R+L=J v.123

[JonSnow4President]

Care to share it with us?

The book doesn't specifically say they had sex :dunno:

[Ygrain]

/to all the gathered male population of Westeros of the last 15 years/: Would Jon's real father stand up, please?

We have a saying... "no hay peor ciego que el que no quiere ver". The worst kind of blind is the one who doesn't want to see.

"Are you so blind, or is it that you do not wish to see?"

Jon must be Spanish!

Also, I would like to clarify the use of the "fanfiction" argument. It is a bit incorrect because the term to be used should actually be AU, i.e. alternate universe, and it denotes a theory which has no textual support but to which the author sticks even after being repeatedly explained why it doesn't fit at all. It has nothing to do with the otherwise respectable business of producing pieces of writing inspired by somebody else's writing.

[markg171]

I would leave this out. It isn't a "frequently" asked question. There is also this quote: "He remembered Rhaegar's infant son, the red ruin of his skull, and the way the king had turned away..." It is curious that "Rhaegar's infant son" is Aegon and not Jon.

Very true. I don't see how that could be taken to mean only Aegon as Bear responded, unless Aegon IS Rhaegar's only son.

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

Seeing as people like to make mention of the fact that Ned doesn't mention Jon as one of his children, I'm curious how everybody feels about this paragraph?

This isn't him speaking out loud where he has to hide the truth, this is his inner thoughts and when thinks of Rhaegar's children, he thinks of them being the ones who Tywin laid before Robert. Which of course wouldn't be the case if Jon was one. He even mentions that this time he must find a way to save the children, i.e they all died last time. Which again wouldn't be the case if Jon was Rhaegar's child.

Are Aegon and Rhaenys not Rhaegar's children? Ned isn't thinking about all of Rhaegars children...

Except we are told that Jon normally sits with the rest of the Starks at the head table. Yet it was Catelyn who moved him, not Ned. Ned's not exactly doing much to keep Robert away from Jon at this feast. So saying he's not happy because of Jon and Robert being the same room makes no sense, when Ned wanted Jon at the head table.

That Cat acted first, doesn't necessarily mean that Ned wouldn't have acted at all. And Ned has the power to override Catelyn's commands, yet he doesn't, which should be noted.

As should be the fear of taking Jon to court, using the "argument" that bastards are shunned at court. Thereby ignoring all bastards who had already been at court, and disproven by the badtard(s) who later get positions at court.

[Ygrain]

Very true. I don't see how that could be taken to mean only Aegon as Bear responded, unless Aegon IS Rhaegar's only son.

... from reading comprehension to grasp of English. Wow, what an improvement. Perhaps we might try to link angels dancing on a pin point with the theory of gravity.

At the time of Ned's thought, Jon is neither infant nor has his skull ever been bashed.

[The Snowfyre Chorus]

Care to share it with us?

At this point? No, thanks. I've floated some good questions and a few ideas here along the way, and the feedback I've received has been... well, less than encouraging. So as much as I appreciate the invitation, I'll keep this one to myself.

[Jon Weirgaryen]

Thank you again, @Kingmonkey, for your great work!

Do we know that Rhaenys had black eyes? The Wiki links to an SSM just which says "Rhaenys looked more like a Martell, Aegon more a Targaryen."

eta (4): I have the black eyes from the wiki and could not dig up where that is from. I took it out until a reliable source ever be found.

I put it back in. AFfC 24 Cersei V: "It had to have been the madness that led Aerys to refuse Lord Tywin's daughter and take his son instead, whilst marrying his own son to a feeble Dornish princess with black eyes and a flat chest."

There's also Bran's vision of Ned in Winterfell's godswood :


Not the same thing as "...let the two brothers grow up close"

Oh, good!

I think this is very good.

Thank you.

I think that we need to include the "three strong boys" example that @Rhaenys_Targaryen proposed, to specifically address eyes. I also think that Tyrion's thought is well worth keeping in because it's GRRM expressly addressing the issue.

Would you like to write something? I haven't had the leisure to go back to re-reading those parts of TRP/TPaTQ yet, I will eventually.

Save that for later...

...I think I did all the requested changes. Now it reads:

The R+L=J theory claims Jon Snow most probably is the son of crown prince Rhaegar Targaryen and Ned's sister Lyanna Stark.

Frequently Asked Questions

How can Jon be a Targaryen if ordinary fire burned his hand?

Targaryens are not immune to fire. It's a myth that has been refuted by a list of Targaryens being burned. Danaerys 'the unburnt' was indeed unscathed when she hatched the dragon eggs, but that has not stopped her being burned on other occasions. See this thread on Targaryen fire immunity.

Don't all Targaryens have hallmark Valryian silver-golden hair and purple eyes?

Not all of them: Good Queen Alysanne had blue eyes. Some of the Great Bastards did not have typical Valyrian features. Baelor Breakspear and his son(s) and Jon's own half-sister Rhaenys had her mother's Dornish look (dark hair, black eyes, olive skin). Rhaenyra Targaryen's three sons Jacaerys, Lucerys and Joffrey had brown hair even though both their parents had light silver-gold hair. Had Jon Valyrian features, it would give his parentage away: "He had the Stark face if not the name: long, solemn, guarded, a face that gave nothing away. Whoever his mother had been, she had left little of herself in her son." Tyrion got the bit about the mother wrong, though: his mother was the Stark.

If Jon isn't Ned's son, then why does he look so much like him?
Jon looks very like Arya, and Arya looks very like Lyanna. Jon is Ned's nephew, and Lyanna and Ned looked similar.

Ned is too honourable to lie. If he says Jon is his son, doesn't that mean he must be?

Ned tells Arya that sometimes lies can be honourable. His final words, a confession of his guilt, are a lie to protect Sansa. While a lie can be honourable, cheating on his wife isn't, so Ned's famed honour points to Jon not being his son.

How can Jon be half-Targaryen and have a direwolf?
He's also half Stark, through Lyanna. Ned's trueborn children are half Tully and that doesn't stop them having direwolves.

Why doesn't Ned ever think about Lyanna being Jon's mother?
Ned doesn't think about anyone being Jon's mother. If he did, there would be no mystery. He names 'Wylla' to Robert, but we do not see him thinking of Wylla being Jon's mother.

Why would Ned not at least tell Catelyn?
We don't have a list of what Ned promised to Lyanna, but know he takes his promises seriously. Maybe he promised not to tell anyone. In Chapter 45, Ned is uncertain what Cat would do if it came to Jon's life over that of her own children. If Catelyn knew that Jon was Rhaegar's son, she might feel that keeping him at Winterfell presented a serious risk to her own children. Ultimately, Catelyn did not need to know, so maybe Ned simply chose to be on the safe side.

Doesn't Ned refer to Robb and Jon as „my sons“ in the very first chapter?

In speech, not in thought. Ned is keeping Jon's parentage secret. He never thinks of Jon as his son: In Chapter 45, Ned thinks of his children „Robb and Sansa and Arya and Bran and Rickon“ and explicitly excludes Jon from the list. ADwD Chapter 34 has Bran's vision of younger Ned in the Winterfell godswood: "...let them grow up close as brothers, with only love between them," he prayed, "and let my lady wife find it in her heart to forgive..." which not make sense if they are brothers.

Since Rhaegar was already married, wouldn't Jon still be a bastard?
He might, or might not. There was a tradition of polygamy among Targaryens in the past, the possibility that Rhaegar and Lyanna married is not easily ruled out. A pro-legitimacy argument is this: The presence of the three kingsguards at the Tower of Joy is best explained if they were defending the heir to the throne, which Jon would only be if he was legitimate.

Can we be certain polygamy is not illegal?
Aegon I and Maegor I practised polygamy. Some people propose that the lack of clear examples after Jaehaerys the Conciliator's universal laws suggests that polygamy was made illegal to appease the Faith Militant. However In Westeros, unlike a constitutional monarchy, royals are not subject to the law. In Chapter 33 it says "like their dragons the Targaryens answered to neither gods nor men". Examples demonstrate that it was considered an option for Targaryens: Aegon IV and Daemon Blackfyre may have considered it for Daemon, Jorah Mormont suggested it to Daenerys as a viable option, and she said the same about Quentyn Martell.
George R.R. Martin says in this SSM: "If you have a dragon, you can have as many wives as you want". There is also this SSM predating the worldbook.

On Polygamy essay by Ygrain with additions by Rhaenys_Targaryen.

Weren't the Kingsguard at Tower of Joy on the basis of an order from Aerys, to guard Lyanna as a hostage?
If so, why would they have apparently made no effort to use this leverage against Robert and Ned? Some argue their Kingsguard vows would have taken precedence and still have required them to leave the Tower to protect Viserys when he became heir -- unless there was another that took precedence [Jon]. Others think they were guarding Lyanna as a hostage at the Tower of Joy. Some say that makes little sense: She would better be kept hostage at King's Landing, and wouldn't require kingsguards to guard her. The mere presence of three kingsguards implies something more important: guarding members of the royal family or maybe the heir.
Frequently suggested readings: At the tower of joy by MtnLion and support of the toj analysis by Ygrain

Isn't there an SSM that says the 3 Kingsguard were following Rhaegar's orders though?
The SSM you may be thinking of is probably this: The King's Guards don't get to make up their own orders. They serve the king, they protect the king and the royal family, but they're also bound to obey their orders, and if Prince Rhaegar gave them a certain order, they would do that. They can't say, "No we don't like that order, we'll do something else."

We know from Barristan, protecting the king is the first and most important of all kingsguard duties. Jamie suggests some other KG to stay with the king when he wants to leave for the Trident and we also learn of a ritual that is performed when all KG meet and the king is guarded by someone who is not from the order.
"Protect vs Obey" is an ongoing subject of debate that is unlikely to be settled until we know more. Either viewpoint is compatible with R+L=J.

Wouldn't Viserys take precedence anyway? Rhaegar died without becoming king, and doesn't the world book call Viserys, not Aegon, Aerys' new heir?
No, in the case of an eldest son dying before the king dies, a grandson comes before a younger son. Even in the case the grandson is yet unborn at the time of death, he would succeed (heir apparent vs. heir presumptive). The world book is written with a Lannister bias and in hindsight by maesters who have never learned all of what we know from Ned's dreams and memories.

Are matters of succession just as clear as presented here?

Succession quarrels are a part of medieval power play and even a very clear inheritance could well be contested. So maybe in King's Landing things did happen as the world book says. Rhaegar and Aerys may have been at odds over the succession. Rhaegar told Jaime before leaving for the Trident that he intended to call a council, and The Great Councils of the past have dealt with matters of succession. Who would have accepted such a change is a question worth asking.

But Ned is dead, who's going to tell anyone about it?
Bloodraven and Bran may have learned of it through the weirwood network. Benjen might know. Checkov's Crannogman Howland Reed is the sole survivor of the encounter at the Tower of Joy, and GRRM has stated he has not yet appeared because he knows too much about the central mystery of the book. "They had found him [Ned] still holding her [Lyanna's] body" tells that there also was someone else besides Howland to find Ned.

Why is this important? What impact can it have on the story?
The careful way the mystery of Jon's parentage was created is reason to believe it's important. What impact it will have on the rest of the series is still unknown.

This theory is too obvious and too many people believe it to be fact. How can it be true?

It is not so obvious to the majority of readers. Some will get it on their first read, but most will not. Readers who go to online fan forums, such as this, still represent a very small minority of the readership. Also, A Game of Thrones has been out since 1996. That's more than 18 years of readers being able to piece together this mystery. Crowd-sourced internet-based mystery solving like this inevitably make solved mysteries seem more obvious in hindsight.

George R.R. Martin is a „breaker of tropes“, there can be no hidden prince, it's just too cliché.
In order to break a trope it needs to be installed in the first place. It is yet unknown what will happen to Jon in the future. Being the son of Lyanna and Rhaegar does not imply the fairy-tale style happy ending associated with the hidden prince trope.

Since this theory has been refined so well, will Martin change the outcome of the story to surprise his fans?
He has stated that he won't change the outcome of the story just because some people have put together all the clues and solved the puzzle.

I hope it makes sense and is acceptable as the new faq.

Otherwise, please tell me what changes need to be made.

eta: lots of updates correcting my English...

eta2: added On Polygamy essay link

eta3: added "3 Strong boys"

eta4: Elia did indeed have black eyes.

[BearQueen87]

/to all the gathered male population of Westeros of the last 15 years/: Would Jon's real father stand up, please?

*Rhaegar stands up*

There we go. All done.

[BearQueen87]

Notes to J.W

Not all of them: Good Queen Alysanne Alysanne had blue eyes.

Too many Alysanne's

I think it looks good overall

[MtnLion]

It's no use showing a deer track to someone who cannot tell a deer from a pig.

It is no use trying to teach the blind to track. (Seems much more appropriate to some of the recent posters.)

[MtnLion]

Edit: As an example, history records that fire was used as a champion in a trial by combat. You probably wouldn't call that evidence that using fire as your champion is legal and so anyone can do it.

Not one of the high lords objected, so in this case it was legal, though many considered it murder which should be illegal. Interesting . . .

[MtnLion]

And this whole "it's not in the book" thing is getting a wee bit weary. Do you realize that if GRRM had to put in every single thought or random passing that every character ever had

1) there would be no mystery

2) we'd probably still only have GOT and ACOK

3) Each book would be the size of War and Peace and then some

4) It would deadly dull.

Ah, but markg fabricates loads of crap in his own view, too. As an example, in the post that you responded to, "the steward made the seating arrangements." That is not in the books.

[MtnLion]

Can we be certain polygamy is not illegal?
Aegon I and Maegor I practised polygamy. Some people propose that the lack of clear examples after Jaehaerys the Conciliator's universal laws suggests that polygamy was made illegal to appease the Faith Militant. However Westeros does not have a constitutional monarchy, placing the royal family above any laws. which makes the idea of royals being subject to the law tenuous. Examples demonstrate that it was considered an option for Targaryens: Aegon IV and Daemon Blackfyre may have considered it for Daemon, Jorah Mormont suggested it to Daenerys as a viable option, and she said the same about Quentyn Martell.
George(GRRM | Mr. Martin) says in this SSM: "the extent to which the Targaryen kings could defy convention, the Faith, and the opinions of the other lords decreased markedly after they no longer had dragons. If you have a dragon, you can have as many wives as you want, and people are less likely to object." There is also this SSM predating the worldbook where he suggests that he may write about further polygamous Targaryens.

Note: GRRM does not say how much is markedly, and certainly does not say "laws"; he cooses instead to say, "convention, the Faith, and opinions" in relationship to polygamy.

[addicted to snow]

I think Ned probably did have a behind-the-scenes influence on where Jon sat at the feast... It would not have been difficult to plant the idea in Cat's head...

[MtnLion]

I think Ned probably did have a behind-the-scenes influence on where Jon sat at the feast... It would not have been difficult to plant the idea in Cat's head...

Yes, I can agree with that sentiment. It makes sense for Ned to keep Jon away from anyone that knew Rhaegar well, without appearing to do so.

[Ygrain]

Can we be certain polygamy is not illegal?

Aegon I and Maegor I practised polygamy. Some people propose that the lack of clear examples after Jaehaerys the Conciliator's universal laws suggests that polygamy was made illegal to appease the Faith Militant. However Westeros does not have a constitutional monarchy, placing the royal family above any laws. which makes the idea of royals being subject to the law tenuous. Examples demonstrate that it was considered an option for Targaryens: Aegon IV and Daemon Blackfyre may have considered it for Daemon, Jorah Mormont suggested it to Daenerys as a viable option, and she said the same about Quentyn Martell.

George(GRRM | Mr. Martin) says in this SSM: "the extent to which the Targaryen kings could defy convention, the Faith, and the opinions of the other lords decreased markedly after they no longer had dragons. If you have a dragon, you can have as many wives as you want, and people are less likely to object." There is also this SSM predating the worldbook where he suggests that he may write about further polygamous Targaryens.

Note: GRRM does not say how much is markedly, and certainly does not say "laws"; he cooses instead to say, "convention, the Faith, and opinions" in relationship to polygamy.

Agree with MtnLion's strikeouts. There is zero hint about polygamy being illegal but it is stated black on white that the Targs considered themselves above the law:

The dragon kings had wed brother to sister, but they were the blood of old Valyria where such practices had been common, and like their dragons the Targaryens answered to neither gods nor men.

[Ghost's Shadow]

Kind of funny that this 'brilliant' alternative to R+L is yet again not mentioned.

[Jon Weirgaryen]

[...]

George(GRRM | Mr. Martin)

What's the beef with writing "George"?

eta:

I think George is a little too familiar for what is supposed to be a "professional" OP

fixed that. Now it says George R.R. Martin in two places.

edit to remove: a wrong quotation deleted.

Agree with MtnLion's strikeouts. There is zero hint about polygamy being illegal but it is stated black on white that the Targs considered themselves above the law:

The dragon kings had wed brother to sister, but they were the blood of old Valyria where such practices had been common, and like their dragons the Targaryens answered to neither gods nor men.

@MtnLion and @Ygrain - you are against what @Kingmonkey thought was essential to that part of the faq. I tend to see it as you do, but credit @Kingmonkey for thinking (or believing) otherwise.

Before I count votes (3:1) and start editing, I'd like to hear more opinions, if possible... you reader out there, what do you think?

[BearQueen87]

What's the beef with writing George?

I think George is a little too familiar for what is supposed to be a "professional" OP

[Ygrain]

@MtnLion and @Ygrain - you are against what @Kingmonkey thought was essential to that part of the faq. I tend to see it as you do, but credit @Kingmonkey for thinking (or believing) otherwise.

Before I count votes (3:1) and start editing, I'd like to hear more opinions, if possible... you reader out there, what do you think?

I would have let it go, had I not remembered that quote about he Targs answering to neither gods or men. Even if polygamy was illegal, the Targs would still consider themselves above it. So, we have a completely unsupported statement (polygamy was codified as illegal) versus textually supported that the Targs did not consider themselves bound by the laws of gods or men. In practice, the extent of that status would have been limited by the power that could support it (hence the SSM about the lack of dragons decreasing the Targs' ability to do completely as they pleased), but it changes nothing about the premise that whatever the law was for the rest of Westeros, the Targs could, and did, get a pass. After all, "was and IS" precedent means that the precedent still applies.