Skip to main content

a song of ice and fire - Why is he still Brynden Rivers and not Targaryen?


Lord Brynden Rivers AKA "Bloodraven" was a legitimised bastard son of Aegon IV Targaryen.



My question is, Why did he keep "Rivers" as his last name and not change it to "Targaryen"? or at least "Blackwood"?


Consider this line from A Storm of Swords:



All he had to do was say the word, and he would be Jon Stark, and nevermore a Snow.
-A Song of Ice and Fire: A Storm of Swords, Chapter Seventy-Six (Jon).




Answer



As others have pointed out, the only examples from A Song of Ice and Fire of legitimized names are (hypothetically) Jon Snow becoming Jon Stark and Ramsay Snow becoming Ramsay Bolton. The Princess and the Queen adds another example: Addam and Alyn Velaryon, the bastards sons of Lord Corlys Velaryon.


Since none of the Great Bastards went by Targeryen, it clearly isn't a concrete rule. So the only real question is what determines the name change. I have a few theories:


Only bastards legitimized for the express purpose of inheritance gain the last name. Jon, Ramsay, and Addam and Alyn were all being legitimized because their fathers lacked a male heir. It would be curious then that both the Velayron bastards were legitimized, but I imagine that could be explained by the fact that there was a war on, and Addam's survival wasn't a given by any means.



The Great Bastards were legitimized, but with the understanding that Aegon the Unworthy's firstborn Dareon would be placed on the throne. Given that Dareon had four sons, the chances of any of his half-brothers taking the throne through the line of succession would be remote.


This is my preferred theory, especially since Petyr Baelish strongly implies that even the legitimate Harry Hardyng would become an Arryn if he inherited the Eyrie:



When Robert dies, Harry the Heir becomes Lord Harrold, Defender of the Vale and Lord of the Eyrie. Jon Arryn’s bannermen will never love me, nor our silly, shaking Robert, but they will love their Young Falcon...



Personal preference- Jon Snow always dreamed of becoming a Stark, and Ramsay hated that he was a bastard. It may be that one gets to choose whether or not to take their father's name. The Great Bastards had a pretty awful man for a father, and Brynden in particular seemed to embrace the disdain and fear others had for him. Meanwhile, the other Great Bastards went by names like Blackfyre and Seastar that reflected their backgrounds or personalities.


It may have to do with the mother- All the known Great Bastards were the children of noblewomen. By contrast, Jon (allegedly), Ramsay, and the Velayron boys were the sons of commoners. It might be that when the children of two nobles are legitimized, they don't get a surname or some reason, perhaps to avoid disputes with the noblewoman's husband and children.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

harry potter - Do the Kwikspell courses work?

In Harry Potter we are introduced to Kwikspell course in The Chamber of Secrets (and never hear about it again). We see Filch taking courses, presumably by mail. The descriptions of Kwikspell make me think it is for people who are weak in magic (kind of like how Neville was supposed to be when he was younger), but had magic in them nonetheless. However, Ron's comments later in the chapter make it sound like it is mainly for Squibs to learn magic. However, it is strongly implied through out all the books that Squibs are essentially Muggles, and will never be able to do magic. How then is a Kwikspell course supposed to work? Do we have any information to know if it works at all? Is it a scam? An answer from any level of canon is welcome. Answer Kwikspell courses are (probably) useful to some wizards, but not to squibs. The Kwikspell course literature comes with two testimonials. Madam Z. Nettles of Topsham writes: ‘I had no memory for incantations and my potions were a family joke...

futurama - How much time is lost in 'Time Keeps on Slippin''

In time Keeps on Slippin' , Farnsworth creates a basketball team which he matures by abusing Chronitons. This leads to time skipping forward by random, but ever increasing amounts. How much time was skipped in this way? Answer Unfortunately, I don't think a good estimate can be made for this, for two reasons: Many of the time skips move forward by an indeterminate amount of time. At one point, the Professor mentions localized regions of space skipping forward much more than others. We then see two young boys on the street below complaining about having to pay social security, only to suddenly become senior citizens and start complaining about wanting their money. Thus, each individual could have experienced a different amount of time skippage.

star trek - Warning regarding forward saucer section in Nemesis?

In Star Trek: Nemesis , just before the Enterprise rams into the Scimitar, Picard sends a text message from his captain's chair arm pad to Troi — who is manning the helm in lieu of the crewman who was just blown out through what was once the view screen — indicating that she should put full impulse on standby. (Literally, if you watch the scene closely, Troi's console prefaces the order with "TXT MSG" !) My question is: Did Picard also somehow warn crew members in the forward saucer section about what was about to happen? The ramming of the Scimitar was a heat of the moment decision. Considering that he also resorted to calling the auto-destruct sequence shortly after (which ended up being offline), he probably was of the mindset that any losses would be acceptable in order to hault Shinzon's march to Earth. Still, I'm curious. Answer The original script indicates that he called for the crew to " brace for impact ". Whether that call (or the comma...

star wars - What "exactly" happens when someone turns to the Dark Side?

When I saw the original Star Wars saga as a kid, the concept of the Dark Side imprinted in me was quite simple. You did a bad thing, so you're a bad person so you go to the Dark Side and keep doing bad things. Now, obviously this doesn't hold true in reality. In my mind it is perfectly reasonable for Luke to kill the Emperor and Vader and then just flee the Death Star and rejoin the Alliance. After all they are at war, those are enemy officers that have captured him and are taunting him by threatening with death of all loved ones and the whole operation was intended to kill the Emperor anyway. The same would hold true for Anakin. He could have killed Mace Windu to save the Chancellor and Padme but that doesn't mean he's going to then go mad and kill all Jedis including children. It doesn't add up from a merely psychological point of view. He had a set of objectives and that made him want to keep the Chancellor alive (quite valid by the way, Mace Windu is quite clums...