Do you like the naming convention in Game of Thrones?

I like it when a persons name gives you some insight into he culture they were born into.

Daenerys could also come from Danaë, although I see to further connection. Cersei is obviously inspired from Circe.

Interesting. What would you have done instead?

I think Jon was just scared to give another child a bastard's life. There's a stigma that comes with being a bastard in GOT. They're regulated to a life of being a "lesser person" because they have no claim to anything unless legitimized. So it's partially Jon not wanting to give a kid that life, while another part is just irrational fear (many fears are irrational). 

That stupid stigma business is the first problem. This is a modern leftard's fantasy, all set to point out anything that doesn't follow their stinking egalitarian dogma. Bastards of noble family never had to live with a "stigma", they were simply not eligible to direct inheritance when legitimate children existed but enjoyed all the privileges of being high-born. William the Conqueror was a bastard. He was 8 when his father died without other children and his relatives tried to take advantage of his age to seize the cake but he found help with none other than the king of France and finally came to keep the duchy of Normandy. There was no stupid "War of the Five Dukes", no uncle or cousin calling himself "the Rightful Heir", only a bunch of opportunists taking their chances. William knew and loved his servant mother.

These people had no family names, by the way. The noble were known by the places they ruled, so William was William of Normandy before he became William of England, and the commoners were usually known by their profession when needed (which was not often): John the smith, Harry the potter etc… I'm not sure when family names started to stick. It happened quite late, maybe sometime in the 15th century. So giving "family names" to bastards which were not even the name of families was double dumb. I should call him GDDM 

GRRM's world doesn't make sense. His implied rules about bastards come out of the blue (actually directly out of his silly political views). The idea of legitimate children is something that the church somehow influenced sometime in the 9th or 10th century. I'm terribly vague on this because I have yet to read the original sources - I really should go through this stuff rather than discussing GDDM's fuck-ups.

This time sees the emergence of the feudal society and the 9th century is the last example of the major split of an empire between three brothers (Charlemagne's supposed grandchildren). The 10th century kept seeing wars between brothers or half-brothers in Europe and this is the time when feudal lords, of whatever rank, are being advised by clerks and bishops with more effect than ever before. I have yet to figure out how this change of importance came to be (history of these times is a mess, not to be fully trusted), but it is my impression that the very idea of legal marriage before the church and legitimacy of children with regards to succession takes form then. The unruly kings and lords or Germanic descent (Franks, Saxons, Angles…) are being educated and taught to follow stricter rules than the ancestral ones which would have made any natural child of a king a legitimate pretender to a share of his father's kingdom before (as an aside, "king" means "of the kin"; any male descendent of a king could be made king himself). 

The motivation behind it all, as often with the Christian church, is stability and peace but also the "common good" of the collective at the cost of the sense of private property of the rulers. This "left" vs "right" opposition did not appear with the French revolution, only its terms were coined then. The collective against the individual is older than history itself and we see here that the Christian church was the "left" then, as it already was in the 4th century.

Ruling illegitimate children out of succession prospects and having kingdoms passed on un-fragmented to a unique heir was a way of avoiding conflicts. 

The religious takeover of the early middle ages was not one of violence. It was not a stinking revolution of "the many against the few", it was a true collaboration based on persuasion and a shared desired for stability as well as morals. Rulers do not want to be at war all their lives, do not want to see their children fight over their heritage either and they also believed in being better than just thugs in power. The faith and the crown, pillars of the world, were a reality with positive consequences, not a fancy formula used for political schemes as the GoT writers make it.

Sexual openness is the new craze of leftards. Of course these shits will portray a foreign culture as "better" (on their own scale of values) than the one they set to criticise, which is the parallel to their own. Everything GRRM writes is the drivel of a modern "progressive" stuck in medieval looking costumes. He doesn't care if that medieval world works in a logical way, he only wants to express his own "modern" thoughts and fantasies through it.

That's how places usually get named anywhere. New Hampshire, New York, New Orleans, New Zealand are not exactly original names. Colonia (Köln/Cologne) was a Roman colony. The French Provence was a Roman "provincia". East Anglia is where the Angles settled down sometime after the 6th century. The French Normandy is where Northmen settled down in the 10th century. Alexandria and Constantinople were named after powerful rulers who decided to move there. Is Arizona anything but an arid zone?

King's Landing has become a tasteless joke. I propose Cerseipolis. Or Lionden.