? Is the scene where she 'betrays' Arya and dooms Lady foreshadowing for worse deeds to come? Is the steel in her nature being warped by the pressure and stress she's been under? Do her 'mis-memories' signify something unwholesome? Is she going mad?

I think it's fair to say that, like Arya, like Bran, like Tyrion, there is a war going on in her soul. A struggle between a gentler reality and a more savage reality. And she may not pass that test.

But I hope that she does and that she slays the savage giant and gets back to Winterfell.

Her character is still developing. But thus far, I do not believe that she deserves  the hate she gets from some quarters. Thus far, I think she's one of the most subtly drawn and shockingly realistic characters of A Song of Ice and Fire and indeed in the whole genre of fantasy.

. WE'll just have to keep reading.

[him-e]

I liked your review on Sophie/Sansa, I think that Sophie is a gorgeous Sansa and a talented actress, I hope she will have a good career. Now the small question, what is your opinion on the performance Sophie and Kit in season 6?

Their interactions specifically? 

I think Sophie and Kit were excited to have so many important scenes together in season 6, had been waiting for this for a long time, they’re clearly good friends irl, and all of this transpired from their onscreen interactions. At the same time, they were instructed to play two estranged half siblings who finally connect with each other, not without difficulty, after years of pain, terrible losses and intense trauma, and they do because they literally have no other choice but each other (Jon is Sansa’s last hope, and Sansa gives Jon a new purpose after he lost all sense of belonging in the NW). All these different factors resulted in a complex and unpredictable dynamic, the icing on the cake being the natural chemistry Kit and Sophie have. 

Let’s start with their reunion scene. A lot has been written about it, about the way both actors played it as a crescendo from anticipation, to recognition, to the final explosive momentum of the physical embrace. I like how both actors’ performances convey an almost dreamlike sense of disbelief in seeing the other, almost if the characters were not sure if this was real or not. For Jon, Sansa’s arrival was an absolute shock that he wasn’t prepared for, and Kit plays it beautifully. Note how he exhales and draws back for a second as soon as he recognizes her face, as if he needs a moment to truly absorb this information and isn’t really sure what to do, and then proceeds to collect himself and climb the stairs, slowly but deliberately, towards her:

I really love the cinematic crescendo of the camera following Kit steps just as Sansa’s gaze does, while Sophie stands still, waiting, holding her breath:

(gifs by cerseilannister)

Sophie plays Sansa as visibly distraught on top of physically and mentally exhausted: her face (and hair) is a mess, she’s holding back a variety of emotions from anticipation to childlike vulnerability to fear (fear that this moment isn’t real, fear that someone will come and destroy everything, maybe fear of Jon’s rejection, because she honestly has no idea if he’s going to take her in or not—note the quick blinking and the nervous hand wringing, that Sophie routinely uses to convey Sansa’s anxiety).

another fantastic acting detail is Kit watching Sophie with his head slightly tilted as he’s studying her face and isn’t really sure if he should trust his own eyes and he’s probably thinking you look like a girl I used to know a lifetime ago, my lady

(gif by cerseilannister)

again, he draws back a bit before Sansa throws herself in his arms. It’s a matter of split seconds, but it’s actually Sansa who makes the first move. He reacts immediately though, instinctively. The whole scene was very, very carefully staged, otherwise you wouldn’t get this level of synchronicity.

Both actors use sharp, deep breathing to underscore the building tension and the swelling emotion. It’s actually a major defining element in their scenes together—like it happens A LOT—and I think it’s very interesting. People picked romantic vibes in their interactions because of stuff like this:

I mean what the fuck:

(gifs by harleygrenade)

why did they play it like this? couldn’t they just have a regular sibling fight?

Now, I don’t think Sophie and Kit were playing romance, no. I think they were instructed to play their scenes as two people who clearly want to see each other as family, and are desperate to connect, but are also complete strangers, fighting a war they’re already losing, fighting for a brother they’ll most likely never see alive again, fighting for their own lives, and not knowing if they can fully trust each other. There’s tension in their scenes because there is tension in their lives at this point—they’re in a dangerous, potentially lethal situation. But this translates, as I said earlier, in a deliciously vibrant, nuanced dynamic, fraught with affection but also building anxiety, lack of familiarity and some simmering, unresolved grudges.

Some viewers complained that their scenes, especially in Book of the Stranger (huh, now I see how fitting that title is), were too affectionate for two half siblings who spent their lives in Winterfell carefully avoiding each other. The reunion scene with the hug was perceived as “too much”, and the following one, with all that playful teasing and remembering Winterfell togetherand sharing beers, made some people actually scream OOC. To be fair, in THAT scene, you can clearly see the real Sophie and Kit slip out of character and into their real selves in a few brief moments:

(gifs by thatonekimgirl)

However, I don’t think this was a mistake. It MIGHT be! (as I said, Sophie and Kit are very comfortable around each other, and this was certainly a funny scene to play, and it’s not impossible that they went slightly off script.) But I think they were given specific directing instructions to play it as “natural” as possible so that the audience could be sucked in this intimate, familiar moment of catching up between two siblings, and believe that they’ve known each other since birth even though we never saw them interacting onscreen before. It was also a much needed moment of genuine levity, of healing, after the horrors of Sansa’s abuse and Jon’s revenant storyline, and before the hardships of the upcoming war for Winterfell.

Interacting with Jon also allowed Sophie to finally play her smug angle:

(gifs by davis-viola and sansastlark)

We’ve never seen this expression on Sophie’s face in the show. This is Sansa, finally able to focus on what she wants and to freely express her opinion, because she knows she’s safe, she’s around Jon who has her back. Brienne, Theon, Tyrion, Sandor, all helped her, but they weren’t family; Jon is.

Interestingly, being able to focus on what she wants for once results in Sansa deciding she’s going to play a game without letting anyone in—not even Jon.

Like I said, it’s a very nuanced dynamic between them. The angle that Sophie is playing is that Sansa hasn’t been able to fully trust anyone for so long that she feels she has to guard herself even from Jon, because that’s how you play the game—you keep your cards to yourself, trust nobody, and care only for yourself. This is Littlefinger’s lesson: people are either pawns or players, and I think Sansa gave a quick look at Jon and decided he’s a pawn for now, as he lacks the acumen and the charisma to be a player (or so she thinks; by the end of season 6, she has to reassess her strategy, because Jon is absolutely a Player—even if he doesn’t know it yet).

(another moment of lowkey Smugface by Sophie, gif courtesy of bericdondarrion)

It’s unusual to see Sansa like this and people were a bit disoriented by how quickly she went from vulnerable little bird in search of her big bro’s protection to boss ass bitch looking almost too… ambitious? Cunning? Treacherous, even? (see also the controversy arisen by the Look she gives to Littlefinger when Jon is proclaimed KitN). I talked in the other post about Sophie’s sympathy for the Dark Side, but I think there are precise directing and writing choices behind her acting.

Whatever it is—and rest assured it’s now an important aspect to the character, something we’re going to see more of in season 7—it coexists*** with the Sansa who desperately tries to convince Jon to hold back until they have more men, the Sansa who spends hours to make a Ned-cloak for him, the Sansa who has tears in her eyes when she declares he’s a Stark to her, and who looks like this:

(by gifsofgot)

when Jon kisses her forehead.

*** incredible how (female) characters can have more than one (1) note, emotion or personality trait, right?

SPEAKING OF THE FOREHEAD KISS, there would be a lot to say about Kit’s acting choices, because they’re a major factor in how ridiculously shippy their interactions came across.

Most of the time, Kit plays Jon as if he’s somewhat lost around Sansa—lost in trying to understand who she is, slightly nervous and upset by her presence, stealing glances at her while she’s not looking or busy doing something else. This is definitely consistent with the idea that Jon isn’t very comfortable with Sansa due to their lack of familiarity, Sansa’s resemblance to Catelyn, and her own history of looking down on him for his bastardy. It’s clear that, despite their promises in 6x04, neither has fully moved past this huge roadblock in their relationship. It’s also in line with Jon not being exactly used to familiarize with women and being a grumpy goofball around them.

The forehead kiss, however, remains inexcusable and inexplicable, lol.

Really, Kit, did you HAVE to plant an INTERMINABLE kiss on Sophie’s forehead, eyes closed as if you’re both savoring the moment and being consumed by some heart wrenching emotion?

It’s not like you had to take a good look at her lips while you reluctantly withdraw from her, either.

(by gifsofgot)

IN CONCLUSION:

Kit and Sophie did their job so well that an alarming number of viewers started to suspect there was something “more” going on between Jon and Sansa. In fact, there is something more: the growing political tension between them, overlapping with their newfound, frail sibling bond (soon to be tested by Jon’s parentage reveal). So when people perceive “tension”, it’s probably THAT kind of tension. 

however, for the audience, it’s incredibly easy to forget that Jon and Sansa are supposed to be siblings, as they’re played by two insanely good looking actors, who’ve never interacted on screen before, and who really don’t look like they share any genes… at all. Kit could have chemistry with a broomstick as far as I’m concerned, and watching him bat his long eyelashes at Sansa while holding his breath did not help. As for Sophie, this is the first important series of interactions she gets to have with a male lead who isn’t a) significantly older than her; b) a creep; c) gay, so do the maths.

I don’t know if the showrunners were familiar with the fandom concept of jonsa, but even if they weren’t, they should have probably imagined how certain scenes would look in a series that became famous for its iconic twincest, no less. People tend to pick up incestuous vibes more easily, if the narrative has already proved to be able to go in that direction. And Game of Thrones definitely has.

whatever the authorial intent is, as far as I’m concerned I’m enjoying the fuck out of this. Sophie and Kit are absolutely magnetic when they’re on screen together, regardless the nature of their canon dynamic.

[bitchfromtheseventhhell]

All in black, he was a shadow among shadows, dark of hair, long of face, grey of eye.

this happened because @dreamofspring poked me and because i have no self control.

"He has an ally," Lady Selyse said. "R'hllor, the Lord of Light, the Heart of Fire, the God of Flame and Shadow." (Prologue, ACOK)

one of martin’s build-ups over the course of a clash of kings through a dance with dragons is the confusion surrounding who azor ahai reborn is on the part of the players within the series. from the moment that stannis’ entourage is introduced in the begninning of a clash of kings, it’s made clear both that selyse and melisandre believe that he is indeed the lord of light reborn, but also that there’s no proof beyond melisandre’s visions that he is.  when melisandre is at the wall in a dance with dragons, she is shown a different vision, one that lines up much more with what the reader knows to be true:

Yet now she could not even seem to find her king. I pray for a glimpse of Azor Ahai, and R'hllor shows me only Snow. (Melisandre, ADWD)

that jon snow is likely that great hero that she envisioned, and that he, not stannis, will be the one to save the world from whatever apocalypse the winds of winter and a dream of spring have in store is hardly a surprising turn for the reader, however shocking it may be to the red priestess. jon snow, whose narrative traces the rise of a hero, has taken vows to wear the black for the remainder of his life, and to be “the watcher on the walls...the fire that burns against the cold, the light that brings the dawn, the horn that wakes the sleepers, the shield that guards the realms of men.”  he has all the makeup of a shining hero, and yet one whose very birth is shrouded in mystery, in shadows.

shadows comprise one of the strongest visual themes in a song of ice and fire.  they visually encapsulate those “shades of grey” that martin so enjoys examining in his thematic and character work.  the imagery conflicts itself.  do the shadows represent the light or the dark? r’hllor or the old gods of the north? jon’s bastardy or the potential for him to wield intense political power?  or, perhaps, it is all of this, mixed together, for lines get blurred in the shadows.

"You are more ignorant than a child, ser knight. There are no shadows in the dark. Shadows are the servants of light, the children of fire. The brightest flame casts the darkest shadows." (Davos II, ACOK)

on a theological level, that the lord of light would name the shadows his servants is a fascinating interpretation of the fact of light and dark.  shadows are a sign that light exists, that we know that goodness exists within the world because we see the darkness and are aware that it is dark in comparison to the light.  

when we consider what the night’s watch is, this interpretation of light and dark is made manifest within westeros: you have a martial organization that exists to protect the “light” from the “night,” who wear black because, as qorin halfhand points out, “Shadows are friends to men in black” (Jon VII, ACOK) who can fade into the darkness and therefore become undetectable by enemies. the night’s watch exist liminally within westeros in multiple senses: they exist literally at the gateway to the seven kingdoms and what lies to the north, they exist out of sight out of mind, and as “only a shadow of what [they] were” (Jon III, ACOK) in days of yore.  they exist on the cusp, and serve as the last “light” of the realm in the face of the darkness to the north, wearing black (in opposition to the white of the kingsguard, a significantly younger institution).  

the night’s watch is the shadow servant, that is a shadow of what it once was, and operates in the shadows.  even one of its remaining open castles is the shadow tower.  it is a place where the sons of lords and murderers and rapists can serve side-by-side--a morally grey place that does what it must in service to the “good.”  and it is this institution that jon finds himself in charge of halfway through the series.

"The cold gods," she said. "The ones in the night. The white shadows." (Jon III, ACOK)

and what a contradiction this is, and what a confusion with the neat descriptor of the night’s watch as a shadowy institution at one of the outermost reaches of the seven kingdoms.  they are the dark shadows, but the others are the white ones.  they are unknown, but light.  the white walkers to the black brothers, but if the black brothers are replete with shadow imagery, why should the white walkers not also be?  the light shadows and the dark.  if, as melisandre describes, “shadows are the servants of light,” would not light shadows be servant to the dark?  could it not be the dance of these light and dark shadows that patchface predicts in the prologue of a clash of kings when he sings “The shadows come to dance, my lord...The shadows come to stay...”

it gets more complicated: 

Ghost padded after him, a white shadow at his side. (Jon II, ADWD)

It was Ghost who knew what to do. Silent as shadow, the pale direwolf moved closer and began to lick the warm tears off Samwell Tarly's face. (Jon IV, AGOT)

it is likely, given the way that martin has built the magic in his world, that catelyn is correct in her assertion that the wolf pups were sent by the old gods of the north:

"Any man Grey Wind mislikes is a man I do not want close to you. These wolves are more than wolves, Robb. You must know that. I think perhaps the gods sent them to us. Your father's gods, the old gods of the north. Five wolf pups, Robb, five for five Stark children."

"Six," said Robb. "There was a wolf for Jon as well. I found them, remember? I know how many there were and where they came from. I used to think the same as you, that the wolves were our guardians, our protectors, until..." (Catelyn II, ASOS)

even among his brothers and sisters, ghost is a “shadow,” the runt of the litter; even among his brothers and sisters, jon is a “shadow,” not as “substantial” a stark within the social setup of westeros due to his bastardy as his brothers and sisters.  the symbolism of ghost as jon’s “white shadow” becomes even more powerful after jon’s stabbing when, presumably, his capacity to warg into this white shadow preserves his life enough that he may return from the dead, a “shadow of his former self,” if beric dondarrion’s testimony and lady stoneheart’s is anything to go by.

there are strong pulls: to the old gods through ghost; to r’hllor through melisandre (stannis’ “red shadow”), who like ghost is vital to jon’s survival; to the others who have disappeared for so long that people had stopped believing they were real; and to leadership and power.

jon is far from the only character in a song of ice and fire to have strong leadership motifs running through his narrative; indeed, he is not alone in having shadow imagery in his story.  if in being made jeor mormont’s steward, he’s to “be as close to him as his shadow...[to] know everything, be a part of everything,” then shadows have a particularly strong image of power for tyrion:

When he opened the door, the light from within threw his shadow clear across the yard, and for just a moment Tyrion Lannister stood tall as a king. (Jon I, AGOT)

"A shadow on the wall," Varys murmured, "yet shadows can kill. And ofttimes a very small man can cast a very large shadow." (Tyrion II, ACOK)

for both men, there is power and--more specifically--command in the shadows, while for jon and dany, shadows dance with the metaphysical.  if jon has a white shadow, dany has a winged one.  where jon’s shadowlands lie north of the wall, the shadowlands that weave themselves magically through daenerys’ storyline are the ones that lie beyond asshai, whose magic has born such influence in her life through mirri maz duur and quaithe.  

"To go north, you must journey south. To reach the west, you must go east. To go forward you must go back, and to touch the light you must pass beneath the shadow." (Daenerys II, ACOK)

in this prophecy that dany ponders continuously since hearing it, it seemingly creates an opposition of shadow and light.  but when we consider that light and shadow are not the opposite so much as shadow is the boarder between light and dark, how then does it change the meaning of the prophecy?  especially when coupled with the confusing prophetic words she hears in the house of the undying:

...the shape of shadows...morrows not yet made...drink from the cup of ice...drink from the cup of fire...

...mother of dragons...child of three... (Daenerys IV, ACOK)

and the shapes of the shadow magic when she was trying to save khal drogo but which has undeniable prophetic imagery that points towards jon:

Inside the tent the shapes were dancing, circling the brazier and the bloody bath, dark against the sandsilk, and some did not look human. She glimpsed the shadow of a great wolf, and another like a man wreathed in flames. (Daenerys VIII, AGOT)

while jon is likely that shadow of a great wolf, it is unclear whether or not he is the man wreathed in flames and the two images are pointing towards one person or separate people.  however the shadow imagery in jon’s storyline complements interestingly the shadow imagery in both daenerys’ magic and tyrion’s power.  

whether or not he remains a brother of the night’s watch upon his resurrection, the impact of it upon him will be vital to the way he will approach the white shadows north of the wall.  it is unlikely that he will be the sole standard bearer in that great struggle, but rather he will be one of a group, “a shadow among shadows,” (Jon I, ACOK) whose contradictory and multifaceted connection to the shadows may well hold everything together in the face of apocalypse.

[agentrouka-blog]

When Jon think about wanting winterfell and it's Lord he felt hunger which he later connect with ghost's hunger. Do you think that passage is implying something?

Hi anon!

I think the passage has many layers when it comes to symbolism and foreshadowing.

ASOS, Jon XII is a fun chapter. Jon’s been through a lot. His trip North of the wall left him traumatized and disillusioned in a way that’s hard to sum up. Anything he had hoped to be proud of in life was obliterated, he suffered serious injury, has been separated from ghost, learned that all his family are dead or missing, fought a viciously cruel battle, feels responsible for the death of his stockholm-syndromy abuser, was stripped of all respect and honor by his superiors, and he got to see a woman die in childbirth. Now Stannis and Mel are squatting at Castle Black, and the threat to the North keeps looming.

Life sucks. 

We’d been introduced to some options that were denied to him in life:

His lord father had once talked about raising new lords and settling them in the abandoned holdfasts as a shield against wildlings. The plan would have required the Watch to yield back a large part of the Gift, but his uncle Benjen believed the Lord Commander could be won around, so long as the new lordlings paid taxes to Castle Black rather than Winterfell. "It is a dream for spring, though," Lord Eddard had said. "Even the promise of land will not lure men north with a winter coming on."

If winter had come and gone more quickly and spring had followed in its turn, I might have been chosen to hold one of these towers in my father's name. Lord Eddard was dead, however, his brother Benjen lost; the shield they dreamt together would never be forged. (ASOS, Jon V)

or

“If the boy shows any skill with sword or lance, he should have a place with your father’s household guard at the least,” Jon said. “It’s not unknown for bastards to be trained as squires and raised to knighthood. But you’d best be sure Gilly can play this game convincingly. From what you’ve told me of Lord Randyll, I doubt he would take kindly to being deceived.” (ASOS, Samwell IV)

One fails because of the seasons, the other was prevented by Catelyn. The Watch has been a soul-destroying nightmare, Ygritte’s offer of taking over a Tower “after” is not even worth a moment’s consideration to him. Every hope he ever had about his life has been disappointed. 

Jon’s just about sixteen and is completely done. Sam notes how much time Jon spends in the training yard, even though he’s injured and off-duty for the title of turncloak. He does not bother voting in the Lord Commander election. A maligned outcast again. Forever. 

The warg, I’ve heard them call me. How can I be a warg without a wolf, I ask you?” His mouth twisted. “I don’t even dream of Ghost anymore. All my dreams are of the crypts, of the stone kings on their thrones. Sometimes I hear Robb’s voice, and my father’s, as if they were at a feast. But there’s a wall between us, and I know that no place has been set for me.” (ASOS, Samwell IV

He is lonely. Even Ghost is gone, his one proof that he belongs to something.

Stannis alienates Jon by talking ill of Robb, but he offers Jon recognition for the things he did right, a rare thing, and then he offers him legitimization. Basically, “You proved your worth and you have the Right blood. All you ever wanted can be yours. For the small price of breaking your oaths for real and of your own volition and forsaking your gods.” Downright mephistophelian.

Jon is torn, can’t sleep, fights. For the first time he has a real choice. He remembers the traumatic incident where his bastardy became a true concept to him.

That morning he called it first. “I’m Lord of Winterfell!” he cried, as he had a hundred times before. Only this time, this time, Robb had answered, “You can’t be Lord of Winterfell, you’re bastard-born. My lady mother says you can’t ever be the Lord of Winterfell.”

I thought I had forgotten that. Jon could taste blood in his mouth, from the blow he’d taken. (ASOS, Jon XII)

And Jon’s response is a near black-out rage against his sparring partner. All his suppressed feelings of grief and anger and longing and loneliness are just broiling inside him.

Why am I so angry? he asked himself, but it was a stupid question. Lord of Winterfell. I could be the Lord of Winterfell. My father’s heir.

Jon soaks in the hot tub and thinks of Winterfell, mulls restoring it versus not belonging and destroying its soul in the process

When Jon closed his eyes he saw the heart tree, with its pale limbs, red leaves, and solemn face. The weirwood was the heart of Winterfell, Lord Eddard always said … but to save the castle Jon would have to tear that heart up by its ancient roots, and feed it to the red woman’s hungry fire god. I have no right, he thought. Winterfell belongs to the old gods

The tree is almost described like a person. A person with Tully coloring, like all his siblings save Arya. Like Sansa. The hot springs in Winterfell have a potential link to his decision to join the Watch, or at the very least to his siblings in general. The castle of Winterfell is juxtaposed with the heart, with the purpose and point of it all. Save a structure by destroying what made it a meaningful place? Betray his family in his heart, the person whose castle is truly is, betray all his values and his gods?

He takes a walk past sites of all his recent experiences and North the Wall over the recent battle field and just sits to think. 

Ygritte wanted me to be a wildling. Stannis wants me to be the Lord of Winterfell. But what do I want? The sun crept down the sky to dip behind the Wall where it curved through the western hills. Jon watched as that towering expanse of ice took on the reds and pinks of sunset. 

There’s an essay I could write about walls, Tyrion, Jon and Sansa (the sun to Arya’s moon) and how they all interact in the books, but let’s say just like this word play, the fact that Jon answers his own question is not an accident:

"Close your beak, crow. Spin yourself around, might be you'd find who you're looking for."

Jon turned.

The singer rose to his feet. (ASOS, Jon I)

The singer rose. Lyanna, his mother, the riddle. But also Sansa, who unwittingly took up her mantle. One unlocks his path to the other and everything that follows in his imagination:

I would need to steal her if I wanted her love, but she might give me children. I might someday hold a son of my own blood in my arms. A son was something Jon Snow had never dared dream of, since he decided to live his life on the Wall. I could name him Robb. Val would want to keep her sister’s son, but we could foster him at Winterfell, and Gilly’s boy as well. Sam would never need to tell his lie. We’d find a place for Gilly too, and Sam could come visit her once a year or so. Mance’s son and Craster’s would grow up brothers, as I once did with Robb.

He wanted it, Jon knew then. He wanted it as much as he had ever wanted anything. I have always wanted it, he thought, guiltily. May the gods forgive me. It was a hunger inside him, sharp as a dragonglass blade. A hunger … he could feel it. It was food he needed, prey, a red deer that stank of fear or a great elk proud and defiant. He needed to kill and fill his belly with fresh meat and hot dark blood. His mouth began to water with the thought.

Jon paints a picture of recreating his own childhood with his wolf pack at Winterfell, only this time there are no outcasts, and he is the Father. He gets to be Ned. The Lord of Winterfell with a lady’s love. And a son, something he had, apparently, dreamed of until he stoppped. 

He has always wanted this thing that he has no right to and it filled him with a guilt strong enough to concern the gods. But he admits it to himself, lets himself truly feel it. The feeling flows through him the same way the rage did earlier. powerful and all encompassing. 

Like a dragonglass blade. There we have some lovely foreshadowing for a) potentiall the origin of the Others, b) Jon’s paternity, and c) his own death when his desire to abandon his vows and head to Winterfell is met with, you know, some blades. Not to mention d) his desire to have these things.

Each of these is answered by his primal hunger response. Which is of course, his connection to Ghost. The wolf he has so woefully said goodbye to, that he missed deeply and bitterly, chooses this moment to reappear. This moment where Jon returns to his own feelings, his true self.

a) the answer to the Others are the direwolves, the Starks, their magical connection to Winterfell and what happened way back when.

b) the answer to Jon’s paternity is a violent embrace of his mother’s side.

c) the answer to his own stabbing will be warging into Ghost and biding his time in there, becoming more wolf than he ever anticipated.

d) the answer to his heart’s desire...

It was a long moment before he understood what was happening. When he did, he bolted to his feet. “Ghost?” He turned toward the wood, and there he came, padding silently out of the green dusk, the breath coming warm and white from his open jaws. “Ghost!” he shouted, and the direwolf broke into a run. He was leaner than he had been, but bigger as well, and the only sound he made was the soft crunch of dead leaves beneath his paws. When he reached Jon he leapt, and they wrestled amidst brown grass and long shadows as the stars came out above them. “Gods, wolf, where have you been?” Jon said when Ghost stopped worrying at his forearm. “I thought you’d died on me, like Robb and Ygritte and all the rest. I’ve had no sense of you, not since I climbed the Wall, not even in dreams.” The direwolf had no answer, but he licked Jon’s face with a tongue like a wet rasp, and his eyes caught the last light and shone like two great red suns.

Red suns. Arya’s wolf has golden coins (haggling for death, faceless men coins, spinning fates), Grey Wind has molten gold (like a crown that kills you). 

Jon’s wolf has red suns. Like the colors that the sun painted on the Wall. The direwolf in heart tree colors, inverted bastard colors of house Stark, Tully colors, Sansa colors. 

Red eyes, Jon realized, but not like Melisandre’s. He had a weirwood’s eyes. Red eyes, red mouth, white fur. Blood and bone, like a heart tree. He belongs to the old gods, this one. And he alone of all the direwolves was white. Six pups they’d found in the late summer snows, him and Robb; five that were grey and black and brown, for the five Starks, and one white, as white as Snow.

He had his answer then.

Not the red gods, not fire. The old gods. the heart tree, the wolves. He may be a Snow, but the old gods gave him Ghost. His own wolf. His white wolf. His place was made by their will. 

There is honor in that choice. No matter what anyone else says, Jon knows who he is and he has that power: to reject betraying his heart. 

How does this choice led by Ghost fit the layers?

a) The answer to the Others: don’t steal, don’t trick. Be honest. Accept what was painful. Not the Wall matters, the answer is in the heart tree.

b) The Dragon father does not Need to guide his decisions. He can let that go. He is a Snow.

c) Being in Ghost will lead him back to himself. Not fire, not Melisandre. The old gods.

d) Well... What does Jon want? What IS his answer?

Jon is filled with sudden energy. He strides back, rejects Val in his mind, stalks dramatically into the dining hall and is suddenly voted Lord Commander of the Night’s Watch. We close on this:

So Jon Snow took the wineskin from his hand and had a swallow. But only one. The Wall was his, the night was dark, and he had a king to face.

Jon’s answer? We never hear it in this chapter. 

We hear it in ADWD, Jon I:

"By right Winterfell should go to my sister Sansa." 

And ADWD, Jon IV:

Jon said, "Winterfell belongs to my sister Sansa." 

The chapter is followed by? Sansa. Rebuilding Winterfell out of snow. 

When Jon lets go of pretense, honestly asks himself what he wants, shame or not, his wolf takes over and helps him find the answer and the path. The answer is not in taking the Castle and creating a mimicry of what it was, it is in honoring what it truly was and truly means. The heart over the structure. 

And in giving supremacy to the heart, to the red-white heart, he unknowingly paves the way for his own place: Winterfell built of Snow. He doesn’t have to steal the castle, he will be invited to belong.

That’s my own humble interpretation, anyway.

[emilykaldwen]

#i would just like to add to the 'marriage is a social construct' crowd':#yes messrs berger & luckmann we know#that doesn't mean that marriage is/was not also a legal regime that imparted to the spouses both rights and obligations#chief among which concerned property!#'bastardy is not real'> it was very much real in the sense that they did not have access to the marital estate /by law/#how are they supposed to 'free' themselves from that 'shackle'?#we/they live in a society#gwenllian-in-the-abbey#bastardposting#another reason jace would not have been safe: the lords he would have reigned over would be directly interested#in ensuring their sons-in-law could not place their own bastards above their daughters' true-born children in the line of succession#or that their own legitimate children could not be displaced by the bastards they sired with their not-wives#bc that would also get them into trouble with their wives' families!#OR perhaps those lords had bastard half-siblings too. what then.#just the potential for a lot of succession headaches all-around - via @lemonhemlock

Agreed with everything here, which ties into the larger discussion of the Dance would have made a lot more sense of Rhaenyra vs Daemon (as we didn't see with Maegor vs Aerea)

There's this weird thing going on Reddit right now where people are claiming that legally, Rhaenyra children are not bastards. And I was wondering if you agree or disagree. I think that people are just making up their own canon lore at this point.

Hi anon,

I think what gets kind of muddled in this discussion is what "legally" means in the context. Generally speaking, children born within wedlock are considered legitimate until proven otherwise. Now in the medieval world, it's not like you were issued a birth certificate that you could whip out and say see, it says right here who the father is! There were no DNA tests, it was all a matter of word, and by and large a woman's virtue was her word, and it was what kept her and her children protected within the framework of medieval marriage. But the reason why bastardy matters in this context is also important. It's not like Rhaenyra is trying to collect child support here, nor is she a common merchant's wife whose husband has decided just to roll with it. She's the heir to the throne and the parentage of her children is a matter of inheritance and dynastic succession, so it's not a situation where a legal loophole is particularly helpful as a gotcha. There is not at this point in history a comprehensive codified law that clearly defines what these terms mean and defines the rights and obligations of parents and children legitimate and illegitimate, mostly you have combinations of precedent, tradition, oath, and a healthy dose of might makes right.

(I saw another reply to this question in which the responded basically goes, "free yourself from the shackles of this construct! Marriage isn't real it's an oppressive institution and the idea of bastardy is made up, so let it go," and while it's true that marriage, legitimacy, etc. are all social constructs and not absolute states of being, they started off as having a functional purpose within a certain social framework. And this is a basic problem a lot of people have with George's world, it's not that we have to have the views of a 12th century French peasant, or that everything has to be historically accurate, but George chose the medieval world as a setting for a reason, and it's not just an aesthetic one. Characters in even a quasi-historical setting have to act within the constraints of that setting. We have to understand that people don't know what they don't know. The medieval world doesn't have any framework for the introduction of feminist ideals. Westeros hasn't even had a Christine de Pizan yet. You couldn't walk up to a medieval peasant woman and say "marriage is a tool of patriarchal oppression and bastardy is a social construct," they'd look at you like you had two heads. And so we have to acknowledge that you can't simply start dismantling existing social structures if the framework doesn't exist to replace them with something better that offers more protections for a broader group of people, and at this point it definitely doesn't. Making an exception for one very privileged woman does not mean progress for all women, instead it often means destabilization of the flawed system that does exist, and even more violence against those less powerful in order to enforce the exceptional status).

So from a medieval point of view, marriage was pretty much a non-negotiable for a woman. And women weren't simply getting married because they were pressured into it by their families or because their fathers were opportunistic assholes, they got married because unmarried women had no legal status or standing. In most places they could not sign contracts or own land. A woman could join the church or get married (or become a prostitute, but it's not like sex workers had freedoms or protections either). Divorce wasn't a thing, and annulment was hard to get and usually available only as a tool for men to set aside their wives. So, for all intents and purposes, once you were married, that was generally it, you were stuck for life (the upside is that widows did get a lot more freedom, so marrying an older guy and waiting it out was not a bad option sometimes, all things considered). But what marriage did provide was assurance that you and your children would be protected and provided for. Marriage was a practical agreement, involving dowries, inheritances, and alliances sealed in blood. And this is one of the reasons why bastards could not inherit. Inheritance for once's children was one of the few perks of a marriage for a woman (this is, incidentally, why Alicent is so pressed about her children being effectively disinherited. There is NO reason for her, as an eligible maiden of good standing, to marry a man who will not provide for her sons, king or not). And of course, a man's bastards are obvious and are disqualified from inheriting (setting aside legitimization because it is not nearly the easy out that people think it is). You can't really pass them off as legitimate because your wife clearly knows which children she gave birth to, whereas a man might be told he is the father of a child when that child's father is in fact someone else.

In a dynastic marriage, all of this becomes even more important. Marriages were made as alliances and to strengthen the ties between kingdoms or houses. A child seals the marriage agreement by binding two bloodlines and creating kinship bonds that will last beyond the current generation. Those kinship bonds can ensure peace between kingdoms at war, trade agreements, and military aid. Passing a bastard off as trueborn breaks that agreement; it violates the very principle by which the agreement was made. And in this context, it doesn't actually matter if the father claims the children as his, because in a dynastic marriage inheritance is not just a personal matter, it's a matter of the state. The truth matters to a great many people, more than just the immediate family. A lie doesn't become the truth simply because the liar isn't caught, and there's no statute of limitations or court ruling that will ever put the matter to rest for good. Passing off a bastard as trueborn destabilizes the succession and breaks the dynastic bonds that the marriage was meant to establish. When the bastard heir in question attempts to take the throne, it won't be a smooth transition.

So what does it mean that Laenor and Corlys agree to pass Rhaenyra's children off as trueborn? It means that their bastardy cannot be proven at the moment insofar as the legal father, Rhaenyra's husband, is playing along and covering for Rhaenyra, and Viserys is backing them up by giving this his "legal" stamp of approval. But again, our view that it's no one else's business but Laenor and Rhaenyra's and that Viserys "legalized" their status is very modern. Jaehaeyrs and Alysanne were not considered married in the eyes of the Westerosi until they'd had a bedding ceremony, that is, the consummation of their marriage was witnessed. Royal marriages and the children that come from them are a public matter because the succession affects everyone in the realm. Laenor, Corlys, and Viserys can protect those children in the short term, but Laenor and Corlys and Viserys won't live forever, and they could withdraw their support for those children and renounce them as bastards at any time. Harwin could admit to fathering them, Rhaenyra and Harwin could get caught in the act, or someone else close to them might confess. Sure right now the black faction are all one big happy family, but 20 years down the line when bastard Jace takes the throne over trueborn Aegon III? There are multiple people in the family who could confess to knowledge of the bastardy, including Aegon III himself. The bastardy is too obvious and there are too many legitimate heirs of both house Targaryen and house Velaryon getting pushed aside in favor of bastard born children for it to be an issue that simply disappears because Rhaenyra and Laenor say so.

So "legal bastardy" is a pretty meaningless concept when it comes to royal succession because it's not a matter that's going to be settled by some neutral third party in a court of law. What matters in the long run is not whether or not Laenor claimed the kids, what matters is whether or not the situation is questionable enough that people with the power to challenge it might challenge it. And we see even within the actual narrative of the Dance that this is indeed the case. There is already a situation brewing with the other branches of the Velaryon family who are rightfully pretty pissed to see their ancestral seat pass to someone with no blood ties to the family (and as an aside, people will say Vaemond was self-serving, and of course he was, but that doesn't make him wrong, and maybe Baela or Rhaena should have inherited instead, but neither they nor their father were pressing their claims because they were backing up the bastard claimants, so was Vaemond supposed to do that for them?). And yes the king and Rhaenyra can cry treason and they can kill Vaemond and cut out tongues, but using force to silence people for telling the objective truth is by definition tyranny, and that's exactly the sort of situation that would get the nobility nervous. Because if Rhaenyra has to silence people already and she's not even queen yet, what will Jace have to do when he takes the throne? That's the real problem, not the "legal" status of Jace and his brothers, but the practical ramifications of hiding the truth.