R+L=D and B+A=J 2nd round

[Queen Ayras Lord Commander]

I'm glad someone has finally sat down and tried to sort out the utter nonsense of the Rebellion's timeline.

That said, I think Preston Jacobs does a much better job arguing against Jon being the child of Rhaegar and Lyanna than he does supporting his alternative explanations. I still think it is more likely that Jon is the child of Ashara and Ned than Ashara and Brandon. As for Daenerys, I'm not sure what the point of the obfuscation is, in-story or narratively, and I don't think the timing works out at all. The reveal would a giant "Aha! Wait... so what?"

Don't trust him. I've watched his videos. They are fun, but he makes such massive leaps in logic it's unforgivable.

[Hattori]

Then Lyanna herself would be Daenerys not her child.

And why wouldn't Lyanna give her child a Stark name?

The way I see it, it could just be a way of hinting at it, or maybe Lyanna saw the way their stories matched and gave the name to her baby I dunno.

Lol dont ask me that, im just trying to make sense of it all, but its all far fetched. But they have made references to that Daenerys princess in the books

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

Absolutely, it's ridiculous, but B+A=J/R+L=D relies on the same basic timeline as R+L=J, which means the Battle of the Bells is in the 3rd month. The Robert's Rebellion timeline is just silly - its almost makes me want to think Jon is Ned's bastard.

After all, if we assume R+L=J, the latest the Sack can be is 11.5 months into the war ("The war had raged for close to a year"), which means Dany is conceived 11 months into the war, which means Jon is conceived 3 months into the war, which means Ned and Cat are married 2.5 months into the war.

B+A=J/R+L=D places all the events at the same time, but shifts Jon and Dany's births 3 months backward in time.

By the way, I did want to thank you for your timeline work and our back and forths. The timeline stuff was a big part my Tower video and Dornish Master Plan video.

The war lasted "close to a year" and the Siege at Storm's End, which began multiple months into the war and ended very shortly after the actual war, lasted "close to a year" as well.

"Close to a year" can be anything between 10 and 14 months, except for 12 (that would be a year :) ).

With the war beginning multiple months before the Siege, and with the Siege ending so shortly after the war, we can see that the war's "close to a year" was more than 12 months, while the "close to a year" of the siege was slightly less than a year.

Your "Ned and Cat were married 2,5 months into the war" is not possible. Too much happens before their wedding for it to all take place in 2,5 months.

[sj4iy]

After watching all three videos, I still see nothing that can displace R+L=J in terms of credibility. Too many leaps of logic and muddling of the timeline for this theory to possibly work. There's nothing about this theory that could feasibly work...a reader would have to infer so many things from the text to get it...and Martin himself has said that people figured out his "mystery' as early as the first book. There's no way someone could come up with this conclusion from the first book alone.

[Equilibrium]

But, but lemon trees...

All joke aside, on my first read through which was hasty and overburdened with emotional flurry, like on the 100th page I was certain of R+L=J, I admit I am pretty smart but I was also inattentive so it cancels it self out and it was glaringly obvious, that is hardly what you would call obscure clues even if you wrote the damn book. I strongly believe Martin is far better then this and from that stand point this theory is more appealing.

[Skinchanging Sweetrobin]

"Close to a year" can be anything between 10 and 14 months, except for 12 (that would be a year :) ).

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with you on the definition of "close to."

You've probably argued this before, but "close to" in this context means "nearly" or "slightly less than."

When it comes to time or enumeration, I have never used "close to" to mean "slightly more than" ever in my life.

For example, I have "close to 5 dollars" is certainly less than five dollars. He is "close to" 14 means he is less than 14.

"It is close to Christmas" means before Christmas.

I might say Jane is "close to" Dick in age, but this is comparing two objects. And I might say the "water level has dropped close to 4 feet," but now we're heading in the reverse direction. Time moves forward.

[Skinchanging Sweetrobin]

After watching all three videos, I still see nothing that can displace R+L=J in terms of credibility. Too many leaps of logic and muddling of the timeline for this theory to possibly work. There's nothing about this theory that could feasibly work...a reader would have to infer so many things from the text to get it...and Martin himself has said that people figured out his "mystery' as early as the first book. There's no way someone could come up with this conclusion from the first book alone.

To be fair, do you think anyone could have figured out that Joffrey tried to Bran?

[El Guapo]

So WHY exactly did Lyanna name her daughter 'Daenerys

Not that I believe this theory but maybe Rhaegar named her?

[Game Of Thrones]

Not that I believe this theory but maybe Rhaegar named her?

GRRM confirmed that (this is his EXACT wording) Dany was named by her mother, Tyrion by his father, and Jon by Ned.

[JNR]

Martin himself has said that people figured out his "mystery' as early as the first book. There's no way someone could come up with this conclusion from the first book alone.

Citation, please.

If there's an SSM, published interview, Youtube video, or anything else in which GRRM states that people figured out Jon's parents from book one alone, let's see it.

If you can't pony this up, and can instead only point to something Ran inferred from unpublished materials, that's really not "Martin himself" saying any such thing.

[Ingelheim]

Oh, and for distances and everything...

Martin himself said he doesn't give a f*** about the distances in Westeros. If the plot needs Ned to get from KL to the TOJ in an unrealistic time, he'll get there in that unrealistic time.

http://www.westeros.org/Citadel/SSM/Entry/2787

"I have deliberately tried to be vague about such things, so I don't have obsessive fans with rulers measuring distances on the map and telling me Ned couldn't get from X to Y in the time I say he did."

[El Guapo]

GRRM confirmed that (this is his EXACT wording) Dany was named by her mother, Tyrion by his father, and Jon by Ned.

As I said, I don't believe this theory. I am just giving you an explanation as to why Lyanna and Rhaegar's "daughter" would have a Targ name.

[WarLord]

Just my two cents to "Lyanna's lasst words..."

Lyanna: - Ned, he [Robert] will kill every Targaryen for what Rhaegar did to him. My son is in great danger. Please protect him!

Ned: - Err, what about my vows, my duty, my honour?

Lyanna: - Promise me, Ned... Urgh...

Hence, whenever Robert talks about killing off another Targ, Ned is reminded of his promise, why to save little Jon.

You made up the last words.

[Game Of Thrones]

Oh, and for distances and everything...

Martin himself said he doesn't give a f*** about the distances in Westeros. If the plot needed Ned to get from KL to the TOJ in an unrealistic time, he'll get there in that unrealistic time.

There is such a thing called logic, and a thing called consistency. Such as Daario not being able to go from Meereen to Braavos to Pyke in three days, for instance.

[Skinchanging Sweetrobin]

GRRM confirmed that (this is his EXACT wording) Dany was named by her mother, Tyrion by his father, and Jon by Ned.

Not to split hairs, but Dany may have been named by her mother, but it doesn't necessarily mean she was named "Dany" by her mother.

Additionally, Rhaella may have had a name for a stillborn child, which was then placed on Dany. So, the woman Dany thinks is her mother, named her.

[Ingelheim]

There is such a thing called logic, and a thing called consistency. Such as Daario not being able to go from Meereen to Braavos to Pyke in three days, for instance.

This is Martin answering himself:

"I have deliberately tried to be vague about such things, so I don't have obsessive fans with rulers measuring distances on the map and telling me Ned couldn't get from X to Y in the time I say he did."

http://www.westeros.org/Citadel/SSM/Entry/2787

Martin is not stupid. But if Ned needs to get to the TOJ really quickly, because the plot demands it, Martin will make him do it. Not in three days, but maybe in three days less than what would be realistic.

[sj4iy]

Citation, please.

If there's an SSM, published interview, Youtube video, or anything else in which GRRM states that people figured out Jon's parents from book one alone, let's see it.

If you can't pony this up, and can instead only point to something Ran inferred from unpublished materials, that's really not "Martin himself" saying any such thing.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zFAGknnoRio

I believe this is one of the interviews where he said the big mystery he's been setting up from the beginning was figured out by people very early on, and he plans on revealing the answer in the 6th book and has decided not to change it.

He's said it quite often in interviews that he set up the clues for his "big mystery" and he refuses to change the outcome simply because people have guessed it as early as the late 90s because it wouldn't make sense.

The only "big mystery" in the story is who Jon's mother is.

And there's no need for the "if you can't pony that up" talk. Martin himself said he planned three books originally...he put a lot of clues about Jon's mother in the first book because when you are only planning a trilogy, you have to set that stuff up very quickly...which is why many people were able to figure it out from that book alone. Any theory that only one person can come up with over 5 books isn't very likely to be true.

[Blushingfae]

Although I loathe bringing the show into this argument, one of the things the producers said was their litmus test by GRRM was that they knew who Jon's real parents were. So it is not going to be really out there. It will be r+l.

http://winteriscoming.net/2013/08/22/david-benioff-and-d-b-weiss-on-the-writers-room/

at 1:34 for the person that wanted proof.

[JNR]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zFAGknnoRio

I believe this is one of the interviews where he said the big mystery he's been setting up from the beginning was figured out by people very early on, and he plans on revealing the answer in the 6th book and has decided not to change it.

First, he never in this video mentions book one as relevant in this context.

Second, he does mention book two (start watching about 10:38 and you will find this for yourself).

Third, he never specifies the "secret" he's talking about.

So this is certainly not an instance of GRRM stating that it is possible to figure out Jon's parentage from book one.

In fact, GRRM has never said that... at any time... anywhere. Once again, please provide a citation if you think he has.

The only "big mystery" in the story is who Jon's mother is.

Come on, now. Off the top of my head, other major mysteries include:

1. The origin and nature of the Others -- dramatically more important to Westeros's endless history than which two people are Jon's parents

2. The meaning and identity of AAR

3. The meaning and identity of the PTWP

4. Why the Others chose to attack the realms of men in the Long Night and never since then until now

5. Why the CotF allowed themselves to be slaughtered for 2K years prior to the Pact if they could see the future with accuracy

6. How it's possible skinchangers are commonly known north of the Wall and yet believed by those south of it to be a myth

7. How human beings ever originally acquired magical powers such as skinchanging

8. Why the seasons are so long

9. How and whether the Wall will fall and if so, whether the Horn of Winter is related to that

I could go on and on and on. Let's just say that the position that

The only "big mystery" in the story is who Jon's mother is.

...is a remarkably inaccurate statement.

[sj4iy]

First, he never in this video mentions book one as relevant in this context.

Second, he does mention book two (start watching about 10:38 and you will find this for yourself).

Third, he never specifies the "secret" he's talking about.

So this is certainly not an instance of GRRM stating that it is possible to figure out Jon's parentage from book one.

In fact, GRRM has never said that... at any time... anywhere. Once again, please provide a citation if you think he has.

Come on, now. Off the top of my head, other major mysteries include:

1. The origin and nature of the Others -- dramatically more important to Westeros's endless history than which two people are Jon's parents

2. The meaning and identity of AAR

3. The meaning and identity of the PTWP

4. Why the Others chose to attack the realms of men in the Long Night and never since then until now

5. Why the CotF allowed themselves to be slaughtered for 2K years prior to the Pact if they could see the future with accuracy

6. How it's possible skinchangers are commonly known north of the Wall and yet believed by those south of it to be a myth

7. How human beings ever originally acquired magical powers such as skinchanging

8. Why the seasons are so long

9. How and whether the Wall will fall and if so, whether the Horn of Winter is related to that

I could go on and on and on. Let's just say that the position that

...is a remarkably inaccurate statement.

Yeah, no.

1. The origin and nature of the Others -- dramatically more important to Westeros's endless history than which two people are Jon's parents

Important it may be, but no one has figured it out. And no one had figured it out by book two because most of what we learn is scattered throughout the books, and that's very, very little so far.

2. The meaning and identity of AAR

Not even mentioned until book two. You can't claim that it was set up from the beginning when we don't even know about it in the first book.

3. The meaning and identity of the PTWP

Same as above. Not even mentioned in the first book at all.

4. Why the Others chose to attack the realms of men in the Long Night and never since then until now

...and who has figured this out? Again, there's almost no evidence in either of the first two books concerning the Others.

5. Why the CotF allowed themselves to be slaughtered for 2K years prior to the Pact if they could see the future with accuracy

We have absolutely no information on this at all, and I doubt anyone would consider this the 'big mystery' of the series.

6. How it's possible skinchangers are commonly known north of the Wall and yet believed by those south of it to be a myth

That's not even a mystery. Really, it's not even something I think anyone has asked.

7. How human beings ever originally acquired magical powers such as skinchanging

Might as well ask "Why does this series have magic?" it's such a general question.

8. Why the seasons are so long

Again, 'magic' is the answer.

9. How and whether the Wall will fall and if so, whether the Horn of Winter is related to that

This isn't a mystery, this is conjecture.

You seem to be confusing "The big mystery of the series that has been set up since book one" with "a bunch of questions we might have about the story". They don't mean the same thing. It's so, SO obvious that Martin is referring to "Who is Jon Snow's mother?" in all of these interviews that it's painful to see someone try to twist it to mean anything else...especially any of the above. He doesn't have to explicitly state it...he's not GOING to explicitly state it, that would be dumb. "Hey, you know Jon Snow's mother? Yeah, people have figured it out, but I'm not going to change the answer". He's not very good when being cryptic, though.

Anyway, none of this has anything to do with the topic...I stated that the video's reasoning is convoluted and unconvincing. There's no way any other reader would reach all of the same conclusions. If only ONE PERSON can reach this conclusion with this evidence, then it's a faulty hypothesis. Theories mean that others must be able to be independently come to the same conclusions with the same evidence. It was much the same in the "Dornish Master Plan" video.