R+L=J v.45

[Ygrain]

I don't mind going over this again for you. I think Elia wanted to know where her husband was when he ran off with another woman. Wouldn't you? I would. She had a handmaiden whose brother disappeared with the husband -- that's Ashara. Ashara is just as capable of traipsing across the Kingdoms as Catelyn. She starts at he keep of the Whents, Harrenhal, which is the family of the third member of Rhaegar's conspiracy.

If you like more complicated stories you could figure (as some have suggested) that Lyanna stayed at Harrenhal after the tournament and that us where Rhaegar took her. You could further suppose that marrying Eddard to Ashara was part of Rickard's Southron ambitions and after Brandon hooked them up they fell in love. So after the war started, Ashara was stuck at Harrenhal and Eddard went looking for her there.

Which is kind if ironic, since it would mean Eddard bedded for love then married for duty but his son Robb lost a Kongdom because he could not do the same.

You can spare yourself the trouble, I remember it quite well and find it no more convincing than the first time. Your theory needs Ashara to be in KL in the first place - hardly plausible, as she had given birth meanwhile, and IIRC, GRRM said she wasn't in KL during the war.

As for the "if you were Elia" part, then sorry to disappoint - no, I wouldn't. If my hubs ran away with another woman, I couldn't be bothered to send people looking for him as long as his money was coming to my account. Since Elia doesn't have to bother about finances, that reasoning is void. Also, if I were Elia, I certainly wouldn't send an attractive young woman to roam around at the time of war, and even if I did, I would have done so immediately and not wait a couple of months into the war. Finally, I would really think twice before sending anyone anywhere just under Aerys' paranoid nose.

[UVA]

Stop "wanting" something to not be true. None of us, I'd say, wanted the RW to be true, but it's real, and yet - the two events are not even remotely comparable. Just embrace it and prosper.

And for those with the "I want Ned to be his real dad" argument - he is, you are just putting to much into nature and too little into nurture. This comes from someone who is not fond of the Targs.

Fair, accurate and well said per usual FittleLinger. Yeah Ruby, I asked you earlier why the resistance to RLJ and you didn't give me an answer. Instead we got another regional-name-driven 'argument' and postulations about the movement of ladies in wartime that is somewhat relevant to the hearsay about Jon's mother. Plus there was more of the willful dismissal of the textual facts and rational extrapolations -- that have been vetted ad nauseum for well over a decade by fans, mind you -- use the search function and you'll see -- and here provided again by JonIcefyre, Ygrain, corbon, Dragonfish, MtnLion, et. al. I'm beginning to think you are this thread's most eloquent and polite troll. You seem super nice. :love:

Again, why the resistance to RLJ? Hate the Targaryens? RLJ too popular a theory? Think it's too traditionally tropey and necessitates a less squee!-like explanation? Why insist on your ideas and disregard the laws of reason and literary interpretation?

[hwyl]

Again, why the resistance to RLJ? Hate the Targaryens? RLJ too popular a theory? Think it's too traditionally tropey and necessitates a less squee!-like explanation? Why insist on your ideas and disregard the laws of reason and literary interpretation?

With me it's definitely anticipation - if this theory will be the case, it will diminish the freshness of the tale. And I like my writers unpredictable - which writers usually are: this might be just a false trail to tease the overintepreting fans... I certainly hope so! Also, wouldn't it be nice to have a leading character with some actual low born blood - it's getting boring with all this secret royal offspring.

[UVA]

With me it's definitely anticipation - if this theory will be the case, it will diminish the freshness of the tale.

How so? Martin has said that aSoIaF is an answer to the great fantasy writers of the past, yet it's not a complete subversion of these stories. Revealing RLJ to be true is a nod to the greatness and coherency of these tales while at the same time subverting the notion that it all ends well, because it doesn't in Martin's world -- it certainly doesn't for Rhaegar, Lyanna, and those closely associated with them.

And I like my writers unpredictable - which writers usually are: this might be just a false trail to tease the overintepreting fans... I certainly hope so! Also, wouldn't it be nice to have a leading character with some actual low born blood - it's getting boring with all this secret royal offspring.

I like surprises too but not for the sake of getting one over the readers and retconning the text. Granted, there are some tenuous theories that pop up on these boards (the Tyrion-as-secret-Targ is a chief offender) but RLJ, in the raw, is probably the least 'over-interpreted' theory of the entire series. It is too ingrained in the scaffolding of the story. Rereads of the clues are like someone dropping a dead fish on the table when you see how it's all strung together; furthermore, there's so much more to learn about this particular storyline.

Needless to say, I think there's no convincing someone who simply isn't satisfied with the idea of RLJ.

BTW, where are all the potential secret royal offsping besides Jon and Aegon?

[Jon Icefyre]

With me it's definitely anticipation - if this theory will be the case, it will diminish the freshness of the tale. And I like my writers unpredictable - which writers usually are: this might be just a false trail to tease the overintepreting fans... I certainly hope so! Also, wouldn't it be nice to have a leading character with some actual low born blood - it's getting boring with all this secret royal offspring.

Actually I think it's the opposite since the story started off with two princes and a princess who everyone believed(some still pretend to believe) to be the legitimate children of king Robert Baratheon but are actually bastards born of incest. So far we've had two secrete bastards sit on the Iron Throne and one still sits there, not to mention the fact that there was a small attempted rebellion to sit another one on the Irone Throne(Myrcella) and we could possibly have a fourth secrete bastard one on the way depending on what Young Griff's true parentage is. So I don't really see how you can complain about "secret royal offsprings" when it seems the story has consistantly given us the opposite.

[Guardian of the Lhazareen]

How so? Martin has said that aSoIaF is an answer to the great fantasy writers of the past, yet it's not a complete subversion of these stories. Revealing RLJ to be true is a nod to the greatness and coherency of these tales while at the same time subverting the notion that it all ends well, because it doesn't in Martin's world -- it certainly doesn't for Rhaegar, Lyanna, and those closely associated with them.

I like surprises too but not for the sake of getting one over the readers and retconning the text. Granted, there are some tenuous theories that pop up on these boards (the Tyrion-as-secret-Targ is a chief offender) but RLJ, in the raw, is probably the least 'over-interpreted' theory of the entire series. It is too ingrained in the scaffolding of the story. Rereads of the clues are like someone dropping a dead fish on the table when you see how it's all strung together; furthermore, there's so much more to learn about this particular storyline.

Needless to say, I think there's no convincing someone who simply isn't satisfied with the idea of RLJ.

BTW, where are all the potential secret royal offsping besides Jon and Aegon?

There is a theory that Tyrion is the son of the mad king Aerys!

[UVA]

There is a theory that Tyrion is the son of the mad king Aerys!

I know and I fucking hate it.

[Moët]

I have not read through all 45 threads on this topic, so maybe it's been mentioned before....

But has anyone else noticed how Jon's direwolf is different from the others? The Stark banner is a Grey Direwolf. With the other Stark children, their wolves were typical of the Stark banner - grey or black. Jon's is different....even being found "separately" from the others. His wolf is silvery white (a nod to Targ coloring?) with red eyes (dragon eyes)?

:agree:

I have also not read all 45 threads, or seen this, and I love it. Wish I'd thought of it, (because it's staring me in the face and yelling at me now), but I'm glad you did. Brava! :bowdown:

One more thing I want to add.... When Ned made his promise to Lyanna, he hardly knew Catelyn so it is reasonable to assume that he would have felt more loyalty to protecting his sister than a new wife that he was forced to marry and had met once.

Indeed. Please keep posting. :D

[Ruby Chevrolet]

Fair, accurate and well said per usual FittleLinger. Yeah Ruby, I asked you earlier why the resistance to RLJ and you didn't give me an answer. Instead we got another regional-name-driven 'argument' and postulations about the movement of ladies in wartime that is somewhat relevant to the hearsay about Jon's mother. Plus there was more of the willful dismissal of the textual facts and rational extrapolations -- that have been vetted ad nauseum for well over a decade by fans, mind you -- use the search function and you'll see -- and here provided again by JonIcefyre, Ygrain, corbon, Dragonfish, MtnLion, et. al. I'm beginning to think you are this thread's most eloquent and polite troll. You seem super nice. :love:

Again, why the resistance to RLJ? Hate the Targaryens? RLJ too popular a theory? Think it's too traditionally tropey and necessitates a less squee!-like explanation? Why insist on your ideas and disregard the laws of reason and literary interpretation?

The moderator re-posted your question to me in post number one of this thread. I gave you a direct answer in post number two of this thread. You may have missed it because I couldn't respond to you with a 'quote" of your original post because your question was at the end of the old thread and my answer came at the beginning of the new one.

I have offered what I believe to be a better theory on Jon Snow's parentage than the Rhaegar/Lyanna theory that is based on a close reading of the clues. If it isn't persuasive to you, that is fine. It is fun to discuss it - at least, I think so. And I think Mr Martin has gone out if his way to make this a mystery with more than one possible outcome, which is why we have 45 threads on this topic. If there was only one possible solution to the mustery, it wouldn't be a mystery any more.

Anyway, I guess I have said all I really have to say on this for now. Except in looking for my answer to your question I realized that I never answered damn 999's question about why no one would know about Eddard's tryst(s) while on campaign. If the mother is Ashara, Eddard's army does know about it, hence the rumors at Winterfell and Cersei's question about it. If it was Wylla, I don't think it would be the subject of much discussion. Look at the passage in Clash of Kings where Varys reports on Renly's killer to the Small Council. He has no idea whether it was a camp follower or Catelyn Stark who killed Renly. And Cersei goes nuts at the suggestion that Catelyn was even there, although we know she was. Or what about Tywin and Shae? Or the fact that no one really knows whether Margaey Tyrell has taken lovers? Or the fact that Petyr Baelish got Lyssa Tully pregnant without Catelyn knowing? Or Catelyn's speculation (and total lack of knowledge) over whether her father and brother have bastards running around? Or Benjen telling Jon Snow to go have some bastards before joining the Watch, which implies Benjen has some bastards we have not seen? Or the fling Brandon Stark had with Barbry Dustin without anyone's noticing? Or that it took Jon Arryn 15 years to figure out that Jaime and Cersei were lovers? So I think a woman could come and go from a general's tent or chambers without drawing too much attention.

[Lady Gwynhyfvar]

So, I was traveling for a few days and off the board. Holy exploding forum! t's been a slog to catch up on everything since last week. I have some reflections regarding the fisherman's daughter/Wylla discussion after doing so. I apologize if this is ground that's been covered, but I thought a summation with fresh eyes might help here.

First, Ned's conversation with Robert about Wylla seems pretty clear on two points:

• His "relationship" with Wylla was brief

  She must been a rare wench if she could make Lord Eddard Stark forget his honor, even for an hour

  Robert's statement implies a fling, not a sustained relationship or camp follower.
  
• Ned was married when he had the supposed "relationship" with Wylla

  I dishonored myself and I dishonored Catelyn, in the sights of gods and men...I had taken her to wife. She was carrying my child.

The only other mention we get of Wylla is from Edric Dayne

Jon Snow's mother...She's served us for years and years. Since before I was born.

Conclusion we could draw based on this: about eight or nine months prior to the Sack of KL (based on the SSM fixing Jon's birthdate, Catelyn's observation of his age relative to Robb and Ned's statements quoted above) Ned had a fling with a peasant woman of unknown origin who then gave her son Jon Snow to his father, who was seized with the inexplicable desire to parade the proof of his dishonor before his wife and House, and went to or remained in Dorne to serve House Dayne. Not a hint of a connection to the Vale or White Harbor.

**Of course, we could also read between the lines and note the confusion in Edric Dayne's story: Ned was simultaneously in love with Ashara Dayne and fathering Jon Snow on Wylla- hardly the behavior of a man who later professes his disgust with himself to his friend Robert. We could also note his stiffness and refusal to discuss the matter with his best friend. We are given the impression he has only ever provided this information to Robert out of the necessity of explaining Jon's origin. This has all been discussed here and will continue to be.

Of the FD, we know that she originated in the area of the Fingers

To get home and call his banners, Stark had to cross the mountains to the Fingers and find a fisherman to carry him across the Bite... the fisherman died, but his daughter got Stark to the Sisters before the boat went down.

Lord Borrell continues

They say he left her with a bag of silver and a bastard in her belly. Jon Snow she named him, after Arryn.

This is puzzling. Why name the babe after Ned's foster father? Also, while the surname Snow seems to favor her originating on the north side of the Bite, by the logic of equating names with regional origin, the child being named after the Lord of the Eyrie favors the Fingers. If Jon Arryn weren't specified, the name Jon itself gives us no clues: a search of the wiki gives us Jons across the Seven Kingdoms. It is not a regional name, and in fact seems as common as "John" IRL.

Wylla Manderley belongs to a northern family with origins in the Reach. We have no other Wyllas on the text. The characters with "Wy" at the beginning of their names are mostly from White Harbor or the Reach. The exceptions are men named Wyl in the North, Riverlands and Vale and Wynafrei Whent of the Riverlands. There is a place called Wyl located on the North end of the Boneway. It does not appear that a regional interpretation of the name Wylla, or Wy- names in general clearly favors any one area.

Then we have the timing of the FD. Given the interpretation suggested by Ned's exchange with Robert, how are we to reconcile the FD story with Wylla? Lord Borrell says "he left her... with a bastard in her belly." It seems clear that Ned left the girl before the child was born. In other words, the birth of the FD's son would be about six months earlier than Jon Snow's if the conception occurred during the time of Ned's escape from the Vale and Ned was long gone when it happened. If, as has been suggested, the girl followed Ned around for months during the war, are we supposed to believe that, in addition to willfully dishonoring himself for an extended period of time, he took the time in the middle of the war to return her to her home and "left her" pregnant, months after he was last reported being there? If she was the Wylla who landed in Dorne, he could hardly be said to have "left her with a bastard in her belly"-- Ned (supposedly) took the bastard of Wylla with him. Imo, Lord Borrell's statement implies that the FD's child was born in and remained in the region of the Bite. The camp follower theory (in order to get the FD's Jon to the proper age) also supposes that Ned had this woman in tow when he married Catelyn (Or had her stashed somewhere?) this seems like grasping at straws to me.

I think it's much more likely the FD is a true red herring and was already pregnant when she met Ned. Thus the statement about him "leaving her" with a bastard is explained.

Wylla is another case altogether. There have been many discussions about her and her role in previous iterations of this thread. I wonder how many of those the proponents of the "Wylla is the Fisherman's Daughter is Jon Snow's mother" theory have read? Or is Ashara the mother? Maybe all three are the same... I have to confess I'm very confused by some of the arguments I've seen here lately.

I get it that not everyone is convinced that R+L=J. I get it there are a lot of new folks on board lately. I also understand that not everyone is going to have read every piece of evidence and every argument that's already been had. Those people have a right to their well thought out opinions. But what I've seen here recently is pages and pages of people throwing stuff at the wall to see what might stick, while the same group of people repeatedly, patiently and with supporting evidence shows why it won't. It would be nice to see this thread go back to exploring textual hints and metaphors for R+L=J. It would also be nice to see the Wylla-Fisherman's Daughter argument moved to its own thread. Maybe more people would pick up on it that way. This thread is always very forgiving in topic since there are so many ancillary arguments to R+L=J, but as someone who took a few days off and then had to catch up- my impression is that R+L=J is getting lost in a forest of alternative theories and discussions which have little bearing on the topic.

[Suzanna Stormborn]

There is a theory that Tyrion is the son of the mad king Aerys!

What's so wrong with that? I am putting together a very convincing argument about A+J=T that I will post in the next week or so. But what's the big deal? If R+L=J is true then him and Tyrion IMO would be the only 'secret' Targs. Assuming Aegon is fake, which given all the Blackfyre history seems plausible. The TArgaryens were a HUGE dynasty family, why is it so terrible to believe there are a few of them out there still?

IN Dunk and Egg (I can't remember the exact wording) But it's something like --Aerys was a man-whore who fathered a lot of bastards, all of us walking around could be his offspring' There are a lot of suggestions int he text that the Targaryens were not exactly faithful to their wives. Hell they were all gorgeous with silver-gold hair and women threw themselves into bed with these guys.

All the other major houses in the books have a lot of people left of them, lots of children, lots of marriages. I don't see any reason to believe that there are not 1 or 2 Targaryens floating around. And IMO it is Jon and Tyrion. I can't wait to get done with all my research and post my thread.

We find out about Starks all over the place, possibly Craster, possibly the Night's King. Some of the free folk descended from them. Robert Baratheon has bastards all over the seven kingdoms, 14 right? Only 3 or 4 of which we have ever even met. How many kids and bastards does old Lord Frey have? like 200? Everyone is fertile and mostly everyone sleeps around.

To sum up, even though through the first few books we all believed Dany was the last one, but that has changed, we learned about Blackfyre and BBP and R+L=J and Brynden Rivers. And a lot of other stuff happened that we did not expect, because GRRM is such a great writer and can do whatever he wants including making it true that Dany is not the only one left. She and (dead now) Viserys are just the only official ones at the beginning of GOT. But there are more out there.

[Suzanna Stormborn]

sorry double post

[The guy from the Vale]

The problem with A+J=T, for me, isn't that Tyrion would be a Targ. I really don't care that much. But it would mean Tywin was right, and even justified to an extent, in his treatment of Tyrion. It weakens Tywin as a character if he was right about Tyrion not being his child. Now, if you want to convince me Jaime and Cersei are Targs, you might get my ear (even though I'd still be skeptical), but there would be a huge irony in Tywin hating his only real child while putting all his hope in Aerys' bastards who he thinks are his own.

[Senor Drogo]

Im not that well read on Roberst Rebellion, but ive got this one question. Now if Lyanna Stark was pregnant, with whoever's kid, you'd think that someone would notice? Unless of course she was taken by rhaegar for 9 months....

[Ygrain]

Im not that well read on Roberst Rebellion, but ive got this one question. Now if Lyanna Stark was pregnant, with whoever's kid, you'd think that someone would notice? Unless of course she was taken by rhaegar for 9 months....

The Rebellion lasted for about a year, during which Lyanna was never heard about.

[Ygrain]

I get it that not everyone is convinced that R+L=J. I get it there are a lot of new folks on board lately. I also understand that not everyone is going to have read every piece of evidence and every argument that's already been had. Those people have a right to their well thought out opinions. But what I've seen here recently is pages and pages of people throwing stuff at the wall to see what might stick, while the same group of people repeatedly, patiently and with supporting evidence shows why it won't. It would be nice to see this thread go back to exploring textual hints and metaphors for R+L=J. It would also be nice to see the Wylla-Fisherman's Daughter argument moved to its own thread. Maybe more people would pick up on it that way. This thread is always very forgiving in topic since there are so many ancillary arguments to R+L=J, but as someone who took a few days off and then had to catch up- my impression is that R+L=J is getting lost in a forest of alternative theories and discussions which have little bearing on the topic.

Very much my feeling, though I'm afraid I cannot guarantee the patience any longer.

[Suzanna Stormborn]

The problem with A+J=T, for me, isn't that Tyrion would be a Targ. I really don't care that much. But it would mean Tywin was right, and even justified to an extent, in his treatment of Tyrion. It weakens Tywin as a character if he was right about Tyrion not being his child. Now, if you want to convince me Jaime and Cersei are Targs, you might get my ear (even though I'd still be skeptical), but there would be a huge irony in Tywin hating his only real child while putting all his hope in Aerys' bastards who he thinks are his own.

No I understand most people don't like the idea because it would mess with Tyrion's and tywin's arcs. But I am not wanting to discuss all that on this thread. My main point was that I don't get why so many people have a problem with there being a few random targaryen's out there. IMO it is ok if that house has some remaining descendants, why can't they? all the other houses have bastards, look at the sand snakes and everything I mentioned earlier. I feel like GRRM made Dany being the only one such a big deal at the beginning, but then we slowly find out she isn't the only one and I for one am OK with that.

[Queen of Procrastination]

Im not that well read on Roberst Rebellion, but ive got this one question. Now if Lyanna Stark was pregnant, with whoever's kid, you'd think that someone would notice? Unless of course she was taken by rhaegar for 9 months....

No they didn´t notice. Lyanna disappeared at the beginning of the Rebellion (which lastet over a year). Jon was born 8-9 month before Danaerys. Which means he was born about the time when KL got sacked. The Sack of KL was one of the later events of Roberts Rebellion. Lyanna wasn´t pregnant when she disappeared she got pregnant sometime later.

The Citadel has a very good summry of the events of the Rebellion: http://www.westeros.org/Citadel/FAQ/Entry/What_happened_when_during_Roberts_Rebellion

Here is a link to the quote GRRM made about the time of Jon´s birth: http://www.westeros.org/Citadel/SSM/Entry/1040

[hwyl]

Needless to say, I think there's no convincing someone who simply isn't satisfied with the idea of RLJ.

No, I think the idea could be a very good twist in the tale, but the hints seem to be so heavy handed that half the planet is now waiting for the happy announcement, so how can it be but an anticlimax? And I don't find this who begat whom and who raped/married whom business a very interesting subject. I'm increasingly less caring about the succession in that miserable primitive hell of a society, Westeros - and more and more interested in the scope of humanity for good and evil in such brutal conditions, and the concequences of that scope. I find the glimpses of the ravaged land and ravaged people the strongest, most effective parts of the text - and a plague on all noble houses as far as I'm concerned! (Well, of course there are better and worse houses - but all are part of the same morally corrupt, nauseatingly unjust system.)

[J. Stargaryen]

<snip>

I get it that not everyone is convinced that R+L=J. I get it there are a lot of new folks on board lately. I also understand that not everyone is going to have read every piece of evidence and every argument that's already been had. Those people have a right to their well thought out opinions. But what I've seen here recently is pages and pages of people throwing stuff at the wall to see what might stick, while the same group of people repeatedly, patiently and with supporting evidence shows why it won't. It would be nice to see this thread go back to exploring textual hints and metaphors for R+L=J. It would also be nice to see the Wylla-Fisherman's Daughter argument moved to its own thread. Maybe more people would pick up on it that way. This thread is always very forgiving in topic since there are so many ancillary arguments to R+L=J, but as someone who took a few days off and then had to catch up- my impression is that R+L=J is getting lost in a forest of alternative theories and discussions which have little bearing on the topic.

:agree: Actually, I agree with the entire post, but wanted to emphasize this part. Like really really emphasize it.

I look forward to the version of this thread that won't be filibustered by already refuted Wylla/FD/Ashara arguments.